CLK-Class (W208) 1998-2002: CLK 200, CLK 230K, CLK 320, CLK 430 [Coupes & Cabriolets]

430 vs 55 Fuel Economy

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 05-10-2011, 09:14 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
njgilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 251
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2001 CLK55
430 vs 55 Fuel Economy

I had a 430, and saw as good as 24.5mpg on long trips. Now I'm thinking of getting a 55 AMG. I've heard stories about people getting up to 29mpg in a 55; even with the slightly lower differential ratio (2.87 vs 2.82), I find this hard to believe.

I'm not concerned with city driving, I know I'll be tearing through fuel in stop and go, but what's the best mileage you've gotten out of your 430 or 55 for a long highway stretch?
Old 05-10-2011, 09:26 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
slowsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2011 C63
24 hwy (85mph)/ 15 city
Old 05-11-2011, 12:20 AM
  #3  
Super Member
 
GiZzO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CLK55 / E350 Coupe
Im always in light to heavy traffic, whadda ya expect im in LA. Best i've seen is 22MPG trip to San Deigo.
I avg 17.5MPG per tank, mostly city driving. I romp on it daily. Nice high speed bends to and away from work.

Last edited by GiZzO; 05-11-2011 at 12:26 AM.
Old 05-11-2011, 12:56 AM
  #4  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
MarcusF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SCV SoCal
Posts: 3,784
Received 77 Likes on 61 Posts
2002 CLK430
I've heard of 29 MPG, but it was in a 430, not a 55. A 55 accelerates faster, has a higher top speed, brakes in shorter distances, and handles better, but it does not get better fuel economy than a 430.



That said, I've never met anyone with a 55 who minds the difference in fuel economy. I know PLENTY of 430 owners who mind the difference in performance.
Old 05-11-2011, 01:48 AM
  #5  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
LawRens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Norcal
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
43
yeah. having an m113 e43 engine always leaves more power to be desired. good power mind you, but still never enough. the best ive netted was 22.5mpg in a tank, and that was driving 50-60mph on freeways... i dont know how you guys do it.
Old 05-11-2011, 07:36 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
njgilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 251
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2001 CLK55
I agree about the 4.3 motor (which is why I'm thinking 55 this time). Fuel economy is not really a deciding factor, I just wanted to get an idea of what to expect.

Marcusf, thanks for the pic, although I'm still a bit skeptical. There has to be a 300 mile downhill section that ends in 104º weather somewhere in the world.

Thanks all, keep em coming.
Old 05-11-2011, 08:26 PM
  #7  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Chappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hotlanta
Posts: 9,731
Received 62 Likes on 53 Posts
AMG
Quality tires can also improve your mileage. I can't recall the exact mileage figure, but I've had a best of 27+ on long highway trips (75-80mph average)
Old 05-11-2011, 08:29 PM
  #8  
Member
 
92bubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Richmon VA...but from NYC
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2001 CLK 430...92 honda civic GSR turbo hatch
damn...i wish i could get 29mpg....i only see 25
Old 05-11-2011, 10:06 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
njgilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 251
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2001 CLK55
Hey Chappy, wow 27+ is impressive. What kind of tires and what size were you running?
Old 05-12-2011, 12:03 AM
  #10  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
MarcusF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SCV SoCal
Posts: 3,784
Received 77 Likes on 61 Posts
2002 CLK430
Originally Posted by njgilligan
I agree about the 4.3 motor (which is why I'm thinking 55 this time). Fuel economy is not really a deciding factor, I just wanted to get an idea of what to expect.

Marcusf, thanks for the pic, although I'm still a bit skeptical. There has to be a 300 mile downhill section that ends in 104º weather somewhere in the world.

Thanks all, keep em coming.
Someone else thought that was a downhill or doctored photo. A good tune, good tires, and cruise control are all I use. 300 miles, all downhill, driving in 104 degree weather without the AC, and I just happened to pick that route and record the mileage is highly doubtful. Here's another one. Look at the mileage. A one thousand mile hill would cover more than a third of the United States (Los Angeles to Miami is 2700 miles). Also, 17+ hours covered numerous cold starts. Of course, it could be that M113s really are reasonably economical.

Old 05-12-2011, 03:06 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
njgilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 251
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2001 CLK55
I didn't realize that was your car, that's awesome. Are you talking a custom tune or one of the chips you can order online? What kind of tires?
Old 05-12-2011, 05:56 AM
  #12  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Chappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hotlanta
Posts: 9,731
Received 62 Likes on 53 Posts
AMG
Originally Posted by njgilligan
Hey Chappy, wow 27+ is impressive. What kind of tires and what size were you running?
Factory 17 monoblock IIs and Michelin PS2s in factory sizes. Since I rarely drive my 55 more than a couple hours at a time now, it's difficult to determine what my "best" would be today.

I'm now running larger wheels and tires. When I drive now, it is for pleasure only and fuel mileage is not even on the agenda.
Old 05-12-2011, 01:28 PM
  #13  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
MarcusF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SCV SoCal
Posts: 3,784
Received 77 Likes on 61 Posts
2002 CLK430
Originally Posted by njgilligan
I didn't realize that was your car, that's awesome. Are you talking a custom tune or one of the chips you can order online? What kind of tires?
When I say a “good tune”, I mean spark plugs, air filters, fuel filter, etc. are all in spec. Basically, all the maintenance that’s supposed to be done, is done. A decent alignment too. I don’t have a custom tune or chip or exhaust - my car is stock. Naturally that mileage doesn’t reflect bumper-to-bumper slogs through Southern California, but you’ve seen the results when I average over 50 MPH. Nothing special about the tires other than they are kept properly inflated and I run name brand rubber. Not that anything is wrong with running a brand-x tire, I just happen to prefer name brands with a double A rating (traction/temp) that don’t howl or tramline (I read the Tirerack reviews). I’m currently running Continentals. If you get a 55, and it runs right, open road fuel economy will be pretty good.
Old 05-12-2011, 04:47 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
njgilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 251
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2001 CLK55
Ah, makes sense. I take these items (plugs, filters, oil etc.) to be a given, especially for someone with such a nice car, but I guess not everyone thinks that way. I doubt there's much, if anything, in the way of fuel economy to be gained by modifying the ecu on a Merc anyway.

That tire inflation guide is really helpful, or at least interesting. I don't think I'll be doing that procedure too often, but I'll definitely give it a shot to see where I'm at.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: 430 vs 55 Fuel Economy



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 AM.