When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The goal of this thread is to get a better idea of the C400 real consumption.
MB website say 9.9L in Canada, vs. 7.6L in Germany...
So what would be interesting is to listen at the C400 holders experience.
The goal of this thread is to get a better idea of the C400 real consumption.
MB website say 9.9L in Canada, vs. 7.6L in Germany...
So what would be interesting is to listen at the C400 holders experience.
Rgds
Im interested too. I suspect that the FE ratings are a little rosy. Of course, they will vary widely depending how its driven. I suspect that the FE ratings are based on ECO mode. I'm sure that if you drive it in Sport plus those ratings go straight down the sh*tter. Like all turbo cars full boost means very low fuel efficiency so light throttle is a must for best FE. Heck the whole idea of the blower is to allow more gas in !
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
The German ratings will be running the EEC/ECE/NEDC driving cycle by a computer on a rolling road dynamometer without aerodynamic influence, tyre size influence etc. The test conducted in this fashion is highly repeatable vs. actually driving the cycle on a flat road with no wind. It is however highly optimistic.
The German ratings will be running the EEC/ECE/NEDC driving cycle by a computer on a rolling road dynamometer without aerodynamic influence, tyre size influence etc. The test conducted in this fashion is highly repeatable vs. actually driving the cycle on a flat road with no wind. It is however highly optimistic.
It should be used for comparative purposes only.
Ergo German manufacturers FE estimates are highly repeatable in the lab but otherwise useless, as has been widely reported. I always wonder why they don't simply use what has been proven to be better elsewhere. That doesn't apply only to the Germans (EU) but to other places too. Why does everyone have to reinvent the wheel everytime!
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Originally Posted by c4004matic
Ergo German manufacturers FE estimates are highly repeatable in the lab but otherwise useless, as has been widely reported. I always wonder why they don't simply use what has been proven to be better elsewhere. That doesn't apply only to the Germans (EU) but to other places too. Why does everyone have to reinvent the wheel everytime!
They are far more accurate than any other method which allows one to compare one vehicle with another.
To relate to reality an index of 20% is usually added.
For mercedes and bmw 25% would be more accurate, and still optimistic, VW not lagging much behind.
EU norm is widely adapted to accomodate EU tax brackets. If actual consumption and Co2 emissions, were to form basis for the taxation, BMW , VW and Mercedes would go bankrupt. They would loose the all important business segment to less premium brands.
They are far more accurate than any other method which allows one to compare one vehicle with another.
To relate to reality an index of 20% is usually added.
Well not really, what you can compare directly with the methodology described is different engines in the same car. Given the very marked difference in wind resistance between vehicles, you can't compare them very well at all. No estimate beats actual driving test within specified parameters in a preset course. Consumer Reports has been doing it for decades, in fact they were major contributors to the latest EPA standards. Of course its not perfect but its the closest they have gotten to "real world" averages.
For mercedes and bmw 25% would be more accurate, and still optimistic, VW not lagging much behind.
EU norm is widely adapted to accomodate EU tax brackets. If actual consumption and Co2 emissions, were to form basis for the taxation, BMW , VW and Mercedes would go bankrupt. They would loose the all important business segment to less premium brands.
Ergo the whole system is rigged from the get go as it used to be in the US. In the US the biggest "cheaters" were hybrid cars which weren't even close for almost a decade. The old EPA CAFE standards we so full of BS they were utter fantasy.
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Originally Posted by c4004matic
Well not really, what you can compare directly with the methodology described is different engines in the same car. Given the very marked difference in wind resistance between vehicles, you can't compare them very well at all. No estimate beats actual driving test within specified parameters in a preset course. Consumer Reports has been doing it for decades, in fact they were major contributors to the latest EPA standards. Of course its not perfect but its the closest they have gotten to "real world" averages.
Nonsense. On road driving results can vary as much as 40% (and worse). You can't control enough parameters. The biggest weakness being the driver who can't drive accurately to a HU display.
EEC Cycle plus a correction factor is far more accurate. That's why it was set up. At one time in my career I was directly involved. cd of the vehicle can be included in the index.
BTW one is evaluating the entire drivetrain including transmission efficiency etc.
Nonsense. On road driving results can vary as much as 40% (and worse). You can't control enough parameters. The biggest weakness being the driver who can't drive accurately to a HU display.
EEC Cycle plus a correction factor is far more accurate. That's why it was set up. At one time in my career I was directly involved. cd of the vehicle can be included in the index.
BTW one is evaluating the entire drivetrain including transmission efficiency etc.
I guess.... That's why everyone in Europe takes it for granted that the estimate may be optimistic by up to 25% and the one here has been pretty darned accurate for 5 years. You can absolutely make a controlled drive test you just have to work at it and its already been done!
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Originally Posted by c4004matic
I guess.... That's why everyone in Europe takes it for granted that the estimate may be optimistic by up to 25% and the one here has been pretty darned accurate for 5 years. You can absolutely make a controlled drive test you just have to work at it and its already been done!
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Firstly the engine requires to run in before stable fuel consumption measurements can be taken. Any warm up open loop enriched running in a short cycle of driving completely ruins the consumption average.
In extra urban fully warmed up the Canadian figure of 9.9l/100 is probably about right.
If I do 40Km's with my CLK350 from cold the consumption will settle at around 9.3l/100Km
Of course a 4Matic will use a little more fuel than a RWD.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; 12-05-2014 at 10:54 PM.
As usual you overstate your expertise since those adjustment factors were prompted by this "actually driven test criteria". Maybe you should be a lot better informed before you pontificate outside of your weight category:
Enjoy http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...-gap/index.htm
late 2009 CLK 350 Coupe Elegance, '65 Jaguar S Type wires
Yes ~ Yes. I've been involved in this while you were still in nappies. The Canadians have it right. They understand that changes in wind direction, air density, inlet air temperature etc. etc. ad nauseum render on road testing a waste of time & unrepeatable to say the least of driving inconsistencies.
Last edited by Glyn M Ruck; 12-06-2014 at 02:05 AM.
I just got home from a 80km high way and 14km local driving in sport plus. My avg for the trip was 9.4L/100km. my highway was all in eco mode with very few braking or hard acceleration.
12-04-2014, 04:39 AM
!
.... That's why everyone in Europe takes it for granted that the estimate may be optimistic by up to 25% and the one here has been pretty darned accurate for 5 years. You can absolutely make a controlled drive test you just have to work at it and its already been done!
