And they say the V6's aren't fuel efficient!!! :bow:
And they say the V6's aren't fuel efficient!!! :bow:
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 800
2019 G70 6MT & 2022 Ford Maverick XL
Fuel efficiency is relative. The V6 is not fuel efficient in comparison to the 271, especially when you factor in the city grind and those numbers turn mixed. For someone who does a lot of city driving, a 271 car that averages 3-5mpg better can go between 45 and 75 miles longer on a tank (assuming 15 of 16.4 gals used). That's significant for the average city commuter.
However, the real beef with the 2.5 V6 is that it's not more efficient than the 3.5 V6 in spite of the huge power deficit. Comparing the M272 2.5 to the old M112 2.6 makes the 2.5 look good. Comparing it to the other engines offered does not cast such a favorable light upon it.
However, the real beef with the 2.5 V6 is that it's not more efficient than the 3.5 V6 in spite of the huge power deficit. Comparing the M272 2.5 to the old M112 2.6 makes the 2.5 look good. Comparing it to the other engines offered does not cast such a favorable light upon it.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: VA
2005 c230k ss, 2005 Land Rover LR3, 2006 Honda S2000
Fuel efficiency is relative. The V6 is not fuel efficient in comparison to the 271, especially when you factor in the city grind and those numbers turn mixed. For someone who does a lot of city driving, a 271 car that averages 3-5mpg better can go between 45 and 75 miles longer on a tank (assuming 15 of 16.4 gals used). That's significant for the average city commuter.
However, the real beef with the 2.5 V6 is that it's not more efficient than the 3.5 V6 in spite of the huge power deficit. Comparing the M272 2.5 to the old M112 2.6 makes the 2.5 look good. Comparing it to the other engines offered does not cast such a favorable light upon it.
However, the real beef with the 2.5 V6 is that it's not more efficient than the 3.5 V6 in spite of the huge power deficit. Comparing the M272 2.5 to the old M112 2.6 makes the 2.5 look good. Comparing it to the other engines offered does not cast such a favorable light upon it.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
2006 C230 SS, 2006 S500, 2008 CLS550 Lorinser
Powerwise it does too me, most people say it doesn't but, idk if its my particular setup or what, but although there is noticeable loss of low end power, i have MUCH more top end power.
Efficiency wise, i just did an informal test with a C230 V6 loaner, and on the same routes, same temperature (within 1-2 degrees), and cruise set at 74 the whole way, my car got a solid 2,3,4 mpg better.
I dont remember exactly but it was like 27 mpg for the loaner and 31 mpg for my car.
I could also notice the difference in power, the loaner had more pep at the bottom of the gears, but passed like a golf cart compared to mine lol
o your back.. yay.
thank you for that another post that never fails to put me in a negative mood 
but you are right, i think that the power difference in the 2.5 vs 3.5 should yield much better fuel mileage.
i always fill up at a half tank, but i have been averaging around 230 miles to a half tank. sometimes it only lasts 200, one time i got close to 300 miles.
And this wasnt down hill
it was on the 5/57 from San Juan Capistrano to Brea
lol
It all depends on your driving carachteristics and habits too. I used to pull up to 18-19 city and 28-29 hwy out of my CLK500 which is NOT normal lol
Efficiency wise, i just did an informal test with a C230 V6 loaner, and on the same routes, same temperature (within 1-2 degrees), and cruise set at 74 the whole way, my car got a solid 2,3,4 mpg better.
I dont remember exactly but it was like 27 mpg for the loaner and 31 mpg for my car.
I could also notice the difference in power, the loaner had more pep at the bottom of the gears, but passed like a golf cart compared to mine lol
o your back.. yay.
thank you for that another post that never fails to put me in a negative mood but you are right, i think that the power difference in the 2.5 vs 3.5 should yield much better fuel mileage.
And this wasnt down hill
it was on the 5/57 from San Juan Capistrano to BreaIt all depends on your driving carachteristics and habits too. I used to pull up to 18-19 city and 28-29 hwy out of my CLK500 which is NOT normal lol
Last edited by timmynabenz; Apr 14, 2010 at 08:04 PM.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
2006 C230 SS, 2006 S500, 2008 CLS550 Lorinser
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
C230K Coupe
magically? your car is most efficient around 55-65mph.. hence why the increase in MPG when you're going slower.
i think MB themselves say every 5mph above 65 you lose about 7% fuel efficiency.
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Saab 900 SE
yes I say magically because the stupid car get 32 going 85 yet worse at 75 then better at 55, its wierd.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 800
2019 G70 6MT & 2022 Ford Maverick XL
To get an idea of realistic fuel efficiency you need more than ~20 miles. Here is my car, from tonight:
This was on the return leg from our NC mountains trip.
This is the final result of the trip, from my garage and back to my garage, the mileage was reset at the fill-up I did before the trip. The station I stopped at was sold out of premium, so this result was on regular old 87 octane (spare me the rhetoric, it won't hurt a thing). I should get 450-500 miles from this tank. I'm quite confident the V6 cars (any of them) can't touch this in such demanding situations as mountainous terrain. It's the V6 cars that should
to the C230Ks in regard to fuel efficiency, although the M272 E25 should to the M271 in all regards.
This was on the return leg from our NC mountains trip.
This is the final result of the trip, from my garage and back to my garage, the mileage was reset at the fill-up I did before the trip. The station I stopped at was sold out of premium, so this result was on regular old 87 octane (spare me the rhetoric, it won't hurt a thing). I should get 450-500 miles from this tank. I'm quite confident the V6 cars (any of them) can't touch this in such demanding situations as mountainous terrain. It's the V6 cars that should
to the C230Ks in regard to fuel efficiency, although the M272 E25 should to the M271 in all regards.
Last edited by LILBENZ230; Apr 18, 2010 at 05:27 AM.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
2006 C230 SS, 2006 S500, 2008 CLS550 Lorinser
haha is he really banned.. again?? lol
