I'm impressed by all your numbers. If I try really hard on the highway - I seem to be able to get around 34mpg from the onboard computer (after reset once I get on the highway). I don't know how much more gentle the car can be driven...
Possibly - but if memory serves, the numbers that MB Canada posted for the 200 and 200T were really quite close - real world conditions differ of course. On the other hand, when I've driven a non-turbo loaner, I notice that the engine RPM is always higher than mine under the same conditions so I would think that under certain scenarios the turbo may be better on gas?
I seem to be able to get around 34mpg from the onboard computer (after reset once I get on the highway).
Hi Jeff, "34 MPG" on the screen is the US MPG, not imperial, so actually that's not half bad - 40.8 Imp. MPG to be exact. If you have a sport suspension and CVT Autotronic gearbox, that's excellent L/100!
The official highway fuel economy ratings in Canada are 0.2 L/100 km more for the Turbo against the naturally aspirated engine (thus 6.9 L/100, which is exactly what you got).
In Europe the difference in official ratings is more pronounced: a low of 6.0 for the manual gearbox B 200 and regular tires/suspension, to a high of 6.8 for a Autortonic Turbo on the sport suspension and wider tires. The sports suspension alone is said to add about 0.2 L/100 km to the consumption on the highway.
I'm on winter tires at the moment and I think they are adding at least 0.2 L/100 to the consumption. On the summers, I got 6.2 L/100 km on the fly at 115-120 km/h on Interstate 5, the day after I got the car, so it's capable of better, as Derek says - probably sub-6.0 if driven very carefully on country roads.
Engine RPM is not the main determinant of fuel consumption...it's the engine's specific consumption that is more of a factor. If you could get a chart showing at what RPM the sweet spot for consumption is, then you could aim for that when driving. Also, if you are on boost at all, that's going to drag fuel economy down.
Thanks for the conversion - I didn't realize there was such a difference. Given that conversion - I guess I don't feel too bad now. That being said, I do have to try VERY hard to get that number. Today around town I was driving very conservate and only returned 24mpg (US MPG).
Just drove from West Van to Horseshoe Bay and back - a distance of 22 km to test the fuel consumption. On the Upper Levels Hwy, at the speed limit- 90 Kph, with the cruise control on, it returned and amazing 6.4 Litres per 100 Km. We changed drivers for the twisty and hilly return trip on Marine Drive and averaged a very reasonable 7.4 Litres per 100 Km for the entire trip.
Comment: cruise saves gas.
[quote=Mike Tee;2535720]Glad to read that!
The speed limit in the 4 lane highway around here has a speed limit of 90, so going 85 is no big deal and doesn't impede other traffic. Bonus!
BTW, Mike... for the real record... it was a joke!! You're supposed to laugh and not retract what you said.
Have a great trip !! Derek
Based on the above, I will be shooting for under 6 L/100 km when I drive the car to work. Maybe 5.8....that might be possible at a steady 85 with no wind.
Don't get mad Mike.... it was all in fun....Have a great time in Europe!!
I now realise that I'll never average 6.2 on the commute; it's too short, has too many stoplights and the engine takes a while to warm up. Plus I have been driving the kids to school which is up a nasty big hill, every time I use the B for the commute (which is maybe 30% of the time). Usually I am showing 6.6-6.8 on the OBC, so it's 7-7.2.
You're supposed to laugh and not retract what you said. 
Linear Mode
