Gas Mileage - YIKES!
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
Gas Mileage - YIKES!
Have had my ML63 for nearly two weeks now, and, even with gentle break-in driving, the gas mileage is horrendous. I'm averaging only about 11.3 MPG in mixed (70% city - 30% highway) driving. This is my fourth ML, and my third V-8, so I was prepared for some "pump-shock," but I hope this is not what I have to look forward to.
FWIW, I have a C55, and I get dependable 18/24 numbers with it, so long as I don't bury my foot in it. (What a great car).
FWIW, I have a C55, and I get dependable 18/24 numbers with it, so long as I don't bury my foot in it. (What a great car).
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
audi mb bmw
Have had my ML63 for nearly two weeks now, and, even with gentle break-in driving, the gas mileage is horrendous. I'm averaging only about 11.3 MPG in mixed (70% city - 30% highway) driving. This is my fourth ML, and my third V-8, so I was prepared for some "pump-shock," but I hope this is not what I have to look forward to.
FWIW, I have a C55, and I get dependable 18/24 numbers with it, so long as I don't bury my foot in it. (What a great car).
FWIW, I have a C55, and I get dependable 18/24 numbers with it, so long as I don't bury my foot in it. (What a great car).
It's a 5100 lb car with over 500 horsepower and a huge high-revving 6.2L motor... what on earth did you expect?
11.3 mpg is actually pretty decent for 70% city. I only do about 50% city in my M5 and I'm lucky if I'm even in double digits in MPG's. The average says 10.6 on it only because I've taken it on several long road trips with mostly highway so that helped boost the figure a bit. So for the ML63 to get 11.3 on 70% city driving is pretty damn good considering my M5 with a smaller 5.0L motor (though with 2 more cylinders) and 1000 lbs less curb weight to carry can only hope for such mileage. It is only an issue on my M5 because the fuel tank is too small at only 17 gallons which barely gets me 200 miles on roadtrips without stopping for fuel... but with ML63's large fuel tank, range obviously isn't the problem. Now if you're really upset about the MPG's from a fuel cost per year perspective, then you my friend need to go straight to the Toyota dealer and trade one of your AMG's for a Prius or Highlander hybrid.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
09 335i 03 CLK55 AMG
Have had my ML63 for nearly two weeks now, and, even with gentle break-in driving, the gas mileage is horrendous. I'm averaging only about 11.3 MPG in mixed (70% city - 30% highway) driving. This is my fourth ML, and my third V-8, so I was prepared for some "pump-shock," but I hope this is not what I have to look forward to.
FWIW, I have a C55, and I get dependable 18/24 numbers with it, so long as I don't bury my foot in it. (What a great car).
FWIW, I have a C55, and I get dependable 18/24 numbers with it, so long as I don't bury my foot in it. (What a great car).
It's probably just because it's the break in period. Most cars get better with gas mileage eventually...and city driving is surely a killer to mileage numbers. Of course you realize your engine and the weight of the car makes the biggest impact, but also how you drive is huge. (I'm a nut about gas mileage, average roughly 25-30mpg on my C43) Its mostly how you drive though...hard to accelerate slowly in such a beast though hehe. I'm sure numbers will improve eventually. Good luck.
Super Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
From: Midwest
'08 SL550 Sport, '11 BMW 550ix M sport
On average I'm getting about 12.5. I wouldn't expect much better. And of course it not the house wine... it's the pricey vintage...
But I knew that coming in.
But I knew that coming in.
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
Actually, yes, I am. I've had three other prior ML's, as well as two Land Rover Discoverys, two Land Rover Defenders and a Range Rover, all of which were big and heavy (actually heavier), and (except for my first ML) all of which had V-8 engines. I have never seen gas mileage like what I'm seeing with the ML63, even with the Defenders, which were some of the least fuel efficient trucks ever built. I traded a 2005 ML 500 on the ML63, and the 500 was (1) heavier, (2) less efficient engine-wise, and (3) also had a big V-8. Guess what? In two years of driving it, I got consistent 15-16 MPG in city driving, 18-20 on the highway, and 16-18 mixed. So, yeah, I guess I am complaining.
Last edited by smackjack; Apr 11, 2007 at 09:52 AM.
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
audi mb bmw
Actually, yes, I am. I've had three other prior ML's, as well as two Land Rover Discoverys, two Land Rover Defenders and a Range Rover, all of which were big and heavy (actually heavier), and (except for my first ML) all of which had V-8 engines. I have never seen gas mileage like what I'm seeing with the ML63, even with the Defenders, which were some of the least fuel efficient trucks ever built. I traded a 2005 ML 500 on the ML63, and the 500 was (1) heavier, (2) less efficient engine-wise, and (3) also had a big V-8. Guess what? In two years of driving it, I got consistent 15-16 MPG in city driving, 18-20 on the highway, and 16-18 mixed. So, yeah, I guess I am complaining.
The 2005 ML500 was not heavier than the ML63. Its listed curb weight was 4750 lbs, over 350 lbs lighter than the ML63! Also, the ML500 did not have a less efficient engine. It had a smaller 5 liter engine with single over head cams and only 3 valves per cylinder making 300 hp. The ML63 has an extra 1.2 liters in displacement and 4 valves per cylinder with much larger fuel injectors and higher compression ratio with a greater rev range and makes over 500 horsepower. How can you say the ML500 is less efficient engine-wise when everything about the ML63's engine design clearly strayed away from fuel efficiency in order to make more power. Since when does smaller fuel injectors and a lower rev range with less valves per cylinder (ML500) make a less efficient engine than an engine that has huge injectors, more valves and a redline of 7000 rpms (ML63)? ML500 might have had a big V8 but the ML63's V8 certainly dwarfs it.
Last edited by masmole; Apr 11, 2007 at 11:05 AM.
Trending Topics
Newbie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania
2007 ML63 AMG
I can not imagine anyone buying an ML63 and then complaining about the gas mileage. I had an 02 Land Rover Disco II with the 4.0 litre motor and could never get over 16.5 mpg during extended highway driving. I have had my 07 ML63 for 3 months now and can achieve about the same mpg as the Rover during extended highway driving. Since new my ML63 has averaged 13.9 mpg. I do not think this is bad at all for a high performance motor like the 63. However, depending on your driving habits, your mileage may vary.
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
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
The Discovery's had 4.0L V8's making a paltry 190hp. That's 2.2 liters smaller in displacement than the ML63's, the equivalent of an older Honda accord engine's displacement, and the older Discovery (not the LR3) itself weighed no more than 4600 lbs, which is a good 500 lbs lighter than the ML63. The Defenders were even lighter at 4100 lbs and had an even smaller 3.9L motor making 180hp. The ML63 has 500hp and weighs 5100 lbs.
The 2005 ML500 was not heavier than the ML63. Its listed curb weight was 4750 lbs, over 350 lbs lighter than the ML63! Also, the ML500 did not have a less efficient engine. It had a smaller 5 liter engine with single over head cams and only 3 valves per cylinder making 300 hp. The ML63 has an extra 1.2 liters in displacement and 4 valves per cylinder with much larger fuel injectors and higher compression ratio with a greater rev range and makes over 500 horsepower. How can you say the ML500 is less efficient engine-wise when everything about the ML63's engine design clearly strayed away from fuel efficiency in order to make more power. Since when does smaller fuel injectors and a lower rev range with less valves per cylinder (ML500) make a less efficient engine than an engine that has huge injectors, more valves and a redline of 7000 rpms (ML63)? ML500 might have had a big V8 but the ML63's V8 certainly dwarfs it.
The 2005 ML500 was not heavier than the ML63. Its listed curb weight was 4750 lbs, over 350 lbs lighter than the ML63! Also, the ML500 did not have a less efficient engine. It had a smaller 5 liter engine with single over head cams and only 3 valves per cylinder making 300 hp. The ML63 has an extra 1.2 liters in displacement and 4 valves per cylinder with much larger fuel injectors and higher compression ratio with a greater rev range and makes over 500 horsepower. How can you say the ML500 is less efficient engine-wise when everything about the ML63's engine design clearly strayed away from fuel efficiency in order to make more power. Since when does smaller fuel injectors and a lower rev range with less valves per cylinder (ML500) make a less efficient engine than an engine that has huge injectors, more valves and a redline of 7000 rpms (ML63)? ML500 might have had a big V8 but the ML63's V8 certainly dwarfs it.
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Smackjack - I don't understand you. You buy expensive toys without doing your homework and then argue with those who are better informed. It appears that Masmole spends the right amount of time to make intelligent purchase decisions. You are the one who doesn't spend enough time on research and now are wasting everyone's time with your whining.
Smack that jack!
Smack that jack!
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Nothing right now- am in college.
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
audi mb bmw
I'm simply contributing to this forum and to help, when I can, those who are less informed than I am... and apparently now also those with enough money to buy such nice cars yet without enough brains to do their homework first in order to make rational decisions on car purchases, only to eventually whine about it incessantly on a public forum. Have some common sense dude! 5100 lbs + AWD + 500 hp is never going to get anything decent as far as MPG no matter what kind of engineering magic you pull out of your sleeve, from any car manufacturer using a patrol engine. 11.3 mpg at 70% city is actually pretty decent.
Now someone call the whaaaaambulance stat!!! smackjack is in critical condition.
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
Smackjack - I don't understand you. You buy expensive toys without doing your homework and then argue with those who are better informed. It appears that Masmole spends the right amount of time to make intelligent purchase decisions. You are the one who doesn't spend enough time on research and now are wasting everyone's time with your whining.
Smack that jack!
Smack that jack!
You know nothing whatsoever about me, or masmole, for that matter, candyman. If you've got something substantive to add to the discussion, please do.
Otherwise . . .
Last edited by smackjack; Apr 11, 2007 at 05:04 PM.
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 70
Likes: 3
2020 GT 63s, 2020 G63, 2018 GTR, 2020 Ferrari Pista Spider, Ferrari 2018 812 SF, Ferrari 2019 Lusso
Smackjack - I don't understand you. You buy expensive toys without doing your homework and then argue with those who are better informed. It appears that Masmole spends the right amount of time to make intelligent purchase decisions. You are the one who doesn't spend enough time on research and now are wasting everyone's time with your whining.
Smack that jack!
Smack that jack!
I also have a ML 63 and the mileage I am getting from it is not too different from my Jeep GC with a 5.7 Hemi. To be honest I was more disappointed with my Jeep GC for I am only getting an average of 11.5 MPG in my real world driving and 12 MPG for my ML 63.
I thought I would be getting at least 15 MPG with the Jeep.
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
OK, this thread has run its course. Here's the summary:
(1) I am disappointed in my ML63 gas mileage.
(2) Some folks think I'm an idiot for being disappointed in my gas mileage.
Guess that pretty much sums it up. I'm out.
(1) I am disappointed in my ML63 gas mileage.
(2) Some folks think I'm an idiot for being disappointed in my gas mileage.
Guess that pretty much sums it up. I'm out.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
2005 SL65
smackjack...
i'm disappointed by the fuel numbers my SL65 delivers AND i knew they'd tend to be abominable before getting the car. so, i don't understand the fuss about your comments.
i don't think you're an idiot. in fact, i wouldn't write anything remotely unflattering about you.
however, i would say that people in the mbworld forums tend to spend a fair amount of time in them because -- generally -- they're passionate about their cars and want to learn opinions from others who have them.
my GF and others complain that i fritter an inordinate amount of time on the boards. my response, basically, is "too bad." not only do i get to clear my mind of the daily muck that junks it up, plenty of useful info has permitted me to clear up my car of the myriad issues that muck it up. there still are a few to go, but at least i know what they are and pretty much how to resolve them.
anyway, a good way around the incremental fuel cost for your ML63 could be oil index options. just my $.02.
i don't think you're an idiot. in fact, i wouldn't write anything remotely unflattering about you.
however, i would say that people in the mbworld forums tend to spend a fair amount of time in them because -- generally -- they're passionate about their cars and want to learn opinions from others who have them.
my GF and others complain that i fritter an inordinate amount of time on the boards. my response, basically, is "too bad." not only do i get to clear my mind of the daily muck that junks it up, plenty of useful info has permitted me to clear up my car of the myriad issues that muck it up. there still are a few to go, but at least i know what they are and pretty much how to resolve them.
anyway, a good way around the incremental fuel cost for your ML63 could be oil index options. just my $.02.
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Interlagos Blue 06 M5
A friend of mine has a Cayenne Turbo who does mostly city driving. He has about 15,000 miles on it. He's averaged 8-9 mpg albeit he does have a heavy right foot. So you're not doing too bad from that perspective. Honestly though, is a couple of more mph going to affect your lifestyle? C'mon man. You have one of the hottest suv's on the planet and your beyotching over a couple mpgs w/ mostly city driving? You weren't expecting 14-15 were you?
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Nothing right now- am in college.
I agree. When someone takes the time to enlighten this form and backs them up with facts, I would thank them for taking the time out of their day and not critisize them.
I also have a ML 63 and the mileage I am getting from it is not too different from my Jeep GC with a 5.7 Hemi. To be honest I was more disappointed with my Jeep GC for I am only getting an average of 11.5 MPG in my real world driving and 12 MPG for my ML 63. I thought I would be getting at least 15 MPG with the Jeep.
I also have a ML 63 and the mileage I am getting from it is not too different from my Jeep GC with a 5.7 Hemi. To be honest I was more disappointed with my Jeep GC for I am only getting an average of 11.5 MPG in my real world driving and 12 MPG for my ML 63.
I thought I would be getting at least 15 MPG with the Jeep.I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't have anything to say.
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
E55
You can't be serious with this complaint. Are you?
It's a 5100 lb car with over 500 horsepower and a huge high-revving 6.2L motor... what on earth did you expect?
11.3 mpg is actually pretty decent for 70% city. I only do about 50% city in my M5 and I'm lucky if I'm even in double digits in MPG's. The average says 10.6 on it only because I've taken it on several long road trips with mostly highway so that helped boost the figure a bit. So for the ML63 to get 11.3 on 70% city driving is pretty damn good considering my M5 with a smaller 5.0L motor (though with 2 more cylinders) and 1000 lbs less curb weight to carry can only hope for such mileage. It is only an issue on my M5 because the fuel tank is too small at only 17 gallons which barely gets me 200 miles on roadtrips without stopping for fuel... but with ML63's large fuel tank, range obviously isn't the problem. Now if you're really upset about the MPG's from a fuel cost per year perspective, then you my friend need to go straight to the Toyota dealer and trade one of your AMG's for a Prius or Highlander hybrid.
It's a 5100 lb car with over 500 horsepower and a huge high-revving 6.2L motor... what on earth did you expect?
11.3 mpg is actually pretty decent for 70% city. I only do about 50% city in my M5 and I'm lucky if I'm even in double digits in MPG's. The average says 10.6 on it only because I've taken it on several long road trips with mostly highway so that helped boost the figure a bit. So for the ML63 to get 11.3 on 70% city driving is pretty damn good considering my M5 with a smaller 5.0L motor (though with 2 more cylinders) and 1000 lbs less curb weight to carry can only hope for such mileage. It is only an issue on my M5 because the fuel tank is too small at only 17 gallons which barely gets me 200 miles on roadtrips without stopping for fuel... but with ML63's large fuel tank, range obviously isn't the problem. Now if you're really upset about the MPG's from a fuel cost per year perspective, then you my friend need to go straight to the Toyota dealer and trade one of your AMG's for a Prius or Highlander hybrid.
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
'06 C55 AMG; '07 ML63 AMG
Look, fellas, this whole thread has been beaten to death. If you read my original post again, you will see that I simply expressed disappointment that my gas mileage has been only 11.3 mpg so far. Nothing more. I didn't say I expected the car to get great mileage, and I didn't say I was discouraged with the car and was ready to have it scrapped or anything like that. I merely hoped to hear someone say that I could expect my mileage to improve with break-in or that there are some tips to improve the mileage or something along those lines. Instead, what I got was mostly a lot of personal attacks and name-calling - on an automotive chat board, no less. The board seems more like a college sports flame board than a serious automotive discussion forum. What a hoot!
To those who've offered meaningful feedback, thanks. To those who were put off by my original question or anything else I posted, sorry.
To those who've offered meaningful feedback, thanks. To those who were put off by my original question or anything else I posted, sorry.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 259
Likes: 2
From: Vancouver
06 CLS55, 07 997TT, 07 ML63, 10 X6M, 11 Alpina B7, 12 997TTS, 13 G63, 13 MP4-12C
I had a LR3 for 2 1/2 years and over the life time of the trunk I averaged 24l/100km, in 4 1/2 months I averaged 19l/100km in the ML63, to some that's a awful gas milage but I am quite delighted by it compared with the LR3. I actually think it's quite acceptable for such a big car and performance wise. I do about 18l/100km in my CLS55 and 16l/100km in my 997 Turbo.
Super Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
From: Midwest
'08 SL550 Sport, '11 BMW 550ix M sport
I had a LR3 for 2 1/2 years and over the life time of the trunk I averaged 24l/100km, in 4 1/2 months I averaged 19l/100km in the ML63, to some that's a awful gas milage but I am quite delighted by it compared with the LR3. I actually think it's quite acceptable for such a big car and performance wise. I do about 18l/100km in my CLS55 and 16l/100km in my 997 Turbo.
