Good afternoon Bill...

This topic will likely get many responses, but since you asked, here's my opinion.

I tend to probably change the oil and filter 'sooner' rather than 'later' on my vehicles - partly because of my training and partly from all of the damaged engines I've seen over the years, where the lack of proper maintenance is clearly evident.  

So, yes, if I were you, I'd go ahead and proceed to change the oil and filter early.  Again, this is just my opinion; but if you intend to keep your new C300 for a long time, then you should consider the early oil changes as a good investment in future longevity.   

Change your oil and filter (OEM fleece, of course) when you do your "A" Service.  Easy pea-sy.

Isn't the first A service at 12,000 miles?

or 12 months, the FSS computer picks the earlier of the two.

I was never thrilled about the 12K oil change intervals. I change the oil in the G500 halfway between the factory recommended intervals myself. I still take it to the dealer for it's Services A, B and C.

There is a theory that engines need an oil change after a limited amount of usage to eliminated wear particles.

Not sure any car companies use a true break-in-oil anymore, that gets changed out after a recommended interval to rid of particles or surface scuff oil-rings or bearings for long life.

With environmental concerns, the minimizing of oil changes.

With these high-tech synthetic oils, they may have the ability to last.

With more computer controlled manufacture of wear parts, surface break-in wear is reduced

Will a suction through the oil tube and a new filter have a negative effect? no way. Or a traditional oil change through the sump drain with a new plug gasket have a negative effect? no way.

If you do initial engine oil change, would it make sense to do gearbox and axle change out for the same reason? or do you believe gear oil isn't subjected to the wear of engine oil?

Personally, I like an initial oil change at around 3K miles. Just in case car was sitting for months before sale. Then I like oil changes between every 5-6K miles.
In the back of my mind I wouldn't obsess over the manufacturers schedule for oil changes being less then ideal.

If you do the oil changes yourself and inspect the underside and engine when working on the car then the 5-6K schedule is a great way to maintain and check the vehicle.
If your a strict dealership or quality independent shop user, I'd probably follow the strict schedule of the owners manual

A number of years ago -- almost 10 or so -- the BMW 740i I owned had a new engine block installed as part of the whole Nikasil block issue that BMW experienced.  At that time, I was an "old school maintenance" devotee so I assume that once I had a new engine I would have the oil changed shortly thereafter.  The dealership explained it wasn't necessary because all new motors are microfinished / micropolished, but I was sure of myself and arrogant enough to think I knew better than BMW.  To satisfy me, the dealership changed the oil on the new motor after a 1k miles or so and I sent a sample off for oil analysis.  I don't have the analysis anymore, but the short version is that the oil was clean and there was no metals contamination of any sort related to "break-in."  In my mind, lesson learned -- follow the manufacturer's maintenance recommendations.  (And if you have grounds to believe you can't, why would you buy the car?)

Given that all the major engine manufacturers use similar technologies to finish new motors, unless the manufacturer recommends a "break in" oil change or similar it is probably not necessary.  Of course, if the manufacturer recommended against it then I would not do it.  That aside, if debating the need for such an oil change would take longer than simply changing the oil, you are probably better off just changing it.  At the same time, if it were my car I would just follow the service manual in the car.  HTH.

Old habits, as they say, die hard.  There are still some owners that strongly believe in the "Italian Tune Up" or habitually pump the accelerator before starting a modern fuel injected car.

If your gut doesn't trust the factory recommended intervals then don't follow them. MB did away with their sealed lifetime transmission fluid nonsense after premature tranny failures started surfacing. When a recommendation is too good to be true then don't trust it!

Do you know if engines should still be run at lower revs during the break in period? Does a break in period still exist on modern cars?

IMO you are wasting time, money and resources by changing your oil so soon.  To convince yourself, run it up to the recommended interval and do an oil analysis.  You will then be convinced that anything less it a waste.

Weren't the sludging issues that Audi, VW and Toyota had in the recent past related to extended oil change intervals? I'm not sure, just something I thought I heard. I'm not aware of such issues with Mercedes though.

Sludging issues did occur with Mercedes in the late 90's due to using non-synthetic oil with extended change intervals.  The use of the proper synthetic oil eliminated that concern.

I didn't know that. Well that's why I'm a bit skeptical of some of these service recommendations. The extended oil interval using non-synthetic oils was a Mercedes recomendation was it not? Or were people using non-synthetic oils when the factory said to use synthetic thereby causing sludging?

It was not Mercedes-Benz that recommended using non-synthetic oil in these cars.

that's good to know.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but here it is anyway.  The link to the lawsuit is dead, but the text ofthe message gives some good info.

 
Tech Tip
 
Use of non-synthetic oil in FSS equipped cars up through March 31, 2001.
 
A class action law suit has been adjudicated in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which affects owners of FSS equipped cars that were first owned, purchased or leased on or before March 31, 2001.
 
In this court case MBUSA has agreed to the following;
 
1. MBUSA will cover engine damage caused by the use of API SH or SJ conventional motor oil in it's 1998, 1999, 2000 and up to March 31, 2001 Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with FSS within the US, Puerto Rico and any US Territory.
2. This warranty coverage will extend up to 150,000 miles or ten years from the date of original purchase or lease (whichever occurs first).
3. Warranty coverage shall be under the terms of the original warranty and/or any extended warranty purchased from MBUSA 4. Such coverage shall survive the sale or transfer of the vehicle to a new owner.
5. MBUSA encourages its dealers to provide loaner cars.
6. If requested by any class member, MBUSA will review previous engine repair performed by a Mercedes-Benz dealer for certain specific types of damage that might relate to the use of SH or SJ API rated oils and if determined that the applicable repair falls under this class action, MBUSA shall reimburse the cost of said repairs.
 
There is much more to be read about this case and it is available at http://www.shanksoft.com/jacobsenlaw-pa/cases.asp?id=7&view_case=true

Some bottom lines from this discussion. Never use non-synthetic oil in a new Mercedes. Use the recommended low-weight synthetic oil of any good brand. You certainly don't need to change the oil at 1,000 or 2,000 miles (that was a standard practice to clear out metal particles and contaminants left from the machining process back in the day when they didn't have the high-quality metals and tools that are used now). On the other hand, changing out at, say, 6,000 miles, or six months, after purchase isn't such a bad idea, and the service will also allow the technician to run the diagnostics and do the visual checks to make sure that your car isn't that one in 10,000 with a mechanical problem.

For break-in, there isn't really any desperate requirement to keep revs low (I have a friend who took German delivery on a new car and "broke it in" by driving it for a day on the Nurburgring) but it doesn't hurt to avoid excessive revs or acceleration during the first 1,000 miles or so. After that, if everything's cool, just drive it in a normal way.

G.

Good stuff. Thanks Len and Gary.

I have not had a Mercedes car with the lifetime fluid recommendation.  However, the same BMW 7 series with the block replacement did have such a recommendation.  Slightly north of 100k miles, the transmission did fail.  I sent it to a reputable ZF rebuilder in MI and asked him to let me know what he found when he tore down the unit -- like you I suspected lifetime fill was the problem (even though this car had had a partial fluid replacement due to a change of the trans cooler lines).  He called me a week or so later and while I don't recall all the technical details he explained -- this was the better part of 10 years ago -- he did explicitly state that the fluid was not the issue, and neither was the lifetime fluid.

Now, to be fair to your point ZF now specifies a 60k mile fluid change interval on that transmission.    The technical reason for that change is probably based on their experiences with the transmissions in service.  And on our E350, the recommended interval is 39k miles, so it seems like the manufacturers have moved off the lifetime claim.   While this would seem to bolster the position of the skeptic, I also think the prudent layman (non-engineer) should be conservative in drawing assumptions about what is the precise reason for the change.  Moreover, even if for sake of argument one were to find out that the fluid recommendation was wrong, this does not provide a predicate to then abandon all factory service recommendations because even if they are flawed from time to time, they are certainly likely to be better informed than what you'll find on an internet forum or based on the guesses of the layman drawing on that person's relatively limited -- as compared to the manufacturer's -- anecdotal experience.

Finally, as I said it strikes me as at least somewhat intellectually / analytically inconsistent to buy something that is the second most expensive consumer purchase behind your home and then think so little of the people from whom you are buying it that you don't trust them to be competent to publish appropriate service recommendations.  It seems to me that, purely from a rational perspective, if you have so little confidence in the technical abilities, competence, or honesty of the manufacturer that the best course of action, rather than to engage in uninformed second-guessing of the maintenance recommendations in the manual, is simply to find a product and a manufacturer in which you have confidence.  

Ray, please. It is not your place, nor mine, to comment on ones intellectual abilities, especially on this forum. The fact that the lifetime transmission intervals were abandoned says a lot about the company's faith in these recommendations. Most auto manufacturers including Mercedes do not outwardly admit to every mistake. Mercedes has yet to admit to the defective OM603 rodbenders but we all know the engines are flawed. As far as choosing another manufacturer goes, that is my decision not yours.

Not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.  I am talking about consistency of one's thought process.

Let's keep the topic on track.  We are talking about cars here, not human brains.  My thought processes are very clear.  I would not have advanced as far as I have in the academic world if they were not.

I think that a little leeway for "passion" (for lack of a better word) should be allowed in interpreting the writing of others.

 Put another way, we don't have to interpret comments that attack our point of view as personal criticism, just because we can.  To allow full expression of ideas it's necessary to expand our view away from the personal.

 Rather than tell posters to watch their tongue, I prefer to tell readers to take it like a man, if it fits, and don't accept it if it doesn't, to leave it out there for the poster to be stuck with what he said.

 The bottom line is to do one's best to sense the intention of the poster before going "ouch." 

 It's clear to me that all the above comments come from heartfelt opinions by well-meaning individuals who don't think the same way – and they don't have to.

 So just stay with the argument and everything will be OK. 

Yes Alex but references to other posters intelligence and clarity of thought processes are uncalled for here.  I have my opinions, some of which are backed by the actions taken by Mercedes, and other's based upon my emotions.  We can't all agree, but we should all agree to keep things civil.

The bottom line is that Mercedes has been wrong in the past about certain service intervals - namely the lifetime transmission fluid.  We therefore should be somewhat skeptical about an interval that appears too good to be true.  It's a known fact that some manufacturer's like to keep perceived maintenance costs down by increasing some intervals.  I'm not saying that these intervals should be ignored but simply that one's judgement should be used. I consulted my indy mechanic about the oil change interval on my G500 and he told me to do an oil change halfway between the factory recommended interval.  He has more experience dealing with these cars than either myself or most of us here.  I'll stick to the hackneyed expression, "oil is cheap, engines are not".

The recommended servicing on my 2009 C300 4-Matic Sport is 12 months or 12k miles. I like the oil and filter changed at about 6k miles, of course with the recommended synthetic oil and MB filter. I trust what Mercedes recommends on this point but I'm more comfortable with oil and filter changes earlier than what is recommended. My philosophy is that clean oil and a fresh filter cannot damage an engine.

Dave

With all respect, and for sake of clarity, there is nothing uncivil about pointing out inconsistencies in arguments and reasoning.  That is the essence of any debate.  If you had said, for example, that the alteration of certain service intervals away from "lifetime fill," reflected inconsistency and lack of reasoning in my arguments or thought process, I would not have been offended.  

I'll also note that I post under my real name here.  I do that because this is a club forum and I believe that generally people should not be afraid to write things here that they would say if they met someone in person.  And I don't believe that anything I've said here is offensive or insulting, and I would have no hesitation or awkwardness if I were to meet you in person at a club event based on what I have stated here.  

Finally, as to get back to the original debate, no one is saying, certainly not me, that the manufacturer's service recommendations are sacred.  As I said in my first post on this subject, most times it certainly can't hurt to change fluids more if that is what an owner wants to do.  That's not my view, but it is what it is, as they say.  But on the other hand, what I object to, and what I see frequently amongst many enthusiasts, is almost tantamount to a disdain for the service recommendations in the manual, as if those are some kind of scam that only noobs follow.  I think that position is also pretty misguided.  And it goes to a general point that as a matter of practice in my life, I don't buy things from people, or hire them to do things for me, if I believe that they are incompetent.  (Here, I think it is not unfair to say that if you completely disdain a manufacturer's recommendations as to service, you are basically saying the manufacturer lacks competence or honesty in some important fashion.)  I have found that it works better for me to do what I do for a living, and hire people who know what they are doing, and then let them do their thing.  That doesn't mean that you sit back as a disinterested observer -- you want to be an informed consumer.  But I am not a fluids or materials engineer so me second-guessing people who are is not going to be a good use of my time.  Rather, if I find that over time there are continuous problems with a product or service, I find someone else in whom I am justified placing confidence.

So, as I said at the outset -- folks should do as they think best.  Just don't think others are fools for following the manual, or that the cars will definitively suffer for it.  

All I can say is "See post #11."  :)

There are some articles about not allowing the additives in your oil to decrease over time not being helpful to an engine - whether you believe them or not is another story.

For argument's sake, what should I do if I run the oil for 15 or 20,000 miles and it checks out fine on analysis?

After all, if the oil's use in the engine for so many miles failed to contaminate it in a way that can be measured with legitimate chemical tests, it means the oil is lubricating the engine properly and not dissolving the surfaces the oil comes in contact with - a win/win situation.

It's reasonable to assume that M-B made such tests before recommending the change intervals shown in the Owner's Manual, and that the change intervals are for less miles than it takes to contaminate the oil in that engine just a little.  Shorter intervals than recommended do no harm, other than waste time and money, while longer intervals risk lubricating the engine with contaminated oil, which might cause excessive engine wear. And the waste goes even further than time and money, for those of us who don't change the oil ourselves, because every time we bring our cars to the dealer unnecessarily, we put it in harm's way.

Until I hear reliable information that contradicts the recommendation in the Owner's Manual, together with a reasonable explanation about the contradiction, I intend to follow those recommendation because there is no reason to doubt it. 

Car makers have a financial incentive to recommend correct fluid change intervals because they want their engines to last as long as possible.  That way they can make money selling replacement parts for the car.  If their recommendations were designed to shorten the life of the engine it means the owner will have to replace the car sooner and the maker can't be sure the replacement car will be of the same make - especially if its engine didn't last very long. So recommending too long intervals works against car makers' interests. The cynical view that car makers build in obsolescence into their cars so they can sell more cars is unsupported by the facts.

Neither can the car maker recommend fluid change intervals that are too short because this costs the owner extra money and creates the impression that the engine is not made well.  So this would not work in the maker's favor as well.

Which is why I'm convinced that car makers such as M-B go to great pains to determine then publish fluid change intervals that are best for their cars.  Without good reason I wouldn't think of doubting their numbers.  And where is that reason? 

It is my understanding and if we have any truck drivers here, please chime in, but trucks have a huge oil capacity and it is very expensive to do an oil change.  Truckers, at least some of them, do regular oil analyses and only change the oil when the analysis shows it is needed.  I have heard that could be 100,000 miles or more.  Can anyone confirm that?

This is all very interesting. It seems that with the changes in engine tolerances and micropolishing of parts coupled with superior oils that the whole philosophy of oil change intervals has changed.