c350e fuel consumption

Danny Lockhart

New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2024
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Your Mercedes
c350e
1709632226627.png

New member here- There's lots been said about the dreadfully poor range when using the battery on the C350e; mine says 13 miles are available after a full charge but i think i get about 4! (I should have test driven it for longer when I considered buying it). However, the poor fuel consumption is just as alarming (see photo); does this mean I've achieved just 34.4mpg DESPITE the engine being off for over 25% of the time? Or does it mean I'm getting 34.4mpg from the actual fuel and another 1731 'free' miles? (I never charge up, because electricity is too expensive). By the way, since gaining 3 speeding tickets in the last couple of years I drive like 'Miss Daisy'! Any thoughts?
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,990
Reaction score
27,772
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
Hello and welcome,

It's not entirely clear is it... :rolleyes:

I read it that on the engine you're averaging 34.4mpg
I read that you've 1,731 miles covered with engine off

So adding the 6,002 miles with engine on to 1,731 with engine off equals 7,733 miles
The 6,002 miles at 34.4mpg used 174.48 gallons

Divide the 7,733 miles by the 174.48 gallons gives an overall 44.32mpg - which is still pants :(

Unless the total miles you've covered is just 6,002 then you take the 1,731 engine off miles off of that... giving an overall fuel economy of 24.48 mpg which is much worse than my 3.8ltr 911 Carerra S...:oops::oops:
 
OP
D

Danny Lockhart

New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2024
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Your Mercedes
c350e
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
Hello and welcome,

It's not entirely clear is it... :rolleyes:

I read it that on the engine you're averaging 34.4mpg
I read that you've 1,731 miles covered with engine off

So adding the 6,002 miles with engine on to 1,731 with engine off equals 7,733 miles
The 6,002 miles at 34.4mpg used 174.48 gallons

Divide the 7,733 miles by the 174.48 gallons gives an overall 44.32mpg - which is still pants :(

Unless the total miles you've covered is just 6,002 then you take the 1,731 engine off miles off of that... giving an overall fuel economy of 24.48 mpg which is much worse than my 3.8ltr 911 Carerra S...:oops::oops:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I love the car but fuel economy is not its strong suit; this is a 2016, so maybe the new ones are better if anyone could comment?
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,990
Reaction score
27,772
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I love the car but fuel economy is not its strong suit; this is a 2016, so maybe the new ones are better if anyone could comment?
Below was my 2016/17 E220d - (prior to any engine software “upgrades”…) 2.0 OM654 engine

IMG_5789.png

I used to regularly get around 80mpg on a decent run and 925 miles from a 65ltr tank - covered 48k miles in 18 months. Could have 1,000 miles from a tank but didn’t have it long enough to achieve that.

I’m also averaging ~32mpg from my 3.0 petrol SLK for nearly 90k miles of driving.
 

Srdl

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
7,176
Reaction score
6,007
Location
Hampshire
Your Mercedes
GLC43 AMG 2018 (X253)
View attachment 88742

New member here- There's lots been said about the dreadfully poor range when using the battery on the C350e; mine says 13 miles are available after a full charge but i think i get about 4! (I should have test driven it for longer when I considered buying it). However, the poor fuel consumption is just as alarming (see photo); does this mean I've achieved just 34.4mpg DESPITE the engine being off for over 25% of the time? Or does it mean I'm getting 34.4mpg from the actual fuel and another 1731 'free' miles? (I never charge up, because electricity is too expensive). By the way, since gaining 3 speeding tickets in the last couple of years I drive like 'Miss Daisy'! Any thoughts?
The problem with any hybrid is that the petrol engine is carrying a load of extra battery around and the battery is also moving an internal combustion engine. I fail to see how that can be economical in any way.
 

Blobcat

Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,990
Reaction score
27,772
Location
Grange Moor
Your Mercedes
R171 SLK280, Smart R451, Land Rover 110 County SW, 997 C2S, R1250 GSA TE 40th, CBR600FP
The problem with any hybrid is that the petrol engine is carrying a load of extra battery around and the battery is also moving an internal combustion engine. I fail to see how that can be economical in any way.
Very economical “BIK tax wise”… that is all… ;):rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSK

grayb

Senior Member
Joined
May 16, 2003
Messages
1,357
Reaction score
644
Location
Kent
Your Mercedes
E350CDI (S212) 2010
The problem with any hybrid is that the petrol engine is carrying a load of extra battery around and the battery is also moving an internal combustion engine. I fail to see how that can be economical in any way.
Good hybrids are quite economical in certain situations. Eg. a Toyota Prius in urban conditions. One of the reasons that so many are used as taxis...
 

Avantgarde Automotive, Mercedes-Benz and SLR McLaren specialists. Service, repairs, diagnosis and motorsport preparation.
Unit 14 Hither Green Trading Estate, Clevedon, Somerset, BS21 6XU Tel: 01275 217270 Email:steve@avantgarde-automotive.co.uk
www.avantgarde-automotive.co.uk
Top Bottom