C350 ~33mpg :(

[st4]

Hateful 7g box? What am I missing, both my cars have this box, and I really can't fault it. I keep seeing this sort of comment, but no explanation why.

It changes gear slowly, it doesn't respond to manual input, and when it does, it can gear twice (as it takes the manual comand and then changes down of its own accord .5sec later), or if its being good, takes about 1 sec to change into the gear you want, 5g was much quicker..... it jolts worse than a 1st time driver high on cocaine when cold, the 3rd to 4th shift point is at 69mph, making fast B road driving a pain as you want 3rd gear to span all the way to at least 80mph.

Bar a low rpm on motorways, I really think it pointless and a step backwards over the 5g box bar cruising speed economy, and at that, its maybe only a 5mpg advantage.

More-over, the 4pot C220cdi and C250cdi had quicker 0-60mph times. Look up the brochures, so now C class drivers get shafted with a more cumbersome box, thats slower shifting, saps performance etc.

Do I need to write anymore?

 

[Mercy1]

Oh Colin, don't start him off again - we all know he loves the 7g box really!

 

[st4]

Oh Colin, don't start him off again - we all know he loves the 7g box really!

I feel its a step backward, after owning a 5g car, driven an S500L with a 5g, driven a 212 with 5g and E320cdi I6 breifly 5g, driven a CLS55AMG with 5g and a good run of a 5g C270cdi and driven a CLS350cdi 7g, E320cdi 7g, an E500 7g, a C320cdi 7g I can rant about Mercedes 7g box.

None of the 5g cars had a shifting problem, all were remarkable in the seemless, swift manner in the way they changed gears, the gearing made the most of the cars torque and in the 7g I feel 3rd is too short, 6th and 7th are too close together. Every 7g I've driven has had a shifting problem.

I thought there was something wrong with "the shed", there isn't its just that box. The engine is utterly wonderful and if mated with a 5g box, I really struggle to think of a powertrain that would beat it.

However, 7g is not a complete nail, S mode the changes do seem a little quicker but still ponderous, I feel ALL mercedes cars slip the torque convertor too much, a little more low speed lock up would be nice, and I did critise my 5g car for having too high an engine speed at normal motorway speeds, something 7g completely addresses. 100mph at 2500rpm is good going.

 

[Colin_b]

It changes gear slowly, it doesn't respond to manual input, and when it does, it can gear twice (as it takes the manual comand and then changes down of its own accord .5sec later), or if its being good, takes about 1 sec to change into the gear you want, 5g was much quicker..... it jolts worse than a 1st time driver high on cocaine when cold, the 3rd to 4th shift point is at 69mph, making fast B road driving a pain as you want 3rd gear to span all the way to at least 80mph.

Bar a low rpm on motorways, I really think it pointless and a step backwards over the 5g box bar cruising speed economy, and at that, its maybe only a 5mpg advantage.

More-over, the 4pot C220cdi and C250cdi had quicker 0-60mph times. Look up the brochures, so now C class drivers get shafted with a more cumbersome box, thats slower shifting, saps performance etc.

Do I need to write anymore?

Wow, comprehensive, and appreciated.

Got to say it seems like you're talking about something I don't experience - quick, seamless gearchange on both cars (SLK350 & W204 320cdi) when driving normally. Instant kickdown, no hunting between gears.

The manual change is fine on the SLK (flappy paddles, I haven't noticed the box changing of its own accord, unless i'm taking the piss), the C, I just stick in S and it seems to behave perfectly.

Perhaps it only afflicts the 4 pot engines?

 

[st4]

Wow, comprehensive, and appreciated.

Got to say it seems like you're talking about something I don't experience - quick, seamless gearchange on both cars (SLK350 & W204 320cdi) when driving normally. Instant kickdown, no hunting between gears.

The manual change is fine on the SLK (flappy paddles, I haven't noticed the box changing of its own accord, unless i'm taking the piss), the C, I just stick in S and it seems to behave perfectly.

Perhaps it only afflicts the 4 pot engines?

I've got a 6pot E320cdi. Its a very early 7g car but it has all the updates.

The newer ones (09 reg C class 320cdi and 59 reg C320cdi and an 59 E500) were all just as bad, just in different ways.

Strangely, bar the jolt when cold, mine has none of the other 7g problems, but its a slow shifter, but they are all like that, from memory the C class 204 was actually the best of them, but it needed so little revs to change up as its about 300kg lighter than my car.

I'd say once past 3rd gear they are good upto the 7th, only a very occasionaly iffy change, but they are ponderous in relation to the 5g or the ZF 6spd.

A bit like you, I do a lot of B and A road driving, and my main issue is the need to go between gears 3 and 4 for the sort of speeds I like to drive at on tight roads. My old car would carry it all in 3rd giving a much more assured progress and there were no "oh christ moments" when changing down manaully for a slower turn and about 1 sec later when you are actually in the turn, the thing suddenly down changing destabalising the rear of the car.

I know some will say I will be driving too fast to experience that sort of moment but thats the manner I like to drive, and a car badged "sport" should take that sort of thing in its stride. If it just did what it was told, when it was told, it would not be so bad.

 

[BenzedUP]

All the MB's i've driven had kinda slow tiptronic gear changes, the only ones that are good are the ones in the AMG with the speedshift which change as soon as you want it.

still not a fast as my old E46 M3 with the SMGII, they change before you can blink...but they are nightmare to live with everyday.

 

[@MARK]

The whole 5G vs 7G is again marketing driven.

Just look at BMW who gave just announced their 8 gear auto. We just have to wait and see who is the first with a 9G!

It's all about the top trumps game that automotive marketing departments play isn't it?

 

[st4]

The whole 5G vs 7G is again marketing driven.

Just look at BMW who gave just announced their 8 gear auto. We just have to wait and see who is the first with a 9G!

It's all about the top trumps game that automotive marketing departments play isn't it?

Mercedes are developing a 9speed.

IMHO a CVT then has a greater advantage.

I had the ZF box in a BMW X5. 6speed, it was nice. I always felt the 5g box needed a taller 5th gear, or a ratio like 7th in the current 7g then it would have been perfect.

The new ZF 8speed can skip gears, or block shift like you can on a manual. Imagine kicking down from 8th to 3rd and it going through all the gears.

I really want to try an 8speed BMW.

 

[JimDut]

Then you have people moaning that they are not getting great MPG when they have bought a C350. What did they expect?

All due respect, engine size out of this, if a book figure states 47 combined and I'm only going to get 35, something is seriously wrong there, or there is a major mis-advertisement by MB.

Factor in the engine size and that buying a 350 you're likely to have purchased it for the fun factor, then I don't think to expect 40 is unrealistic.

I purchased the 350 because the MPG figure was in my 'affordability' range... otherwise indeed I would have purchased the 250.

My point is, regardless of engine size, if the MB book/website advertises 47, then I would expect it to be somewhere close to that.

 

[RichardM]

The new ZF 8speed can skip gears, or block shift like you can on a manual. Imagine kicking down from 8th to 3rd and it going through all the gears.

I really want to try an 8speed BMW.

I've had two now, a new 530D for a few month, then I changed it for an X5 3.0D. It is a brilliant box, no delay at all changing down, is very smooth and quick at changing through the gears too. Neither had flappy paddles though which I've missed.

 

[@MARK]

My point is, regardless of engine size, if the MB book/website advertises 47, then I would expect it to be somewhere close to that.

So my last car advertised 43 combined and I managed 36

I can't ever remember owning a car where I personally got the same economy as the book.

So either it's my driving style or all the manufacturers are lying through their teeth.

The economy figures are done against a set test. Urban, extra urban, combined etc are a set of identical tests applied to all cars. this means that in lab conditions, the C350 returns 5 mpg more than a 335D.

Nowhere does it claim that you can achieve these sorts of numbers in the real world although the more you drive like your granny, the closer you will get but where's the fun in that?

I think you are being naive if you think you can get 47mpg out of your car unless you are confident that your daily route and driving style is identical to that applied in the official tests.

Indeed looking at how the tests are done:

- The Urban Cycle is carried out from a cold start, performed under laboratory conditions between 20 and 30 degrees on a rolling road. This means the engine has not run for several hours and is cold. The test cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and finally just idling.The maximum speed through this test is usually 31mph, the average speed is is 12mph and the distance covered is 2.5 miles.

- The Extra Urban Cycle is usually conducted immediately after the Urban Cycle test. It consists of roughly half steady speed driving and the remainder in accelerations, decelerations and idling. The maximum speed throughout the test is 75mph, the average speed is 39mph and the distance covered is 4.3 miles.

I note they are conducted on a rolling road. That means no wind resistance and no hills and even includes some idling. Hardly real world conditions.

 

[@MARK]

I've got a 6pot E320cdi. Its a very early 7g car but it has all the updates.

The newer ones (09 reg C class 320cdi and 59 reg C320cdi and an 59 E500) were all just as bad, just in different ways.

Strangely, bar the jolt when cold, mine has none of the other 7g problems, but its a slow shifter, but they are all like that, from memory the C class 204 was actually the best of them, but it needed so little revs to change up as its about 300kg lighter than my car.

I'd say once past 3rd gear they are good upto the 7th, only a very occasionaly iffy change, but they are ponderous in relation to the 5g or the ZF 6spd.

A bit like you, I do a lot of B and A road driving, and my main issue is the need to go between gears 3 and 4 for the sort of speeds I like to drive at on tight roads. My old car would carry it all in 3rd giving a much more assured progress and there were no "oh christ moments" when changing down manaully for a slower turn and about 1 sec later when you are actually in the turn, the thing suddenly down changing destabalising the rear of the car.

I know some will say I will be driving too fast to experience that sort of moment but thats the manner I like to drive, and a car badged "sport" should take that sort of thing in its stride. If it just did what it was told, when it was told, it would not be so bad.

out of interest, when pressing on along the A and B roads you mention, does engaging sport mode make any difference?

In the past I have found on cars that have such a mode, normal equals lazy, long changes but sports mode tightens it all up.

 

[st4]

out of interest, when pressing on along the A and B roads you mention, does engaging sport mode make any difference?

In the past I have found on cars that have such a mode, normal equals lazy, long changes but sports mode tightens it all up.

Not massively with the shift times and manually overiding the car in c and s there is the same delay in it responding to my inervention. I find c mode preferable in rural driving as s mode is too keen to change down when you can lean on the torque in a gear higher

 

[ace571]

All due respect, engine size out of this, if a book figure states 47 combined and I'm only going to get 35, something is seriously wrong there, or there is a major mis-advertisement by MB.

Factor in the engine size and that buying a 350 you're likely to have purchased it for the fun factor, then I don't think to expect 40 is unrealistic.

I purchased the 350 because the MPG figure was in my 'affordability' range... otherwise indeed I would have purchased the 250.

My point is, regardless of engine size, if the MB book/website advertises 47, then I would expect it to be somewhere close to that.

I agree wholeheartedly JimDut.

Whatever the discussion here regards lab conditions for official figures and the different variables, quoting 47mpg and achieving 35mpg does not sound right at all.

One can expect 40mpg to be entirely realistic, but to be 12 mpg off is plain daft - begs the question, what is the point of such figures??

My current and previous cars have certainly got close to official combined figures, I don't think it is unrealsitic to expect figures close to book figures to be achievable in the real world.

 

[Shude]

One can expect 40mpg to be entirely realistic, but to be 12 mpg off is plain daft - begs the question, what is the point of such figures??

My current and previous cars have certainly got close to official combined figures, I don't think it is unrealsitic to expect figures close to book figures to be achievable in the real world.

These nonsense numbers are also used to calculate the CO2 output which ultimately decides how much road/company car tax you pay. Great isn't it?

 

[@MARK]

One can expect 40mpg to be entirely realistic, but to be 12 mpg off is plain daft - begs the question, what is the point of such figures??
.

To compare one car to another.

As I just said, nobody ever claimed you would be able to even get close to these numbers. They are there as a benchmark to compare against.

Not that long ago, MPG was measured at 56mph. There was non of this urban and extra urban stuff. People complained then that the nobody ever drove as 56mph all day long.

 

[p1nny]

I have to say some cars are better than others. when I had a V6 cougar the book figure was 28 yet i could manage 30-32 easily. and once plucked 38 mpg driving like miss daisy.
Likewise I had a volvo s60 D5 and I consitently got the book figure of 46mpg and could easily get upwards of 55-60mpg on a run.

Then I got a merc.... im averaging 8-10 mpg lower than book.... real world driving just hurts a Mercedes worse than alot of cars. Ive been looking at new cars recently and I now insist on doing my journey to work on a test drive so I can accurately gauge the fuel consumption! best so far was the audi 3.0 tdi :S trouble is i think they are vastly over rated and priced. plus just found out a couple of weeks ago I'm to be a dad next year so no spare wonga anymore!

 

[ace571]

To compare one car to another.

As I just said, nobody ever claimed you would be able to even get close to these numbers. They are there as a benchmark to compare against.

Not that long ago, MPG was measured at 56mph. There was non of this urban and extra urban stuff. People complained then that the nobody ever drove as 56mph all day long.

Agreed.

Trouble is these figures are becoming more and more unrealistic to achieve, so it seems largely irrelevant as some cars can get close, while others are way off.

 

[texasjohn]

Agreed.

Trouble is these figures are becoming more and more unrealistic to achieve, so it seems largely irrelevant as some cars can get close, while others are way off.

The figures are ok for comparing one car to the next, but that's about it.

Figure for my C250 estate is 54.3, figure for my old company car 118d was 62.8. The C250 uses a bit more fuel, probably 10-15% overall. But it's a heavier car, automatic and the engine is a bit bigger. Sounds about right to me.

Naturally aspirated cars seem to get closer to the figures than turbocharged from what I have read. I can get very close to 34mpg combined in the 130i for example, and nearly 10mpg above that on a long run if I keep it around 65mph.

 

[@MARK]

Agreed.

Trouble is these figures are becoming more and more unrealistic to achieve, so it seems largely irrelevant as some cars can get close, while others are way off.

Well the move from everything being quoted at 56mph to the Urban, Extra Urban etc was due to public pressure but as you say, they are still not real world numbers.

Add to that the OBC in many cars can often be somewhat optimistic and things become nonsense. After all, if the official figure claims 50 and the OBC says 48 but reality is 40 then why bother?

This is the reason I use fuelly though because it gives me real world numbers so when having conversations like this, other owners can see what I am really getting from real driving which (if mpg is important to them) may help them choose the right car/engine for them.