Fuel economy just keeps getting better!!!
#1
Super Member
Thread Starter
![Exclamation](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/icons/icon4.gif)
This is a little drive I took this afternoon:
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
![](http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/BigBrocktoon/IMG00283.jpg)
Sorry about the pic, it's from my phone...
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).
![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
![](http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/BigBrocktoon/IMG00283.jpg)
Sorry about the pic, it's from my phone...
#2
Super Member
This is a little drive I took this afternoon:
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
![](http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/BigBrocktoon/IMG00283.jpg)
Sorry about the pic, it's from my phone...
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).
![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
![](http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/BigBrocktoon/IMG00283.jpg)
Sorry about the pic, it's from my phone...
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,244
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2004 RX330, 2008 Scion xB, 2001 Honda Insight Hybrid, 2010 Toyot Prius v ATP
This is a little drive I took this afternoon:
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).
![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
STP
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LA LA Land
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
'07 GL 450, '02 S 80 T6
Originally Posted by MomsBenz
I was pleased with our road trip I averaged 21.2 mpg in the 450 with the cargo carrier on top! Not too bad![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
#6
Super Member
#7
This is a little drive I took this afternoon:
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
![](http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/BigBrocktoon/IMG00283.jpg)
Sorry about the pic, it's from my phone...
This was a cross town drive on surface streets with stoplights, and a short, 3 exit burst on an expressway. Picture taken just before reaching my destination.
Stats: 23 km, 21 minutes, Average speed, 65 Km/h, fuel economy 9.1l/100km,
or 24.8mpg (us gal) 31mpg (imp gal).
![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
![](http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll264/BigBrocktoon/IMG00283.jpg)
Sorry about the pic, it's from my phone...
The new one I test drove a while back showed 12.2L/100 KM over a day's driving in the city. Your mileage is much better than that. Perhaps it is the KM`s on your vehicle. How many have you racked up since you got you GL
Trending Topics
#10
Super Member
Thread Starter
I have been watching this like a hawk, and I have noticed that going up hills or idling when the engine is still cold, and blasting the A/C seem to have the largest negative impacts on mpg. I know that day in and out i will get 20% better ecomomy when I go to my parent's house up a gentle incline, than to my sister-in-law's place that is at a lower elevation, but up two steep hills....
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
I have been watching this like a hawk, and I have noticed that going up hills or idling when the engine is still cold, and blasting the A/C seem to have the largest negative impacts on mpg. I know that day in and out i will get 20% better ecomomy when I go to my parent's house up a gentle incline, than to my sister-in-law's place that is at a lower elevation, but up two steep hills....
Got in a tailwind once in NE New Mexico and saw 29mpg on the dash while going 70. A few miles on, the wind had shifted a little more to the side and the number dropped to 23.
Pulled a trailer with motorcycle from NM to south TX and each fillup produced poorer mileage, I assume because as we lost altitude we were punching through "thicker" air. The engine electronics should adjust for the different air density but it can't change the amount of work the engine has to do.
#12
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 GL 320 CDI
I averaged 22-23mpg with a cargo carrier on top during a recent road trip, with flat, straight highway driving all the way.
#13
Super Member
Thread Starter
Not in the city, man.
Yeah, but you get a denser charge, and more power per unit from the motor...
Yeah, but you get a denser charge, and more power per unit from the motor...
#14
Super Member
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
#16
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spicewood, TX
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 GL 320, 2007 Silverado LTZ C3500 Duramax Turbo Diesel
Density Altitude is the key. As the moisture and/or temperature goes up, the air becomes lighter. You would think that moist air would weigh more than dry air but not so. Very humid and hot air has a very high "density altitude".
An NHRA race in Houston can have a density altitude as high as a race in Denver, if the conditions are right (cool and dry in Denver vs very hot and humid in Houston) even though there's a 5000 VF difference.
An NHRA race in Houston can have a density altitude as high as a race in Denver, if the conditions are right (cool and dry in Denver vs very hot and humid in Houston) even though there's a 5000 VF difference.
#17
Super Member
Thread Starter
Pressure is not density.
You are 100% correct, but we have an intercooler that should fix the temp issue after the charge heats up from the turbo. A few degrees of ambient is nothing compared to the cooling that takes place overall. That's the point I was making to Ikcris, the turbo makes the pressure, in our case variable with vanes, and not only related to exhaust pressure, but the intercooler creates the density. He's likely right, in that altitude did not help him, but thinking this through, it likely was not the culprit either. As I said earlier, I have noticed that a blasting thermatic/thermotronic has a huge impact on the CDI so that's what I would look at going from NM to Tex....
Your milage may vary.
Density Altitude is the key. As the moisture and/or temperature goes up, the air becomes lighter. You would think that moist air would weigh more than dry air but not so. Very humid and hot air has a very high "density altitude".
An NHRA race in Houston can have a density altitude as high as a race in Denver, if the conditions are right (cool and dry in Denver vs very hot and humid in Houston) even though there's a 5000 VF difference.
An NHRA race in Houston can have a density altitude as high as a race in Denver, if the conditions are right (cool and dry in Denver vs very hot and humid in Houston) even though there's a 5000 VF difference.
Your milage may vary.
Last edited by Brocktoon; 08-06-2008 at 10:04 AM.
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
The bottom line is that the fuel-air mixture is precisely controlled by the engine components and electronics and does not vary with altitude. The car burns more fuel at lower altitude because it is working harder and it takes more fuel to do more work.
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,244
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2004 RX330, 2008 Scion xB, 2001 Honda Insight Hybrid, 2010 Toyot Prius v ATP
I don't know if the same principles apply to the diesel engines but I do know that one name for turbocharging in aircraft is "turbo-normalizing" or "normalization," the purpose of which is to give the same power to the engine at higher density altitudes (whether due to temperature, atmospheric pressure and dew point or actually being at a higher altitude) as it would get at a lower altitude, usually benchmarked at sea level on a standard day. For instance, in a turbocharged Cessna 182 I flew, I was able to maintain the same power to the engine from ~1500 feet (Scottsdale airpark) to I think 12,000 feet. This did not mean, however, there was no detriment to performance - the prop's still pulling through the air and that (as Kent pointed out) was thinner at altitude. In fact, the amount of the effect is noticeable as low as 5000 feet, though not huge.
Just my two bits on the subject!
Just my two bits on the subject!
#20
Super Member
Thread Starter
I don't know if the same principles apply to the diesel engines but I do know that one name for turbocharging in aircraft is "turbo-normalizing" or "normalization," the purpose of which is to give the same power to the engine at higher density altitudes (whether due to temperature, atmospheric pressure and dew point or actually being at a higher altitude) as it would get at a lower altitude, usually benchmarked at sea level on a standard day. For instance, in a turbocharged Cessna 182 I flew, I was able to maintain the same power to the engine from ~1500 feet (Scottsdale airpark) to I think 12,000 feet. This did not mean, however, there was no detriment to performance - the prop's still pulling through the air and that (as Kent pointed out) was thinner at altitude. In fact, the amount of the effect is noticeable as low as 5000 feet, though not huge.
Just my two bits on the subject!
Just my two bits on the subject!
#22
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spicewood, TX
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 GL 320, 2007 Silverado LTZ C3500 Duramax Turbo Diesel
You make more power at sea level, unless the water grains and temperature offset it, giving it a Density Altitude say equivalent to Denver. This is an ongoing concern for NHRA dragsters. Pomona, CA usually has the lowest density altitude in the country and that's where most of the records are set. There are other races near sea level, Houston and Gainesville, FL, but they have much higher density altitudes due to high humidity.