05-11 SLK Real World MPG?
Discussion
Dog Star said:
The 200 is surprisingly pants on fuel - Mrs DSs previous one averaged about 29 overall. Her current 350 manages about 23 but 32 or so on a longer run.
(My 2009 SL350 (315bhp 7G) is more economical than her 2006 SLK350 (276bhp 7G) which is a bit mad. )
My Mrs SLK350 did similar MPG, and is basically the same as the 280 if memory serves.(My 2009 SL350 (315bhp 7G) is more economical than her 2006 SLK350 (276bhp 7G) which is a bit mad. )
Also - Mrs DS is a Yorkshire lass, so somewhat "frugal", and this perceived fuel economy is why she insisted on the 1.8 supercharged SLK200 in the first place, this was a decision that was a bit of a waste of time. She doesn't do big miles so the difference between the 200 and 350 in fuel use over the course of a year is probably a few tens of pounds at most. So we eventually got here a 350 after much waiting for the right one to turn up,
My old SLK200 would happily knock on the door of 40 mpg on a run and averaged high 20's / low 30's round town
Current SLK55 isn't quite so economical but at motorway speeds will return slightly over 30mpg - round town low 20's
I know they both have the same wheels - I like them
If choosing between the 200 and 280 or 350 it would be the 280 or 350 every time
The 200 is a bit slow
Current SLK55 isn't quite so economical but at motorway speeds will return slightly over 30mpg - round town low 20's
I know they both have the same wheels - I like them
If choosing between the 200 and 280 or 350 it would be the 280 or 350 every time
The 200 is a bit slow
Edited by B'stard Child on Thursday 3rd November 13:36
Thanks guys!
If a 200 can get say 33/34 on mixed driving and a 280 runs at 24/25 thats a significant difference when doing around 12,000 miles pa.
We were figuring if the book said a 280 does 28 its probably more like 24/25 in reality....?
The larger engined newer models are going to be more fuel efficient and not really a direct comparison - its really R171 200 vs 280 we're after.
If a 200 can get say 33/34 on mixed driving and a 280 runs at 24/25 thats a significant difference when doing around 12,000 miles pa.
We were figuring if the book said a 280 does 28 its probably more like 24/25 in reality....?
The larger engined newer models are going to be more fuel efficient and not really a direct comparison - its really R171 200 vs 280 we're after.
B'stard Child said:
My old SLK200 would happily knock on the door of 40 mpg on a run and averaged high 20's / low 30's round town
Current SLK55 isn't quite so economical but at motorway speeds will return slightly over 30mpg - round town low 20's
I know they both have the same wheels - I like them
If choosing between the 200 and 280 or 350 it would be the 280 or 350 every time
The 200 is a bit slow
Er, is that a hot Carlton behind?Current SLK55 isn't quite so economical but at motorway speeds will return slightly over 30mpg - round town low 20's
I know they both have the same wheels - I like them
If choosing between the 200 and 280 or 350 it would be the 280 or 350 every time
The 200 is a bit slow
Edited by B'stard Child on Thursday 3rd November 13:36
Venisonpie said:
Er, is that a hot Carlton behind?
Hot - compared to modern cars - probably not - bit it is one converted/built in a shed in Norfolk More info here rather than clog up this thread - clicky
mwstewart said:
The 200 really isn't that great - both in terms of fuel and ownership enjoyment. The V6s really are a world apart. My pick would be the 350.
Beware of balancer shaft issues in the M273 V6s.
Thanks….I don’t doubt a 350 is a much better car, but we aren’t spending big money, and to cover 12.000 miles per year a 200 is surely much less costly? What is your experience of 200s mpg? Beware of balancer shaft issues in the M273 V6s.
DarkHorseTerence said:
mwstewart said:
The 200 really isn't that great - both in terms of fuel and ownership enjoyment. The V6s really are a world apart. My pick would be the 350.
Beware of balancer shaft issues in the M273 V6s.
Thanks….I don’t doubt a 350 is a much better car, but we aren’t spending big money, and to cover 12.000 miles per year a 200 is surely much less costly? What is your experience of 200s mpg? Beware of balancer shaft issues in the M273 V6s.
The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
mwstewart said:
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
I recall that earlier 280s had higher CO2 emissions than later ones and they can vary with wheel size, so I would check the figure on the V5.Another aspect is that the balancer shaft problems with the 280/350 M272 V6 were, as a generalisation, fixed from around 2007 on (and perhaps the major, first category one, before that), whereas I'm not sure that the chocolate VVT sprocket/timing chain issues on the 200 M271 I4 ever were. More information for the OP here:
See sixth post in https://forums.mbclub.co.uk/threads/the-complete-m...
And second post in https://forums.mbclub.co.uk/threads/the-complete-m...
I'd also want to know the condition of the rear subframe (there are posts on here about it), when the autobox had been serviced and whether there was any water in the boot from leaking seals etc.
DarkHorseTerence said:
Brilliant reply, very much appreciated! So a 2008 280 should be immune to the major engine problems? (although being higher tax band)
Should be ok, but you'd need to check the engine numbers as per the link (should be on the V5). My recollection is that any auto 280 with 16" wheels (plain 5-spoke) has CO2 below 225g which I recall would be £360 tax, whereas a 200 would be a bit over £300. I think more efficient drivetrains came in sometime in 2008, so you may find that ones with bigger wheels also come in under the 225g.
I get 24 mpg ish round town and over 30 mpg on motorways. mwstewart said:
My Dad has a 2008 CLK 200K (186bhp) and I have a 2006 CLK 350. With local use (town & A road mix) I am 25 and he is 27 MPG. On a long run at 70MPH I am 34 and he is 39 MPG.
The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
Thanks for the reply - Why is the SLK range so complicated!! Im looking at a 2008 280 which is in the UPPER tax band (and therefore I presume still has balancer shaft issue risk). whereas an early 350 (eg 2004) is in the lower tax band. By the sounds of it 200's dont really give that great mpg....and 7G is a bonus. I dont know if 7G was on early 350/280?The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
....minefield!
DarkHorseTerence said:
mwstewart said:
My Dad has a 2008 CLK 200K (186bhp) and I have a 2006 CLK 350. With local use (town & A road mix) I am 25 and he is 27 MPG. On a long run at 70MPH I am 34 and he is 39 MPG.
The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
Thanks for the reply - Why is the SLK range so complicated!! Im looking at a 2008 280 which is in the UPPER tax band (and therefore I presume still has balancer shaft issue risk). whereas an early 350 (eg 2004) is in the lower tax band. By the sounds of it 200's dont really give that great mpg....and 7G is a bonus. I dont know if 7G was on early 350/280?The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
....minefield!
mwstewart said:
My Dad has a 2008 CLK 200K (186bhp) and I have a 2006 CLK 350. With local use (town & A road mix) I am 25 and he is 27 MPG. On a long run at 70MPH I am 34 and he is 39 MPG.
The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
Thanks for the reply - Why is the SLK range so complicated!! Im looking at a 2008 280 which is in the UPPER tax band (and therefore I presume still has balancer shaft issue risk). whereas an early 350 (eg 2004) is in the lower tax band. By the sounds of it 200's dont really give that great mpg....and 7G is a bonus. I dont know if 7G was on early 350/280?The 200 is very slow in standard form so my Dads is remapped to 205BHP. It helped a little bit with MPG as it requires smaller throttle inputs to change speed.
The 200 engines come with the 5G gearbox which is much slower to lock up and respond in general than the 7G fitted to the V6 engines. The 7G was also friction optimised which reduces the MPG gap between the 200 and V6s.
I think that Mercedes missed a trick by not offering the 7G as an option on the 200K.
I must admit that I assumed tax on the 280 was in the same bracket as the 350, but I see now that it is £330 vs £600, so that is a consideration.
....minefield!
DarkHorseTerence said:
Thanks for the reply - Why is the SLK range so complicated!! Im looking at a 2008 280 which is in the UPPER tax band (and therefore I presume still has balancer shaft issue risk). whereas an early 350 (eg 2004) is in the lower tax band. By the sounds of it 200's dont really give that great mpg....and 7G is a bonus. I dont know if 7G was on early 350/280?
....minefield!
The balancer shaft issue is not connected to the CO2 emissions. All of the 350s with the 270ish hp engine had emissions over 225g - it was when they changed to the 305hp engine, I think in 2008, that the emissions went below 225g.....minefield!
I wouldn't believe the CO2 figures on adverts - I'd type the reg no into https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff