Mercedes vehicles seems to get bad gas mileages? Even much heavier cars with more horsepower from other companies seem to get better mileages. The new C250 especially confuses me. A turbocharged 1.8 liter 4 cylinder WITH direct injection only getting 21 MPG city seems really really bad. It gets whooped by the BMW 3 series that has more horsepower and more torque. Most of the Japanese/Asian makes with comparable power and weight seems to beat Mercedes in fuel economy as well.

What really shocks me is Hyundai Sonata's 2.0 T getting 22 MPG city and 34 highway while putting out a whooping 274 horsepower and 269 ft/lb torque.

Not like the C class is much heavier than the Sonata. What gives?

 

Looking at NHTSA and EPA numbers found on the sticker is meaningless. Plus, BMW now utilizes their new Stop/Start engine system to CHEAT those numbers. Bad they are, bad...

 

Oh.... I thought Stop/Start is in the 2012 C class as well?

 

yes and no. No if you're in the USA. I believe that is only a European option. The claimed thinking was that Americans would be "put-off" by the shut off/start up feeling as that would conflict with their view of a luxury vehicle.

What I'm curious about is how this feature affects 0-60 times. When magazines test, are they able to disable the feature...or does a "brake-stand" cause the engine to start back up even though the car isn't moving? I assume so, otherwise there has to be some lag in performance from starting, engaging the transmission, and going.

 

Maybe it only works in comfort mode? Or there might be some kind of eco mode.

 

In the BMW you can disable the engine shut off, not sure about the Mercs.
This is not the reason why other engines/manufacturers are more efficient.

I think most of the Merc engines still use some outdated technology. Are any engines in the current lineup full direct injection? Maybe the 1.8 turbo but compared to that both the Audi and BMW have much better engines, fuel economy and power.

Love the sound of the 3.0 V6 though. I think Merc will have to deliver an engine that compares to the other 2.0 Turbos. My guess is that they are working on it. I don't really care because we did not buy the car for its consumption numbers but I love the 2.0T I also have in my VW.

 

Actually you can disable BMW's Stop/Start feature by pressing an override button next to the ignition button. Problem is, you must do this EVERY TIME you start the car or else it cannot be deactivated. I'm sure MB's is the same.

The issue is that it simply doesn't work very well for spirited driving, unless you drive like a comatose Honda owner that is... that's where it shines. The car would hesitate after restart from a stop light, then jerk and pulsate, even surge and hop as it tried to accelerate from a DEAD, and I do mean an engine dead stop. Not my cup of tea... and surely it would eventually wear down the starter motor, not to mention the additional internal friction during the winter months since it does not keep the oil pressure up during shut-down.... it's a crappy idea IMO meant to get THEIR mileage numbers up, (bragging rights) and then your money after the warranty expires from all the added friction related repairs this system will probably cause after 5 years.

 

Mercedes is definitely behind, but I am not sure as to why. I do know that the Sonata/Optima twins with their 2.0T are not seeing the EPA numbers pan out. Haven't read anything about the engine in the 328i, but even the N54 and N55 were just as efficient as the M271Evo engine. My old M271 averages 26mpg (see fuelly in my sig). Household cars also include a BMW 135i 6MT and a Lexus IS350 6AT, both lifetime averaging 24mpg. All driven enthusiastically pretty much all the time.

No excuse for such a modestly powered car as the C250 to not be able to do better.

 

My son's new 328i with N20 turbo 4 and 6 speed manual is rated at 36mpg highway. He is routinely getting 39-40 mpg at 65mph average speeds on his trips. Meanwhile, although I have briefly done better, my C300 is typically around 30-31 mpg under similar conditions.

 

That is awesome. It used to be that I thought the 335 was the one to have, but I think I'll have to revise that.

 

He thought the same, but after experiencing the handling benefit of less weight over the front wheels, in addition to the performance and fuel economy, he never gave the 335i a second look.

 

Why is everyone just blindly agreeing to these completely inaccurate numbers... First of all, a C250 gets 21/31mpg vs Sonata 24/34 is not that different. Furthermore, the C250 is at least a good 350 pounds heavier then the sonata, which definitely is a marginal difference - making the C250 nearly 11% heavier then the Sonata. Also, even though the C250 has less power then the Sonata, and weighs more, it is still FASTER then the Hyundai Sonata Turbo 0-60 - go figure!

Then you have the matter of how accurate the tests are vs real world usage. Mercedes-Benz has long stood by the belief that they build their cars for the best real-world application, despite test results, this is especially true for safety, as well as fuel economy. In fact, you will find that Mercedes typically under-publishes their figures for EPA estimates and horsepower, which explains why 4matic models maintain the same estimates as RWD models, despite the extra drive train loss and added weight.

When you consider the fact that I easily achieve over 31mpg highway, and with my intake and tune received as much as 42mpg overall (not just highway), and if you read edmunds consumer reviews for people who own the sonata turbo, many complaints surround the poor MPG where they receive roughly half of the EPA estimates.

Do I think mercedes-benz is at the forefront of new technology? No, but I also think that they have a reputation that they do not want to tarnish, and will not just jump into new technology without learning of the many repercussions. Take Direct Injection for example, many of the early adopters for direct injection from BMW, Audi, Porsche to virtually most other early adopting brands have had HUGE issues with Carbon build-up on their direct injection models, and have since revised their designs, but not before screwing customers over needing expensive engine tear-downs just outside the warranty period, leaving thousands of owners filing class-action lawsuits.

About the only regret I have with the C250 are the HP/TQ ratings versus other manufacturers. With that said, I'm sure that they didn't go for a bigger turbo or allow higher boost in the engine due to reliability and to ensure the classic mercedes-benz longevity. None-the-less, I wish that they could have done a little bit "better".

Either way, I'm very satisfied with my vehicle, and even though it doesn't have the power nor fuel economy of other vehicles, the c250 drives MUCH better then the sonata, and overall I think is the best vehicle that caters to my tastes and needs.

 

2009 C300 here with almost 80k mi. on the odometer.

500 mile round trip this weekend - 28 mpg.

15 miles trip to work - Can achieve over 30 mpg.

Firm believer of the right-foot theory on miles per gallon. Takes out all the confusion.

 

Those hp/tq numbers are low. If you put it on a dyne they range from 175 to 185 whp . that means that there figures are low right from the get go.

 

It should also be noted that the M271 Evo Turbo engine has a lean burn mode that can be switched in for certain markets with good fuel. This is switched off for markets like the US, most of Asia & SA because our fuel is not good enough. In lean burn mode consumption & emissions obviously improve.

Running in lean burn mode with poor fuel can lead to driveability issues such as engine stumble & flat spots.

Benz will never knowingly put a car into a market that has driveability issues. They will err on the safe side which means higher fuel consumption.

Vehicle weight is also a factor in the issue being discussed.

Benz always builds & tunes for longevity.

 

Not that I'm disagreeing, but I wanted to point out that it's not valid to trivialize 21 vs 24 mpg and then call out 11% heavier as being significant. The average mpg for the Sonata is 11.5% better than the MB (26 vs 29).

 

Ooops, your right, but that was a typo, the Sonata only gets 22mpg city for the turbo version and 34 highway. So the difference is 26 vs 28 average, of which, Hyundai numbers seem inflated and Mercedes numbers are always safely advertised. So the fact that a FWD, lighter car is only getting 2mpg more average (if that's even true), is not too important if you ask me, especially since the C250 is quicker.

 

Interestingly - One of our local Auto magazines recently did a shoot out between the new BMW 328i, Merc C250 BE & the Audi A4 2.0T FSI Quattro S tronic (all in Auto guise). They state a fuel index based on manufacturers figures of 7.56, 7.68 & 8.8 litres/100Km. They then run a standardised road course in real on road conditions that they put every car they test through & the figures were 7.7 (BMW) 7.7 (Merc) & 8.89 (Audi) litres/100Km.

 

Can I ask how u are getting those high MPGs? The highest I've ever gotten on the highway is around 24mpg and my average over the last 2500 miles is 20.0 and I'm not that aggresive as a driver.

 

JCT has the C250 - the turbo 4 cylinder.

Out on the highway, the turbo 4 pulls high 20s without really trying if you drive it reasonably.

 

I'd be surprised if it doesn't get higher than 20s on the highway if it's also DI. My C350 got 32mpg on a 22mile commute Monday morning. It was all "city" but at 3am it should be deemed "highway" being that there were no other cars out and I pretty much got every green light.

 

I don't know where anyone gets the idea the C250 is quicker than a Sonata turbo. A 73HP advantage is certainly not trivial. They're not exactly cross shopped, so not likely to be raced in any direct comparison. But InsideLine has track tested both and the Sonata 2.0T was quicker to 60 (6.6 vs 7.3), quicker through the quarter mile (14.6 vs 15.3) and faster by almost 8mph.

But again, it should be. It has a 73 horsepower advantage. It also uses regular fuel.

Also what's this about the C250 being "a good 350lbs heavier than the Sonata"?

It's actually about 137lbs heavier.

 

I have a feeling the Sonata is overrated HP wise typical asian makers and the Mercedes Benz is underrated typical German auto maker. Also where did you get that 0-60 time for the C250 I have never seen it reported that high usually from 6.4 to 7 seconds depends who is testing.

 

I think I remember seeing 7.4 somewhere as well. Insideline has it at 7.3. I'm absolutely positive I saw a 6.1 rating for the Sonata 2.0T.

Still though, you'd expect a 1.8l 4 cylinder with direct injection to get better mileage than that. Like a lot better. 25 MPG city and 35 hwy is probably a good standard for a 2012 car with that kind of engine.

There must be a reason for this?

 

Hi I'm new to the forums and I think I may be the first person from the UK to reply on this thread so just bear with me.
First of all I know all UK figures are different as we are basing economy on a UK galloon but that's not the point.

Here in the UK the c class economy is fantastic. Bear in mind here we use mainly diesel variants. (200/220/250 being the most common).

The 2012 250 CDI is quoted (from mercedes website)
Urban 47.1
Extra 68.9
Combined 58.9

The 2012 350 CDI:
Urban 39.2
Extra 54.3
Combined 47.9

This is a vast improvement on the pre-facelift model and in fact the 3L V6 diesel is, looking at the combined figure, just about as economical as a ford fiesta zetec s. (A commonly used sporty hatchback).

My 2009 C200 CDI is actually cheaper for me to run than the hatchback I used to drive.


Brett