C350cdi Wagon

[ace571]

ace571.

Interesting to me that you should say that you got 29mpg after giving the c350cdi a bit of 'exercise'. I've just swapped a c320cdi for a year old c350cdi and when I drive like a granny the most I can get out of it is 30mpg. Have you heard of any problems with this model, because all MB tell me is that I must have my foot down too much, which I just don't believe can be the case as I never managed to get the C320 down into even the high 30's on any journey. The most I ever got was about 53mpg from memory on a trip up to Scotland.

Hi there. I've run mine over approx 6k miles now from new. Performance and economy are improving with the miles. Overall the engine doesn't appear to be well suited to delivering good mpg, but can deliver it if you try hard enough - let me explain what I mean by this.

If I drive the car hard, or mainly in town, it delivers late 20 - early 30 mpg. As an overall figure over a tankful it delivers mid to late 30s - which surprises me as this is not a lot better than if you hoon it around. This supports the argument of driving the C350 to enjoy it and thinking less about mpg. It's fair to say it's not a model designed for great mpg figures - the 4 pot models cover that base.

However on a sustained run it can return impressive figures. The best I have seen is 46mpg (actual) over 190 odd miles, and this was not just doing 56mph!

Getting 30mpg doesn't sound right to me, especially as you've come from a similar previous car that returned so much better figures with you at the wheel. You must have a fault somewhere

 

[FamilyPack]

Mine is sitting just under 36mpg on the computer after 2700 miles (35.7mpg I think). However, I am expecting it to improve a little in the warmer weather.

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed to begin with, but now I'm happy enough with that figure - especially as I do put my foot down once in a while

 

[timskemp]

I reckon on public roads point to point a 911 isn't much faster than a C350cdi...

Only on road hooning I've had in mine has been with a friend who drives an MX5 - in the E270 i had some difficulty keeping with him having to be a lot slower through corners, but the C320 is quick everywhere, still not as quick in a corner but so big on the straights that he can't keep anywhere close.

In these camera and traffic laden days, the use of performance cars on public roads is very limited. I can see this being my last V6. But yes, a cracking engine / chassis combination. And with seven gear ratios it's always ready to hit the power...

 

[timskemp]

ace571.

Interesting to me that you should say that you got 29mpg after giving the c350cdi a bit of 'exercise'. I've just swapped a c320cdi for a year old c350cdi and when I drive like a granny the most I can get out of it is 30mpg. Have you heard of any problems with this model, because all MB tell me is that I must have my foot down too much, which I just don't believe can be the case as I never managed to get the C320 down into even the high 30's on any journey. The most I ever got was about 53mpg from memory on a trip up to Scotland.

Odd - I drove a 350cdi and found it better on fuel than my 320cdi. I would say it's faulty. Or you're driving faster than me!

In town I expect 25-30. Out of town 35-40. Crusing on the motorway 35-45 depending how illegally the cruising is.

 

[@MARK]

I think the 36 mark is where we are all heading towards looking at Ace571s Fuelly count and FamilyPacks claim. Mine (as you can see below) is also in that ballpark

The previous car (I have left it in my signature) was slightly better but only just and only after it's first service at 18,000 miles. Before then it seemed to live around 34 to 35.

But again, this is a 6 pot engine with 620Nm of torque through the back wheels. I know owners of Italian 2 seater mid engined cars with less power than this who are quite happy when they see 20mpg

If 35mpg causes you a problem then you have bought the wrong car

 

[st4]

I think the 36 mark is where we are all heading.....

If 35mpg causes you a problem then you have bought the wrong car

True but mpg must be a consideration otherwise all the 350cdi drivers would either have bought the C63 or leased a c63 at a lesser monthly cost to the v6 CDi.

The car is advertised of being able to reach 155mph and crack 60 in under seven seconds. Would you not be dissappointed if it failed to deliver the sort of acceleration and high speed ability you were lead to believe you were buying into. I would be livid if my car wouldn't do over 150 when mb says it can. Mine can...

In the same way many C350 diesel owners have a car that's woefully under performing in the mpg stakes. It's claimed to average nearer 45mpg. I'm not having a go at anyone but you could argue like a bank selling PPI or endowments you've been misold financially as your car requires more money per mile in fuel than you expected.

I think the mpg performance trade off is a good one and what you get at the pump is great for the high performance on the road that you get.

But it's woefully short of what it's claimed to do...

 

[@MARK]

I see where you are coming from Steve but to be honest, I never actually knew what the claimed MPG was until after I had bought the car and got involved in a discussion on this forum at which point I went back to the MB website and looked it up.

I assumed that it would be pretty similar than my previous car.

It is!

I certainly wasn't lured into buying a car on any mpg figures (true or otherwise).

 

[ace571]

If you read the threads on this sort of subject on other forums, MB and other marques you'll find a similar discussion. Most cars fall short of the published figures which is reflective of how these tests are unrealistic to replicate in the real world.
The C350 CDI appears to fall short of claims by a bigger margain than the 4 pots, but I suspect that is down to engine being larger and thirstier with a heavier right foot compared with a four.

 

[st4]

I see where you are coming from Steve but to be honest, I never actually knew what the claimed MPG was until after I had bought the car and got involved in a discussion on this forum at which point I went back to the MB website and looked it up.

I assumed that it would be pretty similar than my previous car.

It is!

I certainly wasn't lured into buying a car on any mpg figures (true or otherwise).

Fair play. The figures you are getting are nearer the average quoted for my engine in Tims car.

I knew the average for mine but i feel its realistic and a fair reflection of what the car can do. IIRC yours is quoted at a ludicrous 47mpg average. Thats going to need some coaxing but many will believe that's what the car can do realistically and IMHO the figure will mislead some stupid people. Certainly if I bought a 350 I would want more mpg from it...

 

[st4]

The C350 CDI appears to fall short of claims by a bigger margain than the 4 pots, but I suspect that is down to engine being larger and thirstier with a heavier right foot compared with a four.

Correct but it used to be the other way round with 4pot 220 drivers struggling to meet the figures. I could but it was a chore. Not so in my old 320 V6. Turned out the I6 and I5 versions of the 211 used about the same in fuel as my 220 but had worse quoted figures.

The test hasn't changed but the cars seem to be getting worse at meeting their claims.

 

[BenzedUP]

Nice, how did it sound?

 

[st4]

Nice, how did it sound?

Like a diesel