chadwick

Posts: 49

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts

So I've heard this RUMOR that the 320 2009 is going to get "better gas mileage" than the 300, but I'm wondering if this is a misunderstanding among some people. When the reviews talked about "better gas mileage", they seemed to be comparing it with the equivalent 08 models and not necessarily the 300 and the 350. I can't envision for the life of me how the 350 would get BETTER gas mileage.

More like, better gas mileage than the 08 350?

Does anyone know the specific gas mileages for both the 300 and 350 09 SLK?

The reason why this is important to me is because I was basically trying to purchase the 300 on the basis of getting better gas mileage and because I have absolutely no need for a more powerful engine. I'm not into racing or any of that at all. I'm simply into the great ride, the looks and the benefits of the vehicle. It seems gratuitous for me to go for the 350 or even 55.

Baron7700

Posts: 1,601

Country:

Thanks: 3

Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/15/d...licker-for-09/


Goes over alot of stuff in there but here is one section you might like

This has been achieved by raising the rev speed limit to 7200 rpm, at the same time as increasing the compression ratio, fitting a new intake manifold and making extensive modifications to the valve gear.

When coupled to the 7G-TRONIC automatic transmission, the sports engine limits itself to a mere 9.2 litres for every 100 km on the combined cycle, 0.9 litres less than previously

Can someone tell me what that means in miles per gallon?

chadwick

Posts: 49

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts

Yeah but I think when it's talking about achieving better fuel economy it is comparing it with the 08 350 rather than comparing the 09 300 and 350. I haven't really been able to get this clear.

Baron7700

Posts: 1,601

Country:

Thanks: 3

Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

OOOOOOOOOO ok. ya they are comparing it to the 08.

well figure both the 09 300 and 350 are getting better gas mileage. And pretty much exactly the same bump in both engines.

An 08 350 gets about 18/19 -25/26 mpg.
Not sure what the 280 gets, prob around 20-28.

So thats about the diff

From edmunds 350 auto 19/ 25

280 auto 20/27

So for 1mpg less about, you get almost 70 more horses and alot better sound for about same gas mileage.

Ynot

Posts: 2,795

Country:

Thanks: 135

Thanked 35 Times in 30 Posts

I'm getting between 23-25 mpg in city driving with the previous SLK350, that's pretty fuel efficient for me, can only imagine how much better the SLk280 is.

Baron7700

Posts: 1,601

Country:

Thanks: 3

Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

you use green filters right?

Tummy

Posts: 284

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 42 Times in 24 Posts

I'm getting 29mpg on mine with top up on the highway. A 10-15% increase is not going to make a difference IMO unless you drive very far everyday.

Depreciation costs about $700/month the first 3 years and outweigh any savings in fuel. I think depreciation on the 280 is steeper than the 350.

Ikarus

Posts: 596

Country:

Thanks: 18

Thanked 40 Times in 20 Posts

I opted against the 350 in 2006 because I thought the horsepower advantage over the 280 did not outweigh the price and fuel efficiency disadvantage. Today, my assessment would be different. For the 2009 model year, I'd pick the 350. Actually, I believe the renaming charade that MB is playing with the 280/300 is because they are trying to cover up for having treated the 280 as the unwanted step-child in the 2009 update cycle.

Ynot

Posts: 2,795

Country:

Thanks: 135

Thanked 35 Times in 30 Posts

Yes....

chadwick

Posts: 49

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts

So why would you pick the 350? I'm trying to understand what the reasoning is. My car is still in the early stages of being configured and I could probably upgrade it to a 350 before the slot kicks in, I just can't figure out why I would do such a thing. I could care less about a better engine.

Is depreciation the only reason? And will the amount that I'm spending more to have a 350 really make a difference if I were to sell it in 3 or 4 years?

Ikarus

Posts: 596

Country:

Thanks: 18

Thanked 40 Times in 20 Posts

That changes things, of course. Get the 300 then.

mtiede

Posts: 1,645

Thanks: 102

Thanked 55 Times in 45 Posts

I don't have the green filters and I get 25 mpg US average with combined driving (no racing )

And although it sort of can't really be compared as apples to apples, I had the SLK320 and now the SLK 350. The 320 to 350 is night and day. The 350 is far better, IMHO. It just has more get up and go while consuming about the same as the 320 (as I recall the 320). Unfortunately, I have no experience with the 280/300, so can't offer any information there. FWIW.

Chris-h

Posts: 27

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts

UK MB website shows the following mpg in UK gallons

280 (300) - urban 21,7mpg, extra urban 41.5mpg, combined 31mpg

350 - urban 21.6mpg, extra urban 40.4, combined 30.7mpg

So the difference in fuel consumption is very little between the two engines. My previous 350 used to average 26.5mpg - my new 350 is doing about the same.

Go for the 350 - you get 305BHP and revving up to 7200rpm! you guys in the US can afford the gas!

Tummy

Posts: 284

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 42 Times in 24 Posts

What is the price difference? What are the differences you can't see?

Previously the 280 and the 350 had different brake and wheel sizes. I see the new version has the same wheel size, but have the brakes increased in size as well?