Last tank (using Chevron 94 Octane just for the halibut) gave 7.01 L/100 km in real figures, versus 6.5 on the OBC. So the experiment with the 94 was a success, meaning that I now know it makes no difference to FE and will save the three cents per L!
Overall FE on the car is at 7.385 L/100 km and dropping. I expect to be showing a rounded 7.3 L/100 on my FE icon in the signature shortly (maybe in a few more tanks, perhaps by the start of November).
My car's CO2 output is 172 g/km on average.
One of these days I will do an actual calculation of the degree to which the OBC is optimistic. It seems to be between 0.4 and 0.5 L/100 km but I should do a tally to verify that.
Last tank: 6.34 L/100 km. On Board Computer told me it was 6.0, but I think the indicator was _about_ to go to 5.9.
I used most of it on a drive from our home to the National Park Reserve at Pacific Rim (Tofino/Long Beach) and back. This Park is stunningly beautiful, especially when you get the good weather like today! The rest was used driving my daughter back to UVIC. Actually the car said we could have gone another 332 km, but I decided to top up at 642 km. One of these days I must try for a 1000 km tank. Saskatchewan would be good for that, perhaps better than BC with its mountains!
Hey, I just realised: even at the lower-end (0.4 L/100 km as opposed to 0.5) rate of On Board Computer optimism, that means my car's lifetime OBC fuel consumption would be just under 7 L/100 km for sure!
The actual lifetime fuel consumption is 7.36 L/100 km, and I expect to get that under 7.3 eventually - maybe even to or below 7.2.
That is why I am disappointed that Mercedes did not introduce direct injection or the 2 liter diesel in the B Class this year.
To get the fuel economy I want, (about 50 MPG) with the performance I want,
( 0 - 100 in about 8 sec) I will be forced to opt for either the VW 2 L diesel Golf / Rabbit or the Honda/ Acura 2.2 L diesel next year.
MB Canada please switch to receive. before you send.
The diesel would be a nice alternative, but the B 200 CDI will not give you 0-100 in 8 seconds; it's more like 9.6! Whether 5.5 L/100 km as an average is attainable in the B 200 CDI or VW TDI is questionable too.
Actual real world figures for the B 200 CDI on spritmonitor are good but not great: 7.02 L/100 km: Overview: Mercedes-Benz - B 200 CDI. The best B 200 CDI is averaging 6.07 L/100 km.
The B 180 CDI does a little better: 6.42 L/100 km: Overview: Mercedes-Benz - B 180 CDI. The best B 180 CDI is at 5.2 L/100 km, but this car is a fair bit slower than a naturally aspirated B 200.
The B 200 with the gas engine like I have is averaging 8.7 L/100 km: Overview: Mercedes-Benz - B 200. The best one is at 7.17 L/100 km and I am not too far behind at 7.36, in second place
As for the VW, well a Golf would probably be a tad better for fuel consumption than a B 200 CDI; the Golf with 103 kW is averaging 6.53 L/100 km: Overview: VW Golf D 140 HP. The best one is at 5.45 L/100 km, so if you hypermiled one of these small hatchbacks you might get 50 MPG (imperial) or 42 US.
I believe MB could have done more to improve fuel consumption and I find the update for 2009 is cosmetic rather than substantive. Variable valve timing (CVVTi ) direct fuel injection and a nice diesel option are only a few possibilities MB has rejected. MB missed an opportunity here to make a really good car into a great car.
My personal targets of 8 seconds and 5 liters may not be fully realized for a year or two but we will get there.
Honda, with a 52 MPG Diesel Accord, seem to have out-engineered MB: 2009 Honda Accord diesel to hit 52 mpg! - AutoblogGreen
before you send.
Linear Mode
