Fuel Consumption
Discussion
It's an age old conundrum. From irrelevant manufacturers figures to driving styles, variance in engines to fundamental faults there's a multitude of reasons for the variation in mpg achieved by drivers.
We need to know more about your driving habits to really make any assessment if this is reasonable.
I have a Blue Efficiency E220CDi with auto, I am now averaging 48mpg. However, this is based on a 180 mile round commute. I get low 40's with 10-15mile local journeys, but this would be down to mid 30's for short journeys from cold <5miles.
With a more aggressive style I'm sure I can this down below 30mpg without much effort.
For any given set of circumstances it's your driving behaviour which will ultimately determine your mpg. If all you are doing is short, spirited journeys then 32mpg seems a reasonable average. I have started driving in a more sympathetic style (the E, not my other car) and have seen a significant improvement in economy (around 15-20%, 40/42 to 48/50mpg), in contrast if I were to drive it like my Lotus I wouldn't expect anything near that! In fact I would dare to suggest that driving the two cars in a similarly spirited way the Lotus may actually be more efficient due to the significant weight differential. Which brings another point, are you carrying any loads, do you have a roof rack fitted, are the tyre pressures correct for the load? All will have significant effects on consumption.
Regards, Neil
We need to know more about your driving habits to really make any assessment if this is reasonable.
I have a Blue Efficiency E220CDi with auto, I am now averaging 48mpg. However, this is based on a 180 mile round commute. I get low 40's with 10-15mile local journeys, but this would be down to mid 30's for short journeys from cold <5miles.
With a more aggressive style I'm sure I can this down below 30mpg without much effort.
For any given set of circumstances it's your driving behaviour which will ultimately determine your mpg. If all you are doing is short, spirited journeys then 32mpg seems a reasonable average. I have started driving in a more sympathetic style (the E, not my other car) and have seen a significant improvement in economy (around 15-20%, 40/42 to 48/50mpg), in contrast if I were to drive it like my Lotus I wouldn't expect anything near that! In fact I would dare to suggest that driving the two cars in a similarly spirited way the Lotus may actually be more efficient due to the significant weight differential. Which brings another point, are you carrying any loads, do you have a roof rack fitted, are the tyre pressures correct for the load? All will have significant effects on consumption.
Regards, Neil
Most of the journeys the car does are short school/ supermarket runs. We do have a roof rack with bike carriers on so the signs are not good but even so on a 70 mph motorway cruise it will show 39 mpg on the readout and i would assume lower speeds would not affect the aerodynamics as much ?
It is an auto and even in comfort mode it seems to hold the revs far too long for my liking "always was a manual fan". By contract my old TVR Chimaera would return a cruising mpg of around 30 mpg out of a V8. Also i own a Peugeot 1.6 HDI Van and this seems to use no fuel no matter what the load/ driving style ?
Maybe the wifes been caning it around waitrose carpark !
It is an auto and even in comfort mode it seems to hold the revs far too long for my liking "always was a manual fan". By contract my old TVR Chimaera would return a cruising mpg of around 30 mpg out of a V8. Also i own a Peugeot 1.6 HDI Van and this seems to use no fuel no matter what the load/ driving style ?
Maybe the wifes been caning it around waitrose carpark !
For the journeys you describe and with a roof rack 32mpg sounds about right.
The roof rack/cycle carrier will use 10-20% more fuel than without. I would guess you'll get low to mid 40's on a reasonable run with the rack removed.
A friend of mine was getting nearly 50mpg from his Passat, but couldn't get it over 38mpg with the bikes on the roof, and only low 40's with the bikes removed but the carrier in place.
You could probably eek out a couple of extra miles from a gallon if you develop your eco-driving style, with a little practice you can do this with very little effect on journey times, but it does depend if you can be bothered.
The bottom line is that your quoted figure is not unreasonable given the circumstances, so I doubt there is anything fundamentally wrong. Remove the rack, check your tyre pressures, (unhook the caravan), give it a decent run of 15-20 miles and adapt your driving style (smooth gradual acceleration, avoid accelerating on hills, anticipate junctions/hazards, carry your speed and avoid unnecessary braking) and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised what you can achieve.
Regards, Neil
The roof rack/cycle carrier will use 10-20% more fuel than without. I would guess you'll get low to mid 40's on a reasonable run with the rack removed.
A friend of mine was getting nearly 50mpg from his Passat, but couldn't get it over 38mpg with the bikes on the roof, and only low 40's with the bikes removed but the carrier in place.
You could probably eek out a couple of extra miles from a gallon if you develop your eco-driving style, with a little practice you can do this with very little effect on journey times, but it does depend if you can be bothered.
The bottom line is that your quoted figure is not unreasonable given the circumstances, so I doubt there is anything fundamentally wrong. Remove the rack, check your tyre pressures, (unhook the caravan), give it a decent run of 15-20 miles and adapt your driving style (smooth gradual acceleration, avoid accelerating on hills, anticipate junctions/hazards, carry your speed and avoid unnecessary braking) and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised what you can achieve.
Regards, Neil
The roof rack will make a difference. Also, what tyres are you running, wider tyres with a high rolling resistance will reduce mpg, expecially if not inflated to the correct psi.
Merc diesels don't seem to get great mpg, my E220cdi auto gets 35mpg combined using comfort mode and driving like a pensioner, the flip side is that if I drive with a very heavy right foot it refuses to drop below 30mpg.
Merc diesels don't seem to get great mpg, my E220cdi auto gets 35mpg combined using comfort mode and driving like a pensioner, the flip side is that if I drive with a very heavy right foot it refuses to drop below 30mpg.
yellowbentines said:
The roof rack will make a difference. Also, what tyres are you running, wider tyres with a high rolling resistance will reduce mpg, expecially if not inflated to the correct psi.
Merc diesels don't seem to get great mpg, my E220cdi auto gets 35mpg combined using comfort mode and driving like a pensioner, the flip side is that if I drive with a very heavy right foot it refuses to drop below 30mpg.
The tyres are a standard 245 40 17 i believe and the pressures are ok. Il try removing the rack for a week to see if there is any difference.Merc diesels don't seem to get great mpg, my E220cdi auto gets 35mpg combined using comfort mode and driving like a pensioner, the flip side is that if I drive with a very heavy right foot it refuses to drop below 30mpg.
I have a brand new facelift C25CDI estate auto and managed Nottingham to
Liverpool and back yesterday, 225 mile trip, at average 56.5 mpg sitting at 65-70mph using cruise.
Pretty impressed!
Engine is awesome, so much torque, if a little coarse at the top end.
But that's not the point with this engine.
Facelift model interior is fabulous.
Liverpool and back yesterday, 225 mile trip, at average 56.5 mpg sitting at 65-70mph using cruise.
Pretty impressed!
Engine is awesome, so much torque, if a little coarse at the top end.
But that's not the point with this engine.
Facelift model interior is fabulous.
The Meister said:
I have a brand new facelift C25CDI estate auto and managed Nottingham to
Liverpool and back yesterday, 225 mile trip, at average 56.5 mpg sitting at 65-70mph using cruise.
Pretty impressed!
Engine is awesome, so much torque, if a little coarse at the top end.
But that's not the point with this engine.
Facelift model interior is fabulous.
Does it have the 7G auto box? They are replacing the 5 speed with the 7 as it supports stop/start and is supposed to be more economicalLiverpool and back yesterday, 225 mile trip, at average 56.5 mpg sitting at 65-70mph using cruise.
Pretty impressed!
Engine is awesome, so much torque, if a little coarse at the top end.
But that's not the point with this engine.
Facelift model interior is fabulous.
chimaeradean said:
Most of the journeys the car does are short school/ supermarket runs.
That won't help as it takes a while for the engine to warm up and hit it's most 'economical' temp.My CLK 220 CDI Sport has crap economy around town from cold but manages ~43mpg on a long run @ 80(ish)
eldar said:
Does it have the 7G auto box? They are replacing the 5 speed with the 7 as it supports stop/start and is supposed to be more economical
Yep, the new 7G with stop start.Face lift cars also have revised, more economic engines.
I think the claims from MB won't be far off on a run, but around town I doubt it.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff