I've started to look for a 4matic wagon, not sure if it will be a 350 or 500. Disappointed that they are only available w/5 Speed. Both the new R & ML come with the 7 Speed, any information on when this will be incorporated into the E class? Thanks

 

I wrestled with the same issue and eventually decided to get the E500 4matic rather than the new ML with 7-speed. I have the 7-speed in my SLK, and frankly I frequently prefer to drive in "C" mode which is effectively a 6-speed transmission.

The one thing that annoys me about the E500 4matic is the Gas Guzzler tax. The mileage rating on the window sticker is 16/20 for City/HWY. This week I averaged 25.2 mpg for a 240 mile trip with one fuel stop (tire pressure set to 32 on all four tires). My overall city/highway mpg is > 22 mpg. My SLK350 only gets 27 mpg on the highway. I really think that MB understated the highway mileage on the E500 4matic resulting in an unnecessary Gas Guzzler Tax assessment.

I would be interested in hearing about other member's mpg experience with the E500 4matic.

 

Also the case with CLS as it’s a 500 with new skin. I too wonder why MB didn’t make the mark to circumvent the gas guzzler tax especially since it requires only marginal improvement - 4matic or not.

 

i'm with you guys. I have a 2005 w/ 4000 miles on it. haven't had a tank average less than 19.8mpg and i do a 50/50 mix with most of my highwya driving at 70-90mph as this car is just so damn quiet and smooth!

aceman

 

i just got back on a trip. used a full tank and avg'd 21.0 mpg. car has 1k miles on it.

 

25.2 MPG in an E-500? Come on now. Get real.

Why would you have to add fuel for only a 240 mile trip?

 

25.2 was the reading on the trip computer. It would have been higher if I did not make a fuel stop. I have checked the trip computer on the past by manually calculating fuel comsumption and it has always been very close. I suppose mpg would have been lower at a higher average speed , but, I averaged a conservative 61 mph.

True, 240 miles is way under the range of the car. But, I did not start with a full tank. Besides the driver needed a dinner break just as much as the car needed fuel.

 

My dad knows a car mechanic here in town. His E500 apparently has 7 gears.

 

That explains it.
It is indeed possible to record some really high readings on a short
trip based on low speeds over a relatively short distance.
I once did this with a 6-speed LT-4 equipped 'Vette and its' computer was showing in access of 30 mpg.
Overall ratio in that car was something like 1.81 to one, and rpms at 60 mph are less than 1400.

I know you will find that all on-board computers do not reflect actual tank mileage accurately.
At least in my personal experience, I've never had one that got it perfectly right.

Best way is to drive any vehicle almost as far as it will go on a tank, and if possible, fill it up
again at that same pump first used and then figure your actual miles per gallons.
In all cases, that figure will be less than what your computer says.

If you really would like a fair and accurate reading, do this over
several tanks and then figure your average miles per gallon.

Do not rely on whatever the computer says, for it is not gosple.

 

4matic and the 7g will not be integrated until the next generation E-Class.

 

Took the same trip today. This time I made the 248 mile drive non-stop with cold tire pressure at 32/32 psi front/rear. The trip computer indicated 26.1 mpg with an average 62 mph. The calculated mileage based upon the 9.9 gallons of fuel used was 25.0 mpg. That's a discrepancy of less than 1/2 gallon of fuel. That's probably a reasonable margin of error for two fillups at different gas stations.

I think that trip computer can be relied upon to indicate an accurate mpg value. Also, the fuel gauge read exactly 1/2 full after the trip. That's not bad either considering I had close to 11 gallons remaining in a ~21 gallon tank.