V6 Engine efficiency
Thanks
But, I don't think using RPM at a particular speed is a good comparison of efficiency at all. So, many variables between engines, aerodynamics, etc.
Last edited by nathandimond; Mar 1, 2010 at 02:12 PM.

You have to take the mpg for the whole package in defined circumstances.
my 350 barely revs past 2k at 70-75mph in 7th. i've been averaging around 20-21mpg btw with longer trips here and there. with more city or hills in my case I avg around 19.7mpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvu7pRA40OQ
Last edited by FrankW; Mar 1, 2010 at 09:40 PM.
Trending Topics
The C350 7G has a 7th gear ratio of 0.728 with a final drive of 2.82. At 2000rpm, it is doing approximately 71.5mph.
The w203 does not show instantaneous mpg. In 7th gear, a C350 SS cruising at about 70-75mph should get right at 30mpg.
Last edited by e1000; Mar 1, 2010 at 11:37 PM.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Small tangent: does the W203 have those nifty drawers under the front seats?
As for your second question, if you're driving along in the 7G and mash the gas, I'll be the first to tell you, you're not going anywhere for a bout a second and a half which feels like an eternity. If you're in the right gear however, you will have instant acceleration. 7 gears means that you can keep the car in the powerband and upshifts happen pretty quickly under full acceleration. Also, keep in mind you can manually shift the automatic and, there is the 2-second downshift feature. If you hold the shift knob left for 2 seconds, the 7G will downshift to the lowest possible gear for that speed. On the highway, it's not unusual for it to go from 7th to 5th or even 4th or 3rd depending on speed.
* Obviously an exaggeration, but my limited experience with a C230 V6 7G was highly negative. Mild on the gas results in acceleration on par with a Yaris. Hard on the gas results in gas mileage and acceleration on par with a large SUV. Too slow, too many gears - the least desirable facelifted W203 out there.
Last edited by LILBENZ230; Mar 2, 2010 at 12:45 AM.
Lets use our example above. 7th gear @ 2000rpm. On a pedal bike, this would be the largest cog up front, the chain going to the only cog in the rear. Your feet are moving at 2000rpm. 7th gear is .728, so 2000rpm goes in, 2,747rpm comes out. This is how fast your drive shaft is spinning. That goes into the rear diff, which houses the final drive ratio. On the C350, this is 2.82. So 2,747rpm/2.82 = 974rpm.
circumference of a 245/40/17 tire is 77.6".
So, 974rpm * 77.6in * 60mins /12" /5280ft = 71.57mph.
This can be done in any gear.
The reason we have gear boxes is that most engines do not produce enough force (torque) to move a car. Gears multiply that force. Power cannot be multiplied by gearing however, since it is a measure of work. Perfect example is the C350 engine, vs the E46M3 engine. Both engines are rated at 258ft-lbs of tq, but the M3 produces 333hp, vs the C350's 268hp. Why is this? It's because the I6 int he M3 can continue to produce power (work) until 8,000rpm, whereas the C350 stops at 6,400rpm. Why is this important? Lets assume both cars use the same exact gear box. Assuming they both have identical torque curves, weight, etc etc, both cars will accelerate at the same rate! The C350 however, will need to change gears at 6,400rpm, way earlier than the M3 which will continue in 1st gear for another 1,600rpm. As you move up in gears, you lose your torque multiplier.
What is the torque multiplier. As I mentioned, gears multiply force (torque). The C350 engine is rated at 258ft-lbs of tq peak. Gears can multiply this depending on the ratio. So, lets take first gear. 1st gear is 4.377. Final drive again is 2.82. The formula becomes 258ft-lbs * 4.377 * 2.82 = 3,184ft-lbs to the rear axle. There is a final reduction ratio between the axle and the tire size but I don't remember the equation off the top of my head. Now consider second gear: 2.859. So it's 258ft-lbs * 2.859 * 2.82 = 2,080ft-lbs. So essentially, from going from 1st to 2nd, you lose 1/3 of your torque to the wheels. That's why you don't accelerate as fast in 2nd as in 1st. The devil is that the shorter you make gears (numerically higher), the quicker you need to upshift.
In essence, horsepower means much more than torque when it comes to an engines performance rating. Actually the truest metric of an engine's ability is the area under the power curve. The car with the greatest area will win, all else being equal.
There are a LOT more considerations to gearing however, that's why I call it a science. For example, you could gear the 5th gear in that G35x to be taller to bring the rpm's down, but that will space out the gears more. In doing so, you may drop the engine down out of the optimal power band, thus killing performance. Gear it too short however (numerically higher) and you will kill fuel economy. What MB chose to do is give us the best of both worlds by adding 2 more gears. You have 1-5th gear, which is in essence a traditional gearbox, and then 2 extra gears to provide fuel efficiency.
Last edited by e1000; Mar 2, 2010 at 12:46 AM.
BTW, the gear ratio's for the 7G are:
1st - 4.377
2nd - 2.859
3rd - 1.921
4th - 1.368
5th - 1
6th - 0.82
7th - 0.728
Final Drive:
C350: 2.82
C230: 3.27
IMO, the 7G was force fed into the C230. It should have a much shorter final drive but then a taller 6th and 7th gear. This would essentially hurt city mpg a bit, but still keep the highway mpg we know today. It would improve the performance of the car at city speeds however. I think the reason this wasn't done is because I believe the 7G gear ratios above are the same for almost all MB's, and only the final drive is different between the different model cars.

Lets use our example above. 7th gear @ 2000rpm. On a pedal bike, this would be the largest cog up front, the chain going to the only cog in the rear. Your feet are moving at 2000rpm. 7th gear is .728, so 2000rpm goes in, 2,747rpm comes out. This is how fast your drive shaft is spinning. That goes into the rear diff, which houses the final drive ratio. On the C350, this is 2.82. So 2,747rpm/2.82 = 974rpm.
circumference of a 245/40/17 tire is 77.6".
So, 974rpm * 77.6in * 60mins /12" /5280ft = 71.57mph.
This can be done in any gear.
The reason we have gear boxes is that most engines do not produce enough force (torque) to move a car. Gears multiply that force. Power cannot be multiplied by gearing however, since it is a measure of work. Perfect example is the C350 engine, vs the E46M3 engine. Both engines are rated at 258ft-lbs of tq, but the M3 produces 333hp, vs the C350's 268hp. Why is this? It's because the I6 int he M3 can continue to produce power (work) until 8,000rpm, whereas the C350 stops at 6,400rpm. Why is this important? Lets assume both cars use the same exact gear box. Assuming they both have identical torque curves, weight, etc etc, both cars will accelerate at the same rate! The C350 however, will need to change gears at 6,400rpm, way earlier than the M3 which will continue in 1st gear for another 1,600rpm. As you move up in gears, you lose your torque multiplier.
What is the torque multiplier. As I mentioned, gears multiply force (torque). The C350 engine is rated at 258ft-lbs of tq peak. Gears can multiply this depending on the ratio. So, lets take first gear. 1st gear is 4.377. Final drive again is 2.82. The formula becomes 258ft-lbs * 4.377 * 2.82 = 3,184ft-lbs to the rear axle. There is a final reduction ratio between the axle and the tire size but I don't remember the equation off the top of my head. Now consider second gear: 2.859. So it's 258ft-lbs * 2.859 * 2.82 = 2,080ft-lbs. So essentially, from going from 1st to 2nd, you lose 1/3 of your torque to the wheels. That's why you don't accelerate as fast in 2nd as in 1st. The devil is that the shorter you make gears (numerically higher), the quicker you need to upshift.
In essence, horsepower means much more than torque when it comes to an engines performance rating. Actually the truest metric of an engine's ability is the area under the power curve. The car with the greatest area will win, all else being equal.
There are a LOT more considerations to gearing however, that's why I call it a science. For example, you could gear the 5th gear in that G35x to be taller to bring the rpm's down, but that will space out the gears more. In doing so, you may drop the engine down out of the optimal power band, thus killing performance. Gear it too short however (numerically higher) and you will kill fuel economy. What MB chose to do is give us the best of both worlds by adding 2 more gears. You have 1-5th gear, which is in essence a traditional gearbox, and then 2 extra gears to provide fuel efficiency.
Excellent!
My gsr rev at 4000-4500rpm at 80mph and I still got 35mpg. My stock c32 got 24mpg at 3000rpm at 80mph and 27mpg at around 65mph.
If your concerned about mpg, I would just check the mpg thread and look at the numbers of members that live close to your local area.

The W203 Cd of .27 was achieved with 185 or 195/60/15's - don't recall exactly any longer.
Lets use our example above. 7th gear @ 2000rpm. On a pedal bike, this would be the largest cog up front, the chain going to the only cog in the rear. Your feet are moving at 2000rpm. 7th gear is .728, so 2000rpm goes in, 2,747rpm comes out. This is how fast your drive shaft is spinning. That goes into the rear diff, which houses the final drive ratio. On the C350, this is 2.82. So 2,747rpm/2.82 = 974rpm.
circumference of a 245/40/17 tire is 77.6".
So, 974rpm * 77.6in * 60mins /12" /5280ft = 71.57mph.
This can be done in any gear.
The reason we have gear boxes is that most engines do not produce enough force (torque) to move a car. Gears multiply that force. Power cannot be multiplied by gearing however, since it is a measure of work. Perfect example is the C350 engine, vs the E46M3 engine. Both engines are rated at 258ft-lbs of tq, but the M3 produces 333hp, vs the C350's 268hp. Why is this? It's because the I6 int he M3 can continue to produce power (work) until 8,000rpm, whereas the C350 stops at 6,400rpm. Why is this important? Lets assume both cars use the same exact gear box. Assuming they both have identical torque curves, weight, etc etc, both cars will accelerate at the same rate! The C350 however, will need to change gears at 6,400rpm, way earlier than the M3 which will continue in 1st gear for another 1,600rpm. As you move up in gears, you lose your torque multiplier.
What is the torque multiplier. As I mentioned, gears multiply force (torque). The C350 engine is rated at 258ft-lbs of tq peak. Gears can multiply this depending on the ratio. So, lets take first gear. 1st gear is 4.377. Final drive again is 2.82. The formula becomes 258ft-lbs * 4.377 * 2.82 = 3,184ft-lbs to the rear axle. There is a final reduction ratio between the axle and the tire size but I don't remember the equation off the top of my head. Now consider second gear: 2.859. So it's 258ft-lbs * 2.859 * 2.82 = 2,080ft-lbs. So essentially, from going from 1st to 2nd, you lose 1/3 of your torque to the wheels. That's why you don't accelerate as fast in 2nd as in 1st. The devil is that the shorter you make gears (numerically higher), the quicker you need to upshift.
In essence, horsepower means much more than torque when it comes to an engines performance rating. Actually the truest metric of an engine's ability is the area under the power curve. The car with the greatest area will win, all else being equal.
There are a LOT more considerations to gearing however, that's why I call it a science. For example, you could gear the 5th gear in that G35x to be taller to bring the rpm's down, but that will space out the gears more. In doing so, you may drop the engine down out of the optimal power band, thus killing performance. Gear it too short however (numerically higher) and you will kill fuel economy. What MB chose to do is give us the best of both worlds by adding 2 more gears. You have 1-5th gear, which is in essence a traditional gearbox, and then 2 extra gears to provide fuel efficiency.
BTW, the gear ratio's for the 7G are:
1st - 4.377
2nd - 2.859
3rd - 1.921
4th - 1.368
5th - 1
6th - 0.82
7th - 0.728
Final Drive:
C350: 2.82
C230: 3.27
IMO, the 7G was force fed into the C230. It should have a much shorter final drive but then a taller 6th and 7th gear. This would essentially hurt city mpg a bit, but still keep the highway mpg we know today. It would improve the performance of the car at city speeds however. I think the reason this wasn't done is because I believe the 7G gear ratios above are the same for almost all MB's, and only the final drive is different between the different model cars.
The W203 Cd of .27 was achieved with 185 or 195/60/15's - don't recall exactly any longer.
Tire raidus can be found via the tire size:
255/45/17
255mm * 45% gives you the sidewall height in mm. Divide by 25.4 to get inches, and then by 12 to get feet. (0.376476 feet)
Add half of the 17" wheel diameter, and convert that to feet to get 0.708333 feet. Add that to the tire sidewall to get 1.084809 feet.
Again, now just divide the torque by this figure, and you'll get the foward propulsion force.
This is all theoretical, it doesn't account for sidewall deflection changing the tire radius, tractive capability or the slight amoungs of slip which are required to propel the vehicle, much in the same way a vehicle cannot laterally accelerate without a slip angle.
Generally speaking, a taller tire gives you a taller effective final drive ratio.
Tire raidus can be found via the tire size:
255/45/17
255mm * 45% gives you the sidewall height in mm. Divide by 25.4 to get inches, and then by 12 to get feet. (0.376476 feet)
Add half of the 17" wheel diameter, and convert that to feet to get 0.708333 feet. Add that to the tire sidewall to get 1.084809 feet.
Again, now just divide the torque by this figure, and you'll get the foward propulsion force.
This is all theoretical, it doesn't account for sidewall deflection changing the tire radius, tractive capability or the slight amoungs of slip which are required to propel the vehicle, much in the same way a vehicle cannot laterally accelerate without a slip angle.
Generally speaking, a taller tire gives you a taller effective final drive ratio.







