Mercedes SLK World banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
1) May you share your latest mileage stats?
2) My average mileage is only 4.5km per liter or 22.2 liters per 100km (2001, Slk320). This is a very low mileage. What's yours?
3) I use Shell Racing Fuel 97 octane

4) is there something wrong with my engine? Anything I should check?

Thanks.
 

·
Administrator - Founding Member
Joined
·
92,874 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
24,258 Posts
Overall average 21-24 mpg seems to be typical.

That would be circa 9/10 l per Km.

When was it last serviced?
Particularly brakes (could be sticking, especially handbrake), plugs, filters, leads.

Do you drive steady, or use performance?

Tyre pressures play a significant role in mpg figures.

Different cars, but the 350 V6 ranges 14 - high 30 mpg depending on driving style.
55 V8 ranges low 10s to high/mid 30s.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
Oooh .. working locally these days, I get about 140 miles from full 'till the orange light comes on in the '6, whilst the '4 is only slightly better @ 180 - double up for both of those when going on a run out. If it concerned me I wouldn't be running 20yr old Merc petrol engines ..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
815 Posts
Overall average 21-24 mpg seems to be typical.

That would be circa 9/10 l per Km.

When was it last serviced?
Particularly brakes (could be sticking, especially handbrake), plugs, filters, leads.

Do you drive steady, or use performance?

Tyre pressures play a significant role in mpg figures.

Different cars, but the 350 V6 ranges 14 - high 30 mpg depending on driving style.
55 V8 ranges low 10s to high/mid 30s.

I look at mixed driving averages rather than best case and I think all of what is suggested needs looking into along with the MAF sensor. If it is dirty and not reading correctly it will dump excess fuel into the injectors. I get 10-11L/100 km (26-28 mpg Imp) mixed driving but I also drive most of the time, particularly in town in fuel conservation mode (lift off early, light acceration away from lights and stop signs, slow and roll through a corner if clear etc.) and it pays off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Hi,

My 320 V6 is not particularly good on Fuel, I have no idea what it actually does as I've never bothered clocking it ...............

I'm with @M4rCu5 I didn't buy it to get MPG ..........

I expect once the V8 5.0 litre is in it then the MPG will improve, because I won't be ragging it's little V6 ass off, the V8 will be very very quick without foot to the floor, and also it will have a better (2.87) Final Drive Ratio ;)

I'd say my V6 SLK uses as much if not more Fuel than my S55 (as long as I don't rag the W220) if I do I can get it down to 9 mpg on the fairly accurate Cluster Computer 👿

Mel on the other hand can get 28 MPG out of the S Class driving locally 🤣

HTH, Cheers Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
My wife uses the 2001 SLK 320 V6 to work and proudly announces after a fill up that she gets 25 to 27 MPG
When I drive it for fun, a reprimand always follows, since the mileage falls
(I also reset the adaptive Trans learning before my trip without telling her so)
My retort to her is that she takes the car out for a walk!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I typically get 26-32mpg on my 2002 230SLK. Interestingly I get 26-33mph on my C320 station wagon (maybe its the superior aerodynamics of the wagon), and that is over 9 years of ownership on both vehicles.

I THOUGHT I would do better with the SLK 230 than the C320 (or I'd have bought a SLK 320).

I drive very easily on both vehicles, never exceed 100km/62 mph on either car*, and have never used more than perhaps 1/3 throttle on either car, so that affects my fuel consumption. I also don't drive either car in cold weather, and would expect losing 10% fuel economy if I did. I use Mobil 1 0W40 oil and one can of LiquiMoly MO2 additive in each vehicle at oil changes. I use 87 octane fuel as I never use enough throttle to raise the cylinder pressures to require more octane.

I live in the Pacific Northwest of the US, but seldom drive in hilly or mountainous terrain.

Bob

*I do admit to ONE TIME using about 1/2 throttle on the SLK to make sure the supercharger was actually making boost, and I used premium fuel for that experiment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Even driving slowly a smaller Engine is working harder than a larger one, and thus uses more fuel ;)
True, though the 4cyl SLK is slightly lighter than my W203 wagon, aerodynamically I am not sure it the R170 or the W203 Wagon has a lower drag coefficient.

And since at cruise, neither engine is producing even 10% of it's rated power, so even the 2.3 liter 4 cylinder isn't being worked very hard.

Bottom line, I think that both vehicles take roughly the same hp to move them, and given somewhat similar "pounds of fuel per hour per horsepower" fuel consumption it's not surprising that they use about the same fuel per mile.

I have a 3500 pound travel trailer, and have towed it w/ 3 different vehicles. One is a Ford 7.3liter diesel (200hp/400ft lbs torque) that got 18mpg empty and 18mpg towing the trailer, and a Dodge Cummins 5.9 liter diesel dually pickup (325hp/400ft pounds torque) that will do 26mpg empty hwy, and gets 21mpg towing that trailer, and finally a 2.7 liter Mercedes Sprinter van (154hp/250ft pounds torque) that gets 27mpg empty, and 20.5mpg towing the trailer. Evidently the weight and drag just plain NEEDS 20mpg consumption in nominally similar efficient vehicles to move the trailer at 60mph. The small fuel efficiency differences of the 3 diesels are masked when under load.

If I towed that trailer with the W203 (3.2 liter V-6) and the R107 (2.3liter I-4) I suspect the V6 WOULD give better mpg proving your point because hp demand would be a higher % of available hp of the engines.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,060 Posts
You should upgrade your ride to a R172 '55 if you're concerned about getting better milage ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
You should upgrade your ride to a R172 '55 if you're concerned about getting better milage ;)
Concerned, but not that concerned considering a tank of fuel lasts me the entire year. I spend 6 times as much $ a year for insurance and just as much for registration as for fuel, not to mention depreciation.

That said, poor mileage psychologically bothers me even if I don't drive the car. Just a personal hang-up, I guess.

I DO wish I'd found a R170 SLK320 manual transmission car when I bought my car. I also passed on what was a mint-looking SLK32 AMG for the same price I paid for my SLK230 figuring ALL SLK32 AMG owners thrashed their cars badly.

Now the AMG R170 would be worth FAR more.

And the M112 engine IMHO was a great engine with few of the problems later MB V6 engines had with balance shafts and manifold air flapper valve linkages.

I DO love the styling of the R172, though, though the simple body lines of the R170 still appeal to me (top down).
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top