Average fuel range on C class estate s205 220d

[ALFAitalia]

Quite.....and all 4 drive shafts are still being spun as they are fixed to the wheels....so whether they are being spun by the gearbox or just by the wheels their motion still comes from energy from the engine.

 

[BTB 500]

He OM642 in my 212 warms up really fast...as fast as our petrol A Class and much faster than my old ALFA....the gauge reaches 90 and the heating gets hot a good couple of miles earlier even at this time of year.

Your HVAC may contain an electrical heater, so you can't necessarily go by what's coming out of the vents. The coolant will also heat up much faster than the actual engine since it's only circulating around the block(s) until the thermostat opens. Oil temperature is a much better indication of engine temperature, and that always lags far behind.

 

[ALFAitalia]

True....and no oil temp gauge on my car.....but the coolant still warms up fast for a derv compared to other ones i drive. My company Ranger and DMax take much longer.

 

[BTB 500]

True....and no oil temp gauge on my car.....but the coolant still warms up fast for a derv compared to other ones i drive. My company Ranger and DMax take much longer.

I think oil temp. gauges are pretty much a thing of the past now, although I imagine some 'performance' cars can display the info. The VW I had before the Vito had oil temp. - I did like knowing when the engine was fully warmed up.

 

[SpikyMikey]

I think oil temp. gauges are pretty much a thing of the past now, although I imagine some 'performance' cars can display the info. The VW I had before the Vito had oil temp. - I did like knowing when the engine was fully warmed up.

My 3 Series only has an oil temperature gauge; no water temperature gauge. Fooled me when I first got it..

 

[ALFAitalia]

Our works Astra vans dont have either!!....the first time you know its overheating is when the warning light comes on!!!

 

[markjay]

But even in 2WD you are permanently carrying around extra weight compared to a 2WD version of the same vehicle, which affects the economy.

As above.

A quick Google search shows that the 4Matic S205 weighs around 250 kg more than the 2WD S205 (varied by engine type, etc). That's a 15-17% increase in weight, and it has to affect fuel consumption, regardless of whether the 4WD is being used or not.

 

[markjay]

I think oil temp. gauges are pretty much a thing of the past now, although I imagine some 'performance' cars can display the info. The VW I had before the Vito had oil temp. - I did like knowing when the engine was fully warmed up.

Gauges on high performance cars are now decorative.... there's no need for them.

Cars are fully computerised now and will let you know if something is wrong or if any action is needed. Apart from the fuel gauge, which, these days is a digital representation anyway.

Unlike aircraft pilots, who have plenty of time to bury their heads in the cockpit and study the gauges, car drivers are meant to keep their eyes on the road at all times.

The less reasons you have to look at your dashboard, the safer you are driving. Now don't get me started about touchscreen infotainment systems.......

 

[ALFAitalia]

Be nice to know if the oils hot before you can the crap out of it though....no computer warning tells you that!!! As said above...just because the coolant is up to temp does not mean the oil is.....

 

[markjay]

Be nice to know if the oils hot before you can the crap out of it though....no computer warning tells you that!!! As said above...just because the coolant is up to temp does not mean the oil is.....

Agreed.

Also, you can see the oil temp via a digital gauge on Torque and similar apps using OBDIi Bluetooth dongle, or the car could be programmed to let you know once the engine oil has reached operating temperature if the manufacturer thought it was important enough.

 

[ernie]

While the 66L fuel tank is defined as the 'large volume' option, I've never seen a car that didn't have it, and so the small 41L is a surprise.

Regarding your car, the official fuel consumption figure is 50mpg and you should have seen 450 miles range - on a combined cycle. This means a mixture of urban and motorway driving.

City driving isn't ideal for a Diesel car, and short journeys where the engine doesn't get warm are even worse. Additionally, a clogged DPF (as result of short journeys) won't help fuel consumption either.

If you still think that the car should perform better, the things to look for are faulty thermostat, underinflated tyres, blocked air filters, and sensor or EGR faults that can be diagnosed with MB STAR.

My last (and final) C220D had a small tank which I found to be a nuisance. I didn't think to ask when I bought the car but I could still get from Scotland to Bromley and have some fuel remaining. I was told that there was an excess of the 41 l tanks which were destined for hybrid cars where there wasn't room for the bigger tank. As sales at the tine had stalled, they got rid of the small tanks when they could. Maybe an urban myth, but not impossible!

Ernie

 

[190]

Just to be different, I thought the 66 litre tank on my C180K was a little too big. At my average MPG that was 670 miles and over 700 for motorway use. It wasn't so much the added weight of a full tank but the fact as a low annual miles user it could last for 2 to 3 months. This made me not want to fill brim to brim for MPG monitoring. Instead I recorded the miles between consecutive reserve lights coming on and then added 30 litres.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Just to be different, I thought the 66 litre tank on my C180K was a little too big. At my average MPG that was 670 miles and over 700 for motorway use. It wasn't so much the added weight of a full tank but the fact as a low annual miles user it could last for 2 to 3 months. This made me not want to fill brim to brim for MPG monitoring. Instead I recorded the miles between consecutive reserve lights coming on and then added 30 litres.

I was about to post the same. With half the UK doing less than 160 miles a week, there's a strong case for not carrying a couple of hundred kilos of not really weight.

Especially now that so many of us are...."traditionally built."

This is an industry where "spare wheels" have been "thrown out" because they weigh 20-30kgs FFS. The equivalent of 20-30 litres of fuel broadly.

 

[BTB 500]

I was about to post the same. With half the UK doing less than 160 miles a week, there's a strong case for not carrying a couple of hundred kilos of not really weight.

Especially now that so many of us are...."traditionally built."

This is an industry where "spare wheels" have been "thrown out" because they weigh 20-30kgs FFS. The equivalent of 20-30 litres of fuel broadly.

As discussed many times you can't make assumptions about the range people might need based on total annual mileage. A larger tank works for everyone - you can put in as much or as little as you want, depending on your driving pattern and priorities. For the 44 / 66 litre ones being discussed here the maximum weight difference (when full) would only be 18 kg for diesel or 16 kg for petrol - a tiny percentage of the car's kerbweight.

Being a bit of a cynic I would assume that the cost saving from not providing a spare wheel (plus jack etc.) is more important to manufacturers than the weight loss. Plus being able to claim a bigger boot capacity.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

As discussed many times you can't make assumptions about the range people might need based on total annual mileage. A larger tank works for everyone - you can put in as much or as little as you want, depending on your driving pattern and priorities. For the 44 / 66 litre ones being discussed here the maximum weight difference (when full) would only be 18 kg for diesel or 16 kg for petrol - a tiny percentage of the car's kerbweight.

Being a bit of a cynic I would assume that the cost saving from not providing a spare wheel (plus jack etc.) is more important to manufacturers than the weight loss. Plus being able to claim a bigger boot capacity.

So true. Statistically, it’s certainly far more than half, probably somewhere like two thirds or three quarters of vehicles that are doing less than 160 miles per week. You’re right to pick me up on that.

The more normal situation, is that they’re doing very little, but a few times a year they’re have some heavier weeks for holidays or work, and need to visit the petrol station more often.

Interesting your thought that the manufacturers of £20 - £100k motors are leaving out a £100 spare wheel on cost, rather than weight grounds.

I can’t say I can see the logic of that, given that enthusiasts all whinge about the lack of the fifth wheel. Surely it’s more likely to be about weight n Space AND the simple fact that so many (folks in the West) simply aren’t prepared to get their hands dirty and fit the spare wheel when they do get a flat?

If it was purely about cost, wouldn’t it just become another chargeable option?

 

[BTB 500]

So true. Statistically, it’s certainly far more than half, probably somewhere like two thirds or three quarters of vehicles that are doing less than 160 miles per week. You’re right to pick me up on that.

The more normal situation, is that they’re doing very little, but a few times a year they’re have some heavier weeks for holidays or work, and need to visit the petrol station more often.

25% of the UK adult population doesn't work though - the usage pattern of those with cars will likely be quite different to that of a daily commuter. And that's before you consider the 34% of UK households with two or more cars, which again may well be used quite differently. Total annual mileage really doesn't give much indication of how a vehicle is actually used.

Interesting your thought that the manufacturers of £20 - £100k motors are leaving out a £100 spare wheel on cost, rather than weight grounds.

I can’t say I can see the logic of that, given that enthusiasts all whinge about the lack of the fifth wheel. Surely it’s more likely to be about weight n Space AND the simple fact that so many (folks in the West) simply aren’t prepared to get their hands dirty and fit the spare wheel when they do get a flat?

If it was purely about cost, wouldn’t it just become another chargeable option?

As mentioned though not providing storage space for a spare wheel allows a larger published boot capacity. And only a tiny proportion of cars are owned by enthusiasts.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

25% of the UK adult population doesn't work though - the usage pattern of those with cars will likely be quite different to that of a daily commuter. And that's before you consider the 34% of UK households with two or more cars, which again may well be used quite differently. Total annual mileage really doesn't give much indication of how a vehicle is actually used.

I'm glad you agree with me. Hence my comment that 2/3rds to 3/4s of all vehicles are doing tiny mileages, so there's little justification for a large tank in real world use when it can easily add unnecessary weight.

Fair point about a desire to increase "theoretical" luggage space, but does Joanna Public really look at published numbers ? Doesn't she just look at the boot and say "that's big enough?" I can't remember ever looking at a used car that showed any sign of previous owners actually putting anything "under the floor."

 

[Will]

I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about - tank size is all a bit of a moot point though in the UK isn’t it?

I mean, even with the OPs example (which is what this thread was about), he was getting almost 300 miles with an unusually small tank whilst driving in and around town (so not long journeys). I expect the concern is more to do with the lower than expected mpg (hence running costs) being the issue, not the inconvenience of having to fill up a little more often if they’re only doing short trips and city driving.

Echoing the EV thread here, but who honestly can not operate with ‘only’ a 300 mile range in the UK? Where there’s plenty of infrastructure for refuelling anyway!

 

[DSM10000]

I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about - tank size is all a bit of a moot point though in the UK isn’t it?

I mean, even with the OPs example (which is what this thread was about), he was getting almost 300 miles with an unusually small tank whilst driving in and around town (so not long journeys). I expect the concern is more to do with the lower than expected mpg (hence running costs) being the issue, not the inconvenience of having to fill up a little more often if they’re only doing short trips and city driving.

Echoing the EV thread here, but who honestly can not operate with ‘only’ a 300 mile range in the UK? Where there’s plenty of infrastructure for refuelling anyway!

My days of driving 300 miles without need to stop are memories.

I should clarify, the need is dictated by the requirements of madam for Tea and pee!

 

[Will]

My days of driving 300 miles without need to stop are memories

If the OP is getting just under 300 miles in city use, I expect he’d be seeing 400+ on longer trips anyway.

Not stopping for 300 miles in city driving would mean most people living in their car for a fortnight

Forget the larger tank, you’d want a built in facility…