|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
I realize that it may be too early for a valid comparison, but thusfar, in similar traffic and with an identical driving style, my SL 500 and SLK 350 are both getting identical gas mileage--19 mpg. Maybe it is lower rear end gearing on the SLK. There is a 740-pound difference in their curb weights, so I don't know what else would account for this result. Obviously, we are all more concerned with fuel economy these days, but my rationale is that you can only drive one car at a time, and if you drive the same overall number of miles, it won't make a whole lot of difference in the long run. As an example of modern fuel economy numbers vs. those of the seventies: my two Dinos, with 2.4-liter V6's, only get around 16 mpg. in mixed, mostly suburban or expressway driving. In 1976, I could fill the tank with Super Shell (98 octane) or Sunoco 260 for under $10.00!!!  Dinoman |
|
| |
|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
I suppose I should have added that the internal gear ratios of the 7-speed automatic might be different. I haven't checked on what they are. Dinoman |
|
| |
|
bradmg
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
So far on my 55 I have 4000 miles and am averaging 18.2 mpg. This is about half autobahn miles with much of that well over 100mph and about half on back country roads, usually about 60-70 mph, with very little "city" driving. I don't push it hard very often but I certainly don't drive easy or so I'm told.
Brad |
|
| |
|
taroliw
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Well, one must ask the obvious question -- top up or down? In a similar mileage thread on BW, I posted getting a bit over 21MPG in my 350 over 11.5K miles with most of that being top down. A recent 1200-mile roundtrip to Las Vegas yielded 26.5MPG being mostly top-up, highway miles... but few of them under the speed limit. I have read reports from others (Zut comes to mind) of closer to 28-29... but detailed conditions (top, speeds, driving style) weren't mentioned.
Edited by taroliw 5/15/2006 11:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Taroliw, Mostly around town, top and windows up. Dinoman |
|
| |
|
Ripple
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
On a motorway run with little traffic 80-90mph I get 27-29mpg from my SLK55. In heavy traffic its around 18-20mpg. As its the uk, mostly top up 
I did a steady 120 mile journey on clearish motorways with the top down and it managed 27mpg. I think it only makes a significant difference at speed because of the increased drag. You gotta remember that drag square wiith speed, so my guess would be that just pottering around the doors with the roof down will make little difference to the MPG. More likely aircon on/off status would use more fuel.
In my 350 when I had that I struggled to get 30mpg on a run (normally around 27-28) so I would concur with your findings that bigger does not always equal thirstier.  |
|
| |
|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Ripple, We must have somewhat similar weather. I am two miles south of the southern shore of Lake Ontario. The weather has been sunny but cool, not quite conducive to top-down motoring just yet. Anyway, my SL now seems like an economy car, in view of the mileage readings that I've been getting. Here's to a warm summer, with lots of top-down driving, with or without the A/C! Dinoman |
|
| |
|
Zut
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Dinoman - 5/15/2006 10:07 AM
I realize that it may be too early for a valid comparison, but thusfar, in similar traffic and with an identical driving style, my SL 500 and SLK 350 are both getting identical gas mileage--19 mpg. Dinoman
If you want some encouraging data, go see this thread:
http://www.pointedthree.com/disc/forums/showthread.php?tid=643&post...
As I said before, I believe the way you drive your car can make a huge difference in fuel-consumption. I must be a very conservative driver!
So far, I did not see a significant increase in fuel-consumption when driving with the top down. I am going on another 1000km trip two weeks from now. If the weather allows it, I'll drive topless going there and back. |
|
| |
|
mbslk350
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Some observations from 1 1/2 years of 2005 SLK350 driving:
I've gotten a consistent 27-28 mpg on the highway at speeds no higher than 70. (Still on court supervision for my 74 in a 55 ticket!) On a recent trip, with top up both ways, I got 27 going into a 10-15 mph wind with the A/C off, and 28 with a light wind at my back and the A/C on. EPA estimates are only 25 on the highway. I've never before seen a car do BETTER than the highway estimate.
I've found that cold temps take about 10% off the summer mileage. A lead foot also takes about 10% away. The C and S settings on the 7G transmission seem to have no effect, other than I drive it harder in S. (See note above about lead foot!)
City mileage has been pretty consistant at 19-20 with stop and go traffic. Gridlock takes it down to about 15-16, which is not surprising since I'm spending a lot of time going nowhere.
Mileage seems to gradually improve until you hit around 6K to 7K on the odometer. By then, the engine's pretty well broken in and the mileage has topped out.
I always put Premium gas in the tank, and always from a reputable brand like BP, Shell, Exxon/Mobil, etc. Some have reported using the regular unleaded, and the engine adjusts for the lower octane, but your gas mileage also suffers. It seems like a pointless tradeoff. The long-term effects on the engine are also unknown (to me anyway). If you can afford a $55K car, you can afford the extra 20 cents per gallon to use Premium.
|
|
| |
|
etyu
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
mbslk350 - 5/16/2006 10:09 AM
I always put Premium gas in the tank, and always from a reputable brand like BP, Shell, Exxon/Mobil, etc. Some have reported using the regular unleaded, and the engine adjusts for the lower octane, but your gas mileage also suffers. It seems like a pointless tradeoff. The long-term effects on the engine are also unknown (to me anyway). If you can afford a $55K car, you can afford the extra 20 cents per gallon to use Premium.
The service advisor at my local MB dealer recommends Chevron premium gasoline as it has better detergents for the fuel injectors. I am getting about 23+ mpg on combined driving. |
|
| |
|
Ripple
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Remember guys that I'm in the UK and for once something is bigger than in the US, namely we have the imperial gallon which is around 10% more than the US Gallon. (shame its 200% more in price) |
|
| |
|
etyu
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Ripple - 5/16/2006 2:09 PM
Remember guys that I'm in the UK and for once something is bigger than in the US, namely we have the imperial gallon which is around 10% more than the US Gallon. (shame its 200% more in price)
Don't worry, we're catching up (as far as the price of petrol that is). |
|
| |
|
alroumi
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Dinoman, Which is Faster the SLK350 or SL500; Since you have both can you explain this to me?
Ive heard the SLK350 is faster from Zero |
|
| |
|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Alroumi, I have not timed them and, since the SLK is not yet properly broken in, I don't want to "give it its head" quite yet. I will say that, although the SL has the same engine as the CLK 500, but is I'm sure a heavier car, when pushed, it accelerates quite briskly. Its no SLK 55, though, I'm sure! It's more of a cruising car (although the new SL 550 must be a screamer!). Although equipped with Active Body Control, and 18" wheels, vs. the 17"ers on the SLK, the SLK seems to like fast bends better than the SL. Dinoman |
|
| |
|
alroumi
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Dinoman - 5/26/2006 5:51 PM
Alroumi, I have not timed them and, since the SLK is not yet properly broken in, I don't want to "give it its head" quite yet. I will say that, although the SL has the same engine as the CLK 500, but is I'm sure a heavier car, when pushed, it accelerates quite briskly. Its no SLK 55, though, I'm sure! It's more of a cruising car (although the new SL 550 must be a screamer! ). Although equipped with Active Body Control, and 18" wheels, vs. the 17"ers on the SLK, the SLK seems to like fast bends better than the SL. Dinoman
Thanks you for the information, Thats just what I wanted to know ! |
|
| |
|
alroumi
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Today my lowest was 12.3/100 litres I think which was good, I think it is 100 octane |
|
| |
|
GG AD 600
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Hi !
alroumi - 5/27/2006 12:44 PM
Today my lowest was 12.3/100 litres I think which was good, I think it is 100 octane
That´s quite good for a AMG 55 ! My average( SLK 350) is about 11,7l (30.000km). A lot of fast autobahn driving and urban driving included...
Andy |
|
| |
|
Zut
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
This week, I went on a 1000km/621miles trip (half motorway, half country roads) and my average speed was 110kmh/68mph (with occasional peaks at 140kmh/87mph). It was hard to go faster because these are very hilly and curvy roads with moose-crossing warning signs everywhere. Also, the motorway part was slower than normal due to repairs and heavy traffic. In spite of everything, my average fuel consumption was 7,4litres/100km or 38mpgUK/32mpgUS. Not too shabby! The 350 is an amazing machine. It is powerful yet reasonably economical. I am looking forward to a long summer of driving at the wheel of this little wonder!
Edited by Zut 5/27/2006 8:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Silver_Lana
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Surprisingly, with conservative driving i usually average about 20mpg. |
|
| |
|
alroumi
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Gas Mileage--SL 500 vs. SLK 350
Zut - 5/27/2006 3:51 PM
This week, I went on a 1000km/621miles trip (half motorway, half country roads) and my average speed was 110kmh/68mph (with occasional peaks at 140kmh/87mph). It was hard to go faster because these are very hilly and curvy roads with moose-crossing warning signs everywhere. Also, the motorway part was slower than normal due to repairs and heavy traffic. In spite of everything, my average fuel consumption was 7,4litres/100km or 38mpgUK/32mpgUS. Not too shabby! The 350 is an amazing machine. It is powerful yet reasonably economical. I am looking forward to a long summer of driving at the wheel of this little wonder! :)
Well Zut thats Impressive, Also this week Shinigami got 9.4 on his SLK55 |
|
| |
