EPA fuel mileage250 BlueTec E vs GLK 4Matics
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 366
Likes: 53
From: Bandon, Or.
2013 E550 Sedan
EPA fuel mileage250 BlueTec E vs GLK 4Matics
Looking at the EPA ratings for these 2 BlueTec models the E250 is 28 city, 32 combined, and 42 highway. The GLK250 is rated at 24 city, 28 combined, and 33 highway. Both these models are within 100 lbs of each other. The GLK has a higher drag coefficient 0.35 versus the E250s is 0.28. There seems to be a huge difference between these 2 models in mileage. Yet, on paper there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference other than drag coefficient between the 2 models.It just seems strange that the E250 gets about 20 to 30% better fuel mileage than the GLK according to the EPA. Just curious I guess. Anybody out there as to why this is?
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,516
Likes: 628
From: Charlotte NC area
2019 WS222 S450 4-Matic / 2007 W211 E350 4Matic (Sold) / 2008 X164 GL320 CDI
Wind resistance is the largest portion of energy use at higher speeds.
0.28 : 0.35 is a 25% improvement.
0.28 : 0.35 is a 25% improvement.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 52
From: McDade, Texas
W211 e320 CDI
At 9400 feet above MSL I average about 43-45 mpg while generating same peak boost of almost 2 Bar, at 600 feet MSL at same average speed I average 37-39 mpg at same peak boost pressure (turbochargers are awesome huh?) the only difference being air density or density altitude depending on your background. Just like a higher cd(coefficient of drag compared to frontal area) a higher air density makes for lower mpg numbers. If you ever get you pilots license it will be explained ad nauseum, but suffice it to say, the drag is bad and reduces fuel economy, period. Nothing shaped like a brick, only less aerodynamic (looks are very deceiving to the human eye), will ever get truly amazing fuel economy at the same given speed as a sleeker design. Ever wonder why airplanes are shaped the way they are and have been for roughly half a century?
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 203
Likes: 2
E89 Z4
Looking at the EPA ratings for these 2 BlueTec models the E250 is 28 city, 32 combined, and 42 highway. The GLK250 is rated at 24 city, 28 combined, and 33 highway. Both these models are within 100 lbs of each other. The GLK has a higher drag coefficient 0.35 versus the E250s is 0.28. There seems to be a huge difference between these 2 models in mileage. Yet, on paper there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference other than drag coefficient between the 2 models.It just seems strange that the E250 gets about 20 to 30% better fuel mileage than the GLK according to the EPA. Just curious I guess. Anybody out there as to why this is?
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 52
From: McDade, Texas
W211 e320 CDI
You can only compensate so much. I'm deeply involved in the R&D side of the motorcycle business. A Harley Bagger with common height windscreen takes about 21-23 bhp to push through the air at 70mph real speed. A ninja 250cc takes about 15-16 bhp at the same speed. The HD motor may only be spinning 2,500rpm at this speed while the little 250cc twin is screaming along at say 9-10k rpm. Even though the little 250cc motor is at an obvious 4x rpm disadvantage is tends to go about its job using less fuel, this is only due to aero drag. The smaller, slimmer 250cc bike has to move less air to go the same speed.
Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love a numerically lower final drive ratio. I could highway just fine at 1600-1800rpm instead of 1900-2300rpm now. We have generous speed limits where I live and pleasure drive.
Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love a numerically lower final drive ratio. I could highway just fine at 1600-1800rpm instead of 1900-2300rpm now. We have generous speed limits where I live and pleasure drive.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 20
From: Central Pennsylvania
2012 S350 Bluetec 4Matic, Diamond White, P2
I would think the fact that the ninja only has a 250 cc engine Vs. the Harley's 1700 cc engine would be a larger influence on mpg. Size does matter when it comes to displacement.
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 422
Likes: 52
From: McDade, Texas
W211 e320 CDI
Quite true, no argument there and the reason I would like to find a lower numerical ratio final drive for my somewhat customized W211 CDI. Oh if only there were an option for a six speed manual swap, AND taller final drive...
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 49
Likes: 1
From: Long Island, New York
2014 Glk250 BlueTec
I drove my Glk250 this past weekend for 90 miles on the highway and achieved 41.8 mpg at 59 mph. I think the epa underrates the actual mpg on the GLK Bluetec. The truck is truly amazing.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,516
Likes: 628
From: Charlotte NC area
2019 WS222 S450 4-Matic / 2007 W211 E350 4Matic (Sold) / 2008 X164 GL320 CDI
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,516
Likes: 628
From: Charlotte NC area
2019 WS222 S450 4-Matic / 2007 W211 E350 4Matic (Sold) / 2008 X164 GL320 CDI
Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 105
Likes: 6
ML 320 CDI
Here are the drive ratios of the GLK250/220 BT. And here are the gear ratios for the E250.
The final drive ratios are different between both vehicles. 2.23 (e-class) vs 3.46 (glk). As I mentioned earlier, engineers need to compensate for added aerodynamic drag that is one of the reasons why the GLK has a different final drive ratio. Another reason is the potential for towing.
The final drive ratios are different between both vehicles. 2.23 (e-class) vs 3.46 (glk). As I mentioned earlier, engineers need to compensate for added aerodynamic drag that is one of the reasons why the GLK has a different final drive ratio. Another reason is the potential for towing.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
Looking at the EPA ratings for these 2 BlueTec models the E250 is 28 city, 32 combined, and 42 highway. The GLK250 is rated at 24 city, 28 combined, and 33 highway. Both these models are within 100 lbs of each other. The GLK has a higher drag coefficient 0.35 versus the E250s is 0.28. There seems to be a huge difference between these 2 models in mileage. Yet, on paper there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference other than drag coefficient between the 2 models.It just seems strange that the E250 gets about 20 to 30% better fuel mileage than the GLK according to the EPA. Just curious I guess. Anybody out there as to why this is?
Another thing to not forget is the set of wheels and tires on each vehicle, this makes a huge difference as wheel.
I would pick the GLK over the E250
Last edited by C63newdude; Aug 23, 2014 at 01:58 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 4
From: Tucson, AZ
C63 AMG
It is also fast off the line..
