I've been seeing this spot on TV for the C230.

The spot is all about gas mileage. They brag about the fact that the car is finely tuned and can get 25MPG on the highway.

I don't get it. Both our 300Es from the early 90's routinely get about 28 MPG on the highway.

Why is MB patting themselves on the back about a C230, a lighter, smaller, newer-technology car than an old 300E, getting 25 MPG?

__________________
2012 E350
2006 Callaway SC560

My guess is they need to have something to crow about, when they are trying to flog off these new cars, and people are really upset about gas prices these days.

They aren't trying to sell the old W124 sedans anymore, which boasted unparalleled engineering excellence, build quality and durability...gas prices weren't a concern for Mercedes customers in those days, people who bought them paid $50,000 or so for the E class then, a considerable sum in those days.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

The 2005 C230 claims 32 mpg highway?

I guess what surprises me is...

I would have thought that 17 years later they would be getting BETTER mileage, not worse.

2007 C230 2.5L 6 cyl:

Fuel Tank Capacity: 16.4 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Manual: 19 mpg / 25 mpg Automatic: : 19 mpg / 25 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 311.6 mi. / 410 mi. Manual: 311.6 mi. / 410 mi.

__________________
2012 E350
2006 Callaway SC560

Are the HP and torque numbers comparable? What about the weight?

This is very common throughout the whole auto industry. People want more... more of everything. More space, more cupholders, bigger tires and rims, bigger seats to fit their bigger asses, more legroom, more gizmos, bigger trunks, BIGGER engines, more power, better ride through stiffer and heavier chassis.

Nowadays we rely on needlessly complicated hybrid cars to get great gas mileage when 20 years ago we had subcompacts barely weighing 2000 pounds with manual transmissions and little blender motors for engines getting great mpg.

Gas must not be so expensive after all. If it were expensive, people would not want more.

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

True. But in this case they are not getting more.

Compared to the '07 C230, the old 300E is heavier, longer, and taller.

The C230 has a higher horsepower rating but a lower torque rating.

So it's ironic that the C230 uses more gasoline than the old 300E. And even more ironic that MB brags about the C230 economy in their commercial, even though they made bigger cars that got better mileage TWENTY years ago.

Gee whiz, even my 405HP Z06 gets close to 30 MPG on the highway.

__________________
2012 E350
2006 Callaway SC560

i don't think i have ever gotten more than 25 or maybe 26 highway in any of our 124's.... maybe they need some new plugs

__________________
1989 300ce 129k
( facelifted front,updated tail lights, lowered suspension,bilstein sports, lorinser front spoiler, MOMO steering wheel, remus exhaust,stainless steel brake lines). (Gone)

1997 s320 154k (what a ride). Sold with 179k miles. Replaced with Hyundai Equus

1994 e320 Cabriolet 108k



1972 280se 4.5 153k Owned for 12 yrs, sorry I sold it


[/SIGPIC]

They're advertising the C-class because they want to move them before the new ones arrive.

Note also that the mileage was probably rated higher last year -- EPA changed their test procedures.

It's also interesting that the C350 sedan is rated 29 mpg highway--a real testament to the futility of running small engines hard. They're cheaper, is the main thing.

__________________
Kent Christensen
Albuquerque
'07 GL320CDI, '10 CL550. '01 Porsche Boxster
Two BMW motorcycles

I highly doubt the post about 28 mpg in early 90's 300E's. Maybe at 60 mph. Now I grant that from '93 on there should be a couple of mpg improvement over the M103 engined cars.
My experience with over 200,000 miles on 2 different 124's, a '90 and a '92 is more like 22 to 24. Of course these miles were generally at 70 to 80 mph.

I would bet that newer C class would do better than 25 on the highway.

Steve

I keep very meticulous records on both my '90 and '91 300Es.

I took the '91 on a trip just last weekend. It was about half interstate and half not. The air was on about half the time. The speed was 75 on the interstate and 65 on the highways. Total trip was about 560 miles. Probably 25 miles was stop-and-go at the destination. I bought fuel at the destination and again when I got home. The fuel mileage on both legs was just under 28 MPG. It was almost exactly the same on both legs of the trip. If I was at home, rather than at work, I would give you the precise number. It was something like 27.8.

The fuel was 50% regular and 50% premium. Amoco on the first leg, Chevron on the second.

I appreciate your skepticism but both my cars do this routinely...the '90 actually generally does a bit better than the '91.

BTW, the hiway mileage you quoted is what I typically get in town.

__________________
2012 E350
2006 Callaway SC560

This is the key here. The EPA changes have resulted in mileage ratings that resemble people's real world experience as opposed to those "pie in the sky" numbers that come from an unrealistic test loop. I'm willing to bet that people can routinely do better than the EPA number if they drive like they're trying to conserve fuel.

Definitely true about the bigger vs. smaller engine. But is the 2.5 cheaper? I know they're cheaper to buy, but I don't understand how they can be cheaper to build. They're both the same modular V6, the only real differences are in the bore/stroke resulting in increased displacement. It can't cost MB appreciably more to make a 3.5L than a 2.5L. I don't understand why they offer a smaller V6 in that case. They should just have one V6 and make the price difference based on other content.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)