mis3

There is a newspaper article about the new C-Coupe: http://www.wheels.ca/article/797909

According to the article, there will be 3 engine sizes: 1.8L Turbo, 3.5L and the 6.2L. The fuel consumption numbers of the 1.8L is 6.5-7.0 L/100KM and 6.7-7.0 L/100KM for the 3.5L.

Do these numbers seem right? How can the gas mileage be similar if the engine is about 50% difference in size?

mis3

Any comments?

My CLK320 gives reasonable gas mileage on the engine size. Since this is my daily commute and with the ever increasing gas prices, I may consider a 4-cylinder for my next car.

Based on the official consumption numbers of the C-Coupe (Below), the new 6-cyl and the new 4-cyl (Turbo) are almost the same. Maybe this is possible now because of some technology breakthroughs.

I would think the 3.5L engine would get similar gas mileage as my CLK320.

Mka77

Not surprising in this day and age. Technology has improved so much that engine size and fuel mileage differ very little. It boils down to how much you have your foot in it.

mis3

I would think that for the smaller engine, it's only 1.8 L, so it should consume much less gas the 3.5L if the turbo is not kicked in.

If it is true that I can get 6.7-7.0 L for the 3.5L, I would definitely get the 6-cyl.

Mka77

Don't know what that 6.7-7.0 l equates to in mpg, but my V6 averages 27-30 mpg every tank.

mis3

6.5L/100KM = 36 MPG
6.75 L/100KM = 34.84 MPG
7.0 L/100KM = 33.60 MPG

With my V6, the best highway mileage I can get is 8.0L/100KM (29.40 MPG). This is all highway, I reset the computer when I get to the highway.

So, it's hard to believe those numbers, and they are supposed to be average highway/city mileage.

This is why I posted this thread for comments.

dariusf

that's a bit unbelievable based on my usage in 2003 CLK320. Granted I have very short commute of 4 miles each way to the train station and then beck. With sometime longer trips (5-10 miles) on weekends. I do hit the gas on occasion but most of the trip is on longer stretches doing 50mph and then 35mph. I average about 19/20mpg according to the on board computer.

dariusf

Looking at the pics in the linked article. Looks nice but why did they added the I beams? That was the best design feature by far of the W209 !

mis3

If mostly highway, 27-30 MPH is possible for CLK320.

So, the 6.7-7.0 figures (33 MPH) for average mileage is highly unlikely.

elijah

In this day and age, it does not surprise me.

mis3

More and more I think of this, if there has been a technological breakthrough, that a 6-cyl (3.5L) can achieve gas mileage of a 4-cyl (1.8L), we would read about it.

Furthermore, MB would have advertised it.

Mka77

I have post several shots of the trip gauge and mileage computer. No reason to make it up.

Mka77

Here's one.

https://mbworld.org/forums/clk-class...-out-hand.html

dariusf

oh I'm not doubting it, just sounds unreal comparing to what I get But I guess if you do mostly highway runs then its definitely doable.

I only put on about 4k miles a year so 18mpg or 25pmg makes no deference to me

dariusf

I bet these are European cycle and in US it will be estimated far worse. Still technology advances quite a bit but then the size and weight of the cars do as well.

mis3

Checked some articles.
These 2 engines offered for the C-Coupe are brand new, both with direction-injection. Not sure of the benefits...

vaaliant

The 2012 C350 is supposed to have some of the direct injection system that you see on the CGI variants in europe, hence the ability to get higher mileage. Minus of course the NOx catalyst (which would get destroyed if you used North American fuel which has a higher sulfur content). They've had this over there for years now. The european version of C350 for instance can get about 33mpg equivalent. The CDI version can go to about 49mpg I believe.

mis3

Thanks, Vaaliant.

I googled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection. Apparently, this Direct-Injection technology is not that new.