smackjack

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).

masmole

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.

AMGJared

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.

EX-BEEMER

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.

smackjack

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.

BoBcanada

dont forget its AWD too and that eats up petroll too. They should've done that you can turn off Front wheel drive on request or when you dont really need it.

masmole

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.

DASTIER

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.

smackjack

I guess you can imagine it now, cause I'm the guy.

smackjack

You've got w-a-a-a-y too much time on your hands, dude, if you don't have anything better to do than this.

Eye_Candy

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!

Tree

Not at all, dude. I don't even own a Mercedes (though I do have a Chrysler), but I enjoy going on bmwusa.com and mbusa.com. I could tell you the displacement and horsepower of every Mercedes and BMW car in the past several years, not because I'm some "uncool ursula" or something, but just because I enjoy looking at the pictures and reading the stats. I very seriously doubt that you do anything much more productive in your free time than I do mine.

masmole

On the contrary! That reply took me all of 5 minutes to compose based on info I already have in my head, while I was brushing my teeth before going to work this morning

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.

smackjack

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 . . .

spyderman

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.

smackjack

Nuff said.

smackjack

Right.

smackjack

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.

david_101

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.

mosesgolf

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?

Tree

For reference, I have the inline 6 4.0L engine and I get 17 mpg with a very conservative driving style and almost all of my driving in the city. If I find that I need to go somewhere quickly, it drops to 15 or so without hesitation. I don't know how heavy your foot is, but I would expect less than 15 MPG from the Hemi. I don't really know much about the Hemi.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't have anything to say.

kip

I have to agree a heavy car, with a huge amount of power, with bad gas mileage shouldnt be a surprise....

smackjack

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.

Whoopsy

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.

EX-BEEMER

Whoopsy... just to let you know... you own my dream stable... enjoy!