 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / May 2007Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz
Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend/20070503-125635-6603r.htm > Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz > at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend/20070503-125635-6603r.htm Crossfire is nothing else than a differently clothed first-generation MB SLK, the R170. Crossfire sales are _very_ low so production most likely will be stopped still this summer. Chrysle itself will be sold soon as Chrysler and MB management failed to keep the brand alive - as of today it seems as if Cerberus, a private equity firm, will buy them. Chrysler, another traditional US carmaker's name to disappear? Juergen "...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. " I found this a curious comment in the review. That would be 91 US octane presumably. A US buyer of such a car would complain about a fairly standard grade of fuel? Or is this octane rating 'high' in the US? DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- > "...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. " > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling > --- 91 is consiered "premium" grade, thus about 30 cents a gallon higher. > "...the only real caveat is its requirement for high-grade gasoline. " > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling > --- Medium high. The standard is 87. Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving many imports. > In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin...@pipex.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving > many imports. hardly hidden >> In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin...@pipex.net>, >> Medium high. >> The standard is 87. >> Their higher octane requirements is a hidden additional cost of driving >> many imports. > >hardly hidden Really? Does it typcially say "premium required" anyplace other than inside the gas filler door? Does the gas mileage sticker say "premium required"? (Don't know, but I don't recall this information being displayed in a place conspicuous to a potential buyer.) > >> In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin...@pipex.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (Don't know, but I don't recall this information being displayed in a > place conspicuous to a potential buyer.) You are correct, they don't advertise a premium fuel requirement, the same for the lack of a matching size spare. Most peculiar, since this 91 US, 95 elsewhere is the standard fuel in probably all of Europe (haven't been everywhere so can't say). hard to find lower grade, non-existent in UK. 97/98 octane 9 (c. 93/94 US) is available in many places. I am speculating that Japan and Middle East not much different. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > You are correct, they don't advertise a premium fuel requirement, > the same for the lack of a matching size spare. There are different scales for measuring octane level of fuel - (=Research Octane Number) used in most of the world (Europe, Australia) - MON (=Motor Octane Number) average of Ron & MON (used in the US + Canada + few others) to compare the numbers with each other one can add 3-5 points to the AKI (=Anti Knock Index) number used in the US. so US Regular 87 would be RON 91-92 In Europe this can as far as I know only be obtained in Germany. Eastern Europe and the (former) Soviet Union had/has quite low numbers as wel. In most European countries 95RON (=90-91 US) is considered regular. 98 RON is considered premium (with or without lead(replacement) 102-103 AKI/US value. Hope this helps RON > Most peculiar, since this 91 US, 95 elsewhere is the standard fuel in > probably all of Europe (haven't been everywhere so can't say). hard to find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am speculating that Japan and Middle East not much different. Thanks for underlining my point: 95 (91 US) is standard where as it seems to be "premium" in the US. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- > There are different scales for measuring octane level of fuel > - (=Research Octane Number) used in most of the world (Europe, Australia) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> I am speculating that Japan and Middle East not much different. > Most peculiar, since this 91 US, 95 elsewhere is the standard fuel in > probably all of Europe (haven't been everywhere so can't say). hard to find > lower grade, non-existent in UK. > > 97/98 octane 9 (c. 93/94 US) is available in many places. Something to keep in mind is that the lower the octane the more easily and completely it burns. Higher octane fuel is marketed as something wonderful, but is only needed if you have a high compression ratio or aggressive timing. Putting higher octane in than needed is a waste of money, and you'll likely wind up with worse gas mileage-although insignificantly worse. Before you all complain, note that I said "higher octane THAN NEEDED." If you put in too low an octane, you will also get poor mileage since the engine will knock, then sense that it is knocking, then change the mapping to prevent knock, and this mapping will be less than optimal for efficiency or power. Higher octane gas doesn't have more energy, it simply combusts slower and less easily, which is what is needed in a high compression ratio or forced induction engine where you can get knock fairly easily. If you don't have that type of engine, then you don't need it. So don't think that America is peddling inferior gas because it is a lower octane. It is probably more suited to about 98% of the world's cars than the higher octane stuff sold elsewhere. It may be true that Europe sees some hotter more tuned cars, but I have trouble believing that a car company would sell a car so radically tuned that it would require 103 octane. I could be wrong, and tell me if I am. However, I felt compelled to defend any implication that American is selling inferior which is threatening the drivers that buy it. And there is one important difference between the crossfire and the mercedes that it was based on. The Crossfire is much more stylish-some love it, some hate it-but it is definitely different. The Mercedes was just not all that exciting. That is exactly the point. Engines elsewhere in the world (outside the US) are tuned such that they need 95 octane fuel. Lots of hp in relatively small engines. Also, very few cars need anything higher. The claims for 98 octane fuel are very carefully phrased.... DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Something to keep in mind is that the lower the octane the more easily > and completely it burns. Higher octane fuel is marketed as something [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > love it, some hate it-but it is definitely different. The Mercedes was > just not all that exciting. >> Most peculiar, since this 91 US, 95 elsewhere is the standard fuel in >> probably all of Europe (haven't been everywhere so can't say). hard to find [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > love it, some hate it-but it is definitely different. The Mercedes was > just not all that exciting. It wasn't all of that well made, either, and the Chrysler is a faithful copy. > > In article <17idnXSs-ML77dXbnZ2dnUVZ8qmin...@pipex.net>, > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > hardly hidden Well not usually spelled out in the sales blurb. Toyota is particularly sneaky in that their 3.5L V6 in the Camry is specified as a regular fuel requirement, but Toyota HO admitted to me it requires premium fuel to deliver the full specs. >> Crossfire benefits from engineering by Mercedes-Benz >> at http://www.washtimes.com/autoweekend/20070503-125635-6603r.htm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Crossfire sales are _very_ low so production >most likely will be stopped still this summer. Yea, like why bother with it. >Chrysle itself will be sold soon as Chrysler and >MB management failed to keep the brand alive - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Chrysler, another traditional US carmaker's name >to disappear? Why would they do that? > >Chrysler, another traditional US carmaker's name > >to disappear? I'll bet not. It's probably going to be good for Chrysler. MB (DC) used Chrysler for high volume lower cost parts which they shared. D didn't get along with C. DC tried taking Chrysler into large expensive high horsepower RWD cars, which did well for a few years, but higher gas prices caught up with them and they lost many of their traditional customers. > In article <kqbi43lbq0g7e98p9a3d8nvsj67374a...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > which did well for a few years, but higher gas prices caught up with > them and they lost many of their traditional customers. Not really. The 300 and Charger are about the only bright spots for Chrysler. Certainly the mid-sized fwd cars -- Sebring and Avenger -- aren't selling well. Calibers are doing OK, but because they're really being discounted. I was quite impressed by the Sebring convertible as a 4-seater convertible value-for-money proposition. It is not quite up to the standard of its CLK Cab brother, but it costs a lot less. But Chrysler sales don't stans or fall by my opinion... :-) DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Not really. The 300 and Charger are about the only bright spots for > Chrysler. Certainly the mid-sized fwd cars -- Sebring and Avenger -- > aren't selling well. Calibers are doing OK, but because they're > really being discounted. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.