Rudeney

My CLK550 gets around 19mpg commuting to work. That's a combination of terrible stop-and go, some highways, and some hills. I think the worst I've ever seen is around 16mpg and that's with a lot of sitting at idle in traffic. I generally fill up when I get to 1/4 tank and I'll have about 240 miles on the trip odometer. I'm guessing I could get 300 miles out of a tank if I ran it down to the reserve.

eddieo45

This is sadly typical for me. 287.4 traveled, remaining fuel estimated to be 8 gallons worth. That was creeping up, BTW, 4 when I started it and up to 8 as I approached the Gas Station 1/4 mile from my house. Fill-up took 14.6 gallons.

CLK320skr

Reviving this thread... haven't bought a CLK yet, but getting real close (lol). I recently moved back down to California (from Canada). Fortunately, CLK prices are much more reasonable down here, and with a bit of luck I can find one that's been well maintained.

I pretty much had my heart set on a CLK 500 but now that I'm making a new start with things (job, life, etc), I have to downsize my ambitions with what vehicle I pursue.

I was still looking at the W208 CLK430, but considering the gas prices these days, I think I'm leaning towards getting a 320 now. I realize it won't be as much fun to drive, and there are some visual differences that I'm not too keen on (mainly the suspension), but the 320 is still a really nice car, and still has reasonable acceleration.. I won't be bored driving it, that's for sure.

Plus, there are some things I can do to increase performance once I have a steady income.. so I think I'll finally have a car that matches my username real soon.

Rudeney

A few things to know about EPA fuel economy ratings are that they are just to be used for comparison purposes and they are based on very specific tests that probably won't reflect your driving. EPA changed the way they test beginning with MY2008 vehicles. This resulted in lower estimates for most cars. The EPA claims that it is closer to real-world scenarios, but the reality is that people's driving habits are vastly different as are the types of roads, traffic, geography, etc. Also, a larger engine doesn't always get worse mileage. Again, this depends on driving habits and road conditions.

Consider the CLK. Here are the EPA estimates for the 2007 and 2008 coupes:

2007 CLK350 = 19/28
2007 CLK550 = 16/23
2008 CLK350 = 17/25
2008 CLK550 = 15/22

Note that the estimates for the V6 dropped by 2 and 3 MPG with the revised EPA testing for MY2008, but the V8 only dropped 1 MPG. The only differences in the cars between model years are the testing procedures.

Now, consider the 2006 CLK500. It's EPA estimates are 17/25, or exactly the same as the 2008 CLK350 under the revised standards. The CLK550 Cabriolet is 15/21 under the revised standards. I have never seen my 2007 CLK550 Cabriolet under 16 MPG, and really, unless I just romp on it at every intersection, I never see anything under 17 MPG. In fact, my usual average in my in-town driving is 19 MPG, and that's with plenty of hills and stop-and-go traffic, big intersections, etc. The few road trips I've taken gave me around 25 MPG in the highway.

Really, I just say all of this to point out that EPA estimates are just estimates, and when the differences are just a few MPGs apart, I'd pretty much ignore them. Besides, do the math on how many miles you will drive per year, and what a 1 to 2 MPG difference will make. Over 12,000 miles, the difference between 20 MPG and 19 MPG is about 31 gallons of gas. at $5/gallon that about $150. For me, I'll gladly pay that to get the extra oomph of the V8.

CLK320skr

Well, at this point my budget is limiting me to the W208. So it's between the 320 and 430. It seems the 320 averages 30-50 miles more per tank vs the 430 (or 2-3 MPG). I'm not sure exactly how much driving I'm going to be doing, but it seems like that would add up over time. The 430 isn't that much faster is it? I mean, 0.4 seconds for 0-60 doesn't seem like a lot.

The other thing I'm trying to consider is cost of maintenance.. both engines seem to be solid, I guess the only extra expense I can see is the 4 extra spark plugs.. not a big deal.

I guess really it's going to come down to finding the best car that fits within my budget. I've found a '99 430 with the full Renntech package for $5500 obo, with 119k miles. I would prefer to get a newer model though. I've found a '01 320 with 105k miles for $5700 obo.

None of the cars I've found so far are local.. so it's going to be a bit tricky getting to these cars before they get scooped up.

Anyway, this is pretty much a W208 topic now.. not sure if it should be moved into the other forum or not.

Rudeney

The W208 is a great choice. I'd probably choose the V8, and I think the 0-60 time is more like 0.8 seconds faster. Regardless, 0-60 isn't everything - it has more torque which you definitely feel int he "but dyno" and of course a V8 exhaust note. There are things about the W208 I like over the W209, like center console mounted window switches (where they should be!) and those really had fewer chronic problems than the later MBZ models. One thing to look out for is the Valeo radiator - make sure it's been replaced with the Behr or you can have transmission fluid and coolant mixing.

Arocars

I have a 2009 CLK 550 cabriolet. I get 300 miles per tank, or 20 mph, in mixed driving. The best I've gotten so far is 22.5 mph, or 325 miles per tank. That was virtually all highway driving. Considering that I dont drive the car all that hard, the mileage is a bit disappointing.

However, as for the 500 vs the 350; I test drove a six cylinder CLK. As soon as I put my foot in it, I knew I wouldn't be satisfied owning it. It was just too slow for my liking. I bought the 550 and have never regretted that decision.

California

Reviving this thread because I was watching my mpg over the past few days. Averaged 29.4 mpg, mostly highway. But can someone answer me -- on this 2006 CLK350 -- how do I get actual mpg on the screen and not averaged mpg? It seemed to be easier to read the screens on my 04 C230 Coupe

Rudeney

There is no "instantaneous" MPG display, only average. You can always hit the reset stalk and it will give you a somewhat instantaneous reading.

Capn

CLK500 are almost identical to C55s at 19-20 mpg city/highway but your coupe looks so much more sexier

eddieo45

yeah, don't get me started (again) about how I believe that avg mpg numbers are meaningless, instantaneous mpg even more so.

so, you see 440 or so miles per TANK? I think not....

If you want an instantaneous mpg # to help you drive for economy, try leaving the display on remaining miles, and try to "drive the number up," using the tried and true: low RPM, high gear....

[is there any other thread where posters routinely ignore the actual topic (mpTANK)? like posting pics of your seats in the wheel thread, perhaps?]

California

I took a highway trip on a tank of gas over Thanksgiving and watched the MPG inch up to 29.4 at the end of the day. I wasn't trying to say what the miles per tank was, I was trying to figure out how to get, as Rudeney said, an instantaneous MPG reading.

eddieo45

Well, as long as you posted in the "average miles per TANK" thread, why not mention what you get PER TANK? I'd guess about 300, which seems to be the case irrespective of 320/350/500/550. Wish I knew that when I was buying, lol!

Yidney

My commute averages only about 17 mpg - all city steets - but only 3.5 miles one way. On the highway it will do 26. I live close to gas stations so I often fill up after the miles to empty has disappeared and I only have the little picure of the car next to a gas pump on the screen.

eddieo45

evidently, the subject of this thread is extremely confusing and complicated.....


so, "Average miles per tank?"

Yidney

Well, many people automatically translate the question into into the more common way of discussing such issues - mpg. But the subject of the thread is probably mraginally more confusing and complicated than the math necessary to answer the question as posed - 279 miles per tank (17mpg x 16.4 gallon tank.)

eddieo45

I think miles per tank is an exponentially more useful and meaningful measure, and best collected by zeroing out trip odometer when filling up, not by doing math. I maintain that the MPG # is a fiction, and not that useful to boot (unless you have only one gallon, lol). I once read that calculating your economy in dollars per mile is more useful than MPG, and I agree with that too, but since we here on the forum all have the same size tank, miles per tank is the simplest AND most informative. I've driven 44 miles today for 24.1 mpg. That's as informative as a single slide of an MRI! I'll likely finish this tank at 290 miles or so, like every other tank.

Rudeney

Knowing the miles per tank is valuable when comparing vehicles with the same size tank, such as all of us with CLK's and our 16.4 gallon tanks. But when comparing range among different vehicles, say to my wife's Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 24-gallon tank, MPG is a better tool. She can go 400 miles on a tank, but it's going to cost more to fill it and it will go fewer miles per gallon than my CLK. So if the objective is to decide which vehicle to take on a trip and minimize refueling stops, the Jeep wins, but if the objective is to minimize costs, the CLK wins.

eddieo45

agreed, but the mpg figure you get by dividing her 400 miles by the 24 gallon tank is far more representative than taking some instantaneous mpg number one sees during a 3.5 mile commute and multiplying that by 16.4, or worse, saying you "averaged 29.4 mpg".....averaged for how long? an hour? a gallon?

Here, we all have the 16.4, so I'm interested in the extremes of tank range, not the momentary mpg measure. Look at it this way: California took a highway trip and saw 29.4 for a few minutes or whatever; Yidney sits in traffic and looks at a 17, then chills out on a highway and sees a 29; at the end of each TANK, I'd wager both see about 290-310 miles as they roll into a station with the low fuel warning, so what relevance did the 17 or 29 have? I usually have my display on remaining miles when I gas up, and it might say 425 when I get it full and I'm just idling by the pump. Now THAT's something I'd love to see someone hit, and it would mean something very different than just saying "yeah, I can get 26mpg on the highway."

I can't help but have it remind me of the guys from the far away suburbs that would say "I can get to town in 15 minutes" when I couldn't get out of my neighborhood IN TOWN in 15 minutes!

PhiGamm

I got 450 miles on one tank on my clk 500 driving I-95 at 70 mph. avg 28+ mpg over a 850 miles in a single day.

California

My trip was to 320 miles round trip and according to the averages on this last trip in the CLK, the CLK is getting better highway mileage than my 04 C230k coupe. With the exact same tires and wheels (17" staggered).

Griffin44

I understand your preference for tank range as an indicator of fuel consumption, but, you must take into account that one persons perception of a "tank" of fuel is not the same as someone elses. Yes, we all have 62l tanks but, how close to empty do you take it before filling? Someone filling with 10l left in the tank will have a dramatically different range than someone taking it down to 2l.

FWIW I'm getting an indicated average of 11-12 l/100km. I haven't tracked the actual consumption of a tank yet. And I realize I've provided no end of trouble for my American friends by using metric.

eddieo45

it's not just my preference but it is the title of the thread, and I didn't even start it! I'll be right back; I'm going over the "How old are we CLK owners?" thread to post that my birthday is December 9th......;-)

Yidney

Don't you say on the first page of this thread that the best way to keep track of miles per tank is to let your long-term trip computer run so you don't have to keep notes? But all your long-term trip computer gives is the mpg, not miles per tank. So you still have to do the math. But I still think that when you do that extra math step the data either becomes more subjective or else adds nothing extra. Mpg is mpg. It tells you what your car does over whatever mix of driving you do long-term. It's hard data so to speak. But people fill up at different tank levels out of habit. Some people fill up when they get to 1/4 tank, whereas I usally drive at least 2 days after the reserve fuel warning comes on. So if the quarter tank guy reports getting 250 miles between fill ups, and I report 300, what useful information have you learned from that? Nothing. And that would be true even if our commutes are identical. The less subjective way is to do as you suggest, to take your long-term mpg and multiply by 16.4. But that simply repackages mpg a different way, so I don't see how it's exponentially more useful as you suggest. It's identical.

eddieo45

I didn't say that; I said "MPG is important over a long range of miles" and pointed out that I was getting 19.6 mpg over 18,524 miles.

I think the question the OP was asking got me thinking more of "what's the most miles you've squeezed out of a tank?" or "what's the least miles you've got from a tank?" and admittedly it makes a difference when you refuel. I have seen single digits in the remaining miles screen, and I'd be sweating bullets all the way to the station, and still never had a fill-up hit 16 gallons (most are under 15, and the gauge always looks pretty empty. I'd say if people were quoting an mpg figure they got in their "since reset" screen with thousands of miles driven, that would be a useful figure...no need to multiply by 16.4; but "watching my mpg over the past few days. Averaged 29.4 mpg" tells nothing about what one would expect from a tankful (unless you're Mike Mka77; looking back at that first page reminded me of his impressive economy!)