2008 Mercedes-Benz C300 Sport: Fuel Economy Update

19 mpg?

That's pretty terrible...

My car returns the same life-time fuel economy but with 1 less gear and 78 more hp. My daily commute is about 80% city and 20% highway.

I agree with Joe, the 328i stick that I drive irregularly has gotten about 31 mpg on the highway (35 mpg once). I know for a fact that it averages 23 - 25 mpg over the course of daily driving (including some tomfoolery). I would expect a lot more from a 3.0 liter 6 cylinder with a 7 speed transmission!

My 7' tall, 7' wide, 7000 pound turbodiesel 4x4 with 36" tires has averaged 20.0mpg over 240,000 miles. Best tank, 24mpg. Worst, 17mpg (first tank off the dealer lot). 70% highway.

I'd say 19mpg from a vehicle less than half the size and weight of mine is pretty pathetic.

That is bad. That is the same mileage as an E46 M3 with much more power.

What are the RPM's at 80mph? I'm curious to see how tall the 7th gear is. I would assume it is for freeway cruising and should be around 2k rpm

louiswei, your car you were referring to is a IS350?

My 05' LS430 that is 500 lbs heavier with a bigger frontal area, with 1 less gear, got a 4.3L V8 that makes 60 hp and 100 lb-ft more then the C300's V6, and runs on wider tires.

It gets slightly better, if not the same MPG as this C300.

lazyhater, yes, it is an IS350.

Lousy mileage, agreed. But I'd like to comment on the picture, or styling rather. The most recent styling of Mercedes cars has been much improved over anything I can remember in their history. It's just not as beautiful as the other RWD German makes: BMW and Porsche. Improved, yes, but not as good in my eyes.

It seems that the CTS isn't the only vehicle where Edmunds manages to get mileage well below EPA estimates. :)

"lazyhater, yes, it is an IS350."

Thanks.

Call me a Lexus fanboy and Benz hater, but once again, Lexus wins.

A Mercedes-Benz is royalty. It can drink whatever it wants. Those peasant cars have to conserve. They're unworthy. A Mercedes-Benz? No, This car can drink as much as it wants.

Japanese car? Well they're little Asians. Of course they drink less. Their face gets red after just one drink because of some enzyme deficiency.
Then it's reasonable for the 86 cu ft 204-hp Lexus IS250 to get 21/29 mpg, while the 88 cu ft, 228-hp C300 to get 18/25 mpg.

My '07 G35 has averaged just over 20 mpg with 90% city driving. I would expect at least 22-23 from the relatively weak engine in the Benz.

You guys are so biased against Benzes. What did the Germans ever do to you, except try to take over the world...twice?

Just kidding, sort of. Benzes disappoint me a lot these days. They're either not what they used to be, or never have been what I thought they were. Even if money were no object, I can't think of one Benz I'd buy over a competitor.

That's not to say the C300 is bad. But it should be great.

I would love to agree with all of you and be a BENZ trasher.yeah there cars haven't been great in the past 10 yrs, the quality has been relatively lousy(in MB terms)...etc etc etc.

But folks,forgive me for being a true MB fan. We all have our own opinions. How many of you really like cars? if you do, you give an unbiased opinion of how they perform whether you like them or not. If preconceived notions are your means of "having a say" its good by me.

Bryn,

I would like to know how hard this car was driven over the 14k miles you have it. From the first drives,full test opinions, i think this car is a hoot to drive if a little short on power(MB never matches the Bimmer here, but its not meant to anyways....MB buyers are a different lot...i dont mean to sound derogatory to the other marques.Heck, i love the Bimmer and the Infiniti...the IS looks good,but is ordinary)....Lets hear from Bryn how hard their foot was?

hmm...over a little past 3000 miles, my V8 S-Type has averaged over 22 mpg, about 60% highway, 40% city. Best tank? 28mpg. Worst? 19.8mpg.

Oh yes, case in point, the C300's mileage is LOWSY because I don't have much in the way of a light foot. What's the point of these 7 and 8 speed transmissions if these cars aren't getting that much better mileage?

I guess the people who post on these blogs are not as informed as I had thought they were. Mercedes have gotten abysmal gas mileage since the beginning of time. I cannot think of a non-diesel Benz that has ever achieved better gas mileage than one of its competitors. They produce the fewest emissions in their classes and are made with largely recycleable materials in "green" factories, but gas mileage has always been pathetic.

This could be because they weigh so darn much. The C300 is a designated compact car but weighs more than most full-size family sedans. Never good for gas mileage or athletic reflexes, but great for that classic Benz feeling of vault-like solidity.

You want to know something else, never have I ever heard a fellow Mercedes-Benz owner say: "I love my car, but I just wish it got better gas mileage". I am not saying Benzes shouldn't be getting better mileage, they just never have and the owners don't seem to care.

I am very happy with my C300 4matic. It rides great and has met all of my expectations. Highest trip MPG 28mpg and average at approximately 5K is 22.2. I'm good with that.

My best friends 2005 MB C230 Sport 6MT (supercharged 1.8L) gets great milage city or hwy. As for the C300, I could see this milage being acceptable in the C350 but for the cars size and power it should have been much better.

At least you will look good guzzling gas.

Off topic, but the side profile of this car screams "ACCORD" to me. I like it from other angles though. I agree with greenpony, its a large improvement over past models.

anoopk: The other drivers would have to chime in on how hard they have driven our C300, since with 30+ staffers who could be driving it on any given day, it's kinda impossible for me to know how anyone's driving it. But I can tell you that in my time in the car, I was pretty easy on it, just using it for commuting and boring errands for a weekend, though that kind of driving tends to be murder on fuel economy. A good deal of the miles we put on cars are daily-driver kinds of miles, if that helps inform you.

Say! That profile shot does resemble an Accord. Or should I say the Accord resembles the C-Class? Either way, the two vehicles appear way too similar...

Given the terrible mileage these guys get in practically all their cars, 19mpg isn't surprising. I bet most would get 22mpg with that car. Great? No, but not terrible.

What can I say, I still find this car appealing. But with "30+ staffers who could be driving it on any given day", this thing sure hasn't been blogged about very much.

Like about 90% of your LT fleet...

(Oh, no he dih-int!)

"I guess the people who post on these blogs are not as informed as I had thought they were"

What gave it away?

I dont think anyone buys a MB for mileage so this is probably not a big deal to potential owners. Its pathetic for a small car with a small engine and a 7 speed but German cars are never about being the most efficient or offering the most bang for the buck. A German car is always going to cost you and many people feel that the privelege of driving a German car is worth whatever it costs.

The C class has too many character lines and swooshes on the side. The door handles also appear to be at a wierd angle.

Just IMO, but what outrages me about this mileage is the amount of inefficiency that can be assumed to be occuring with this car.

What exactly is sucking the gas down? it's got an advanced 7 (yes, seven) gear automatic transmission.

It has a 3.0 liter six cylinder (not exactly a large bore 6).

It drives the rear wheels (not all wheels)

It's not that heavy.

It's fairly aerodynamic with a low drag coefficient and a modest frontal area.

So either Edmunds is really good at getting poor mileage (ok, that's probably it), or this thing is terribly inefficient.

And the problem with the theory of it being terribly inefficient is that MB is NOT known for being terribly inefficient. Quite the opposite.

German cars and their "market appeal" are about several things, built up over 30 years. Vault like construction (typified by a heavier vehicle weight), solid road feel while offering a nice ride (ride/handling balance & body control), and efficiency. Somewhere, this car is wasting more fuel than it should. And it demands the question, "Why?"

And if you don't understand why those cars are known for efficiency, you've never been to germany :)

Damn germans and their ridiculous efficient country. :)

Joe

Joe I have a few thoughts on your question. The first being that this engine is actually just not that efficient. The 3.0-liter, V6 is based on the same architecture as the 3.2-liter, V6 in the previous generation C320 (which achieved 15 city/ 19 highway using the old EPA mileage). That engine's roots can be traced back to 6-cylinder engines from the 1980's.

It is an exceptionally reliable and proven powertrain, but lacks some of the sophisticated technology found on newer V6's, including the company's 3.5-liter unit (which is all new and actually achieves equal if not better gas mileage than the 3.0-liter despite producing considerably more power).

Probably the most likely reason, however, is just where they live. Driving in LA means constant hard acceleration and hard deceleration. People drive aggressively and wrecklessly to make up one car length, even if the Edmunds staff doesn't drive like this they are affected by the people who do.

"That engine's roots can be traced back to 6-cylinder engines from the 1980's."

Mercedesfan, Mercedes' 6cyl engines the 1980's were all inline 6s not V6s. I know my uncles mint 1989 Mercedes 300TE wagon has an inline not a V configuration.

The Mercedes V6s (M112's) didnt appear until the early 90's and ceased production in 2004. The all-new (M272 and OM642) V6 engines were introduced in late 2004 ranging between 2.5 and 3.5L of displacement.

hondaacura4 you are absolutely correct, I'm not sure what I was thinking exactly. The M112 bowed for the 1998 model year in the E320, CLK320, ML320, and S320. Up to that point all 6-cylinder engines from Mercedes (diesel or not) were inline-6's.

The sad thing is that I knew this because I remember when the switch happened and my parents were afraid that these new V6's would lose the refinement and tractability that they loved about the inline-6's.

However, the M272 (the OM642 is purely diesel) is based entirely off the architecture of the M112 despite being classified as all-new. The M272 in 3.5-liter guise can truly be described as such because of the plethora of technology fitted to it (including direct injection in Europe). The 3.0-liter unit, though, is almost a carbon copy of the original M112 3.2-liter without the 3.5-liter's added technology.

I know this for a fact because when my wife purchased her 2004 SL600 we picked it up in Germany. While there we toured Sindelfingen and stuttgart and I spoke with an engineer who was working on this new line of engines. While more sophisticated than the 3.2-liter M112, the 3.0-liter M272 suffers from the same inefficiencies as the model that preceded it.

Thank you for bringing that up or else I would have continued in ignorant bliss. ;)

The engine is not "just like the 3.2L" one.

THe last gen was a 2.6 L and 3.2 L vg (c320 and C240).

First off those were 3 valves per cylinder and produced way less power. THese are 4 valves and are much more modern. The previous 3.2 L only produced 210 or so HP. Sure it is "based" on the old v6, but why would they start all over. The bmw i-6 n52/n54 are probably improved versions of the m54 with biVANOs anyway right ?

The 3.0 and 3.5 L are basically the same engines with different bore. In europe I think the 3.5 L gets direct injection ONLY on the CLS350 on CGI models. And some of the 3.5L engines have higher compression ratio and redline for that "300 hp" mark but are really the same engine the C350 has (2009 slk350). I suppose one of those will eventually come to the C class (i'm figuring the usual mid model change, after the 2010 or 2011 model)

THe fact of the matter is that the C class is not particularly light for its segment and is also not really geared to get fantastic EPA Milage or commuter milage. The 7th gear isn't as tall as say a 3 series auto's 6th or an acura TSX auto 5th. From what I've read online, it does manage to get good milage at higher speeds which wouldn't really be in the commute speeds. the 7th gear on a 7g-tronic is .73 vs . .67 on a 328i 6AT by the way. Why mercedes does this I don't know, but perhaps this helps the car get to higher autobahn speed.

So don't blame it all on the engine.

Also you have to take into account that these guys are using this car for commuter use in Los Angeles. I know where their office is, it is across the street from "yahoo center" in west LA in the "water garden". It used to be in the yahoo center. WHy do I know this? Because I used to work in the yahoo center and my ex-roomate works for edmunds.com.

LA traffic into west-LA during normal working hours (9 or 10 ish to 6-7pm) was their general schedule .... is HORRIBLE. we are talking either taking all city streets or bumper to bumper traffic on the 10 freeway. When I used to drive to work in a G35 coupe (when I used to work down there... ) I was getting something like 15mpg. I used to drive a 2005 TSX in the same commute as well and got well under normal MPG for it (I get about 23mpg now.... in the bay area, got about 18mpg on tha tcommute)

So I suppose that is a somewhat useful explanation for why the edmunds guys sometimes get horrific gas milage in their commuter cars. I would not be surprised if all their commuter mobile test cars got terrible gas milage.

the mileageag that IL is getting shouldnt be surprising considering the EPA figures. This car is rated at 18/26 which is near the bottom for V6 cars in spite of being 3L. Why would anyone expect exceptional mileage with 18/25 ratings? City traffic plus mediocre EPA ratings equals 19mpg in the real world. If the majority of your driving isnt on the highway you are not going to exceed 20mpg with any 6 cylinder car. Trust me, I havent been able to match my EPA numbers for my last two cars in the city.

hans007 the M272 also features Variable Valve Timing on both intake and exhaust for the first time on a Mercedes 6-cylinder along with being DOHC. This along with the increase from 3 valves per cylinder to 4 helps the new engine produce 228-hp with less displacement (versus 215-hp with the M112 3.2-liter). I never made the argument that the new M272 is no more advanced than the M112 (actually I may have in my first post but I readily admit that I was mistaken), just that the 3.0-liter lacks the sophistication of the 3.5-liter, meaning its similarities with the M112 are far greater than the 3.5-liter. They are the same engine, hence the same designation of M272, but the 3.5-liter actually makes greater use of magnesium and aluminum, thus giving it its distinct characteristics. All your other points I completely agree with.

19mpg? that's pretty unreal.

i've had my mercedes benz c300 (RWD Lux Model) since november of last year.

my numbers...

about 15,200 miles

averaging 24.4 MPG,

(60% of driving done in the north jersey/new york metro area)

highest i've gotten on a trip was 32.1 MPG driving down NY State Thruway one weekend at about 60 MPH. i always like to see how much i can squeeze out of a tank at least one time on each car i own. i once got 39.8 mpg on a 2003 audi a4 1.8t.

there have been many a time where i've been traveling 90-110 mph on my pittsburgh to new jersey run, and still managed to get 23 mpg.

i digress, it all varies on driving style i suppose and traffic. if you're sitting in traffic delays more then you're actually moving, your MPGs are going to be horrible regardless.

i've been pretty happy with the merc thus far gas mileage wise.

your mileage sounds exceptional considering the car is only rated for 26mpg. My car has ratings very similar to the C300 and in 90% urban driving I am nowhere near your figures. I wish I was though. Idling really does kill your mileage so heavy traffic or lots of stopping at intersections will lower your numbers. You may be in the North Jersey area but if you arent on congested suburban roads or in the city your mileage would easily beat IL's.

1487, agreed, i'd say 65% of my driving is highway, 25% suburban county roads, and 10% city driving, the few days i drive into manhattan for work. fortunately i take the train into work, other wise my mileage would probably be much worse.

next time i drive into the city i'll reset everything and see what i average sitting in city traffic. i'm sure it will be considerably less then my 24.4 mpg average, probably much closer to 19mpg.

Yeah, my 08 Legacy GT 5-speed is rated at (IIRC) 17/25 (or maybe it's 19/25...crap, now I have to look)....

lol, ok, it's 19/24 with a combined estimate of 21.

Anyway, I've been averaging 22 during break-in and now 24mpg. I've been able to achieve 28-29 mpg doing really conservative driving, and it's only at 7000 miles so I'm sure it'll get to 30mpg pure highway once it's fully broken in.

It is so dependant upon driving habits.... I can make this thing get 14mpg if I want :)

Joe

I have BMW 2003 325i 20/30 MPG ...

5 years of ownership no problem at all ,nothing, nada.

i went to the dealer to change oil only.

I am Looking to get the new 335D Diesel 25/35
0 to 60 6 second only .

PS: i like mercedes but i feel they are like old fashion . ( Sorry MR Benz )