Who says Petrol sports cars are bad on fuel

[Truffs]

I have now clocked up just over 5000 miles in the 2 months since getting my new SLK and the fuel Economy is really surprising me.

This morning after a fill up I reset the computer and managed to get this on the way to work:

That's a mix of nice steady 65-70 Motorway and then half fairly fast A and B roads

 

[Charles Morgan]

That's good. What engine is it?

 

[SportsCoupeRich]

nice dials and good economy.

I am aiming for 24 mpg average out of the C63. I managed to coax the S5 (4.2l V8) to 26...sometimes I had to go for a little drive late at night with no traffic to bump the numbers :embarrassed

 

[Truffs]

That's good. What engine is it?

Its the new 1.8 Turbo as found in the SLK 200/250 and I am assuming the C Class too now

 

[Charles Morgan]

Well, my 320 cdi is averaging just a little above that and I am deliberately aiming for economy, so just goes to show how far petrols have come. A friend in a 3 year old 1.6 VW Golf is getting that too, so the Merc is doing well!

 

[BTB 500]

Auto Trader review

6. Running costs
The new Mercedes-Benz SLK 250 BlueEfficiency is actually cheaper to buy than its predecessor, the SLK 200 Kompressor. All versions now also come with engine stop/start, brake energy recuperation and a disengaging alternator as standard, though an Eco button on the dash allows you to nullify its inputs. The SLK 200 automatic and SLK 250 return 43.5mpg and 42.8mpg, respectively. However, the top spec 301bhp SLK 350 returns a barely believable 39.8mpg and 167g/km of CO2. Unsurprisingly it is the diesel that offers the best economy, managing 56.5mpg and emitting 132g/km.

 

[renault12ts]

Well, my 320 cdi is averaging just a little above that and I am deliberately aiming for economy, so just goes to show how far petrols have come. A friend in a 3 year old 1.6 VW Golf is getting that too, so the Merc is doing well!

It does and it doesn't...I suspect the same engine in your car would not produce near 40mpg. But a diesel SLK would be good for 60mpg I'm sure.

 

[wemorgan]

That's quite impressive. Lotus were doing this 15 years ago with the Elise, but that car was 1/2 the weight. I imagine that these days there's not much difference in the RRP of an Elise and a SLK.

 

[BTB 500]

The SLK is a small 2-seater and reasonably aerodynamic, so no reason it shouldn't give decent fuel consumption with an up to date 1.8 litre engine.

My R129 is a 25 year old design weighing two tonnes and with a 5 litre V8, but even that will do nearly 30 mpg if driven carefully. It actually costs less per mile on fuel than our Vito (same mpg, but diesel costs more).

 

[Troon]

nice dials and good economy.

I am aiming for 24 mpg average out of the C63. I managed to coax the S5 (4.2l V8) to 26...sometimes I had to go for a little drive late at night with no traffic to bump the numbers :embarrassed

That sort of OCD behaviour is exactly why I've just stopped recording my fuelling. On my morning commute I can go the long way and achieve a better mpg figure than a shorter route. However, with the extra distance, I use more fuel on the long route.

You're doing exactly the same with your seedy late-night missions: burning more fuel to boost an irrelevant number. The actual number you care about is the cost of driving the distance you need to cover, which is harder to evaluate.

My car's running at a steady 40mpg average, give or take a couple of tenths, and I'll notice from the tank range if that changes drastically. I now save a couple of minutes each week by not photographing the dash display and updating Spritmonitor.

Back on topic, though, 40mpg indicated from a petrol SLK is very good. I have a friend with an R170 SLK32 AMG who gets... a bit less than that.

 

[Frugal]

I have now clocked up just over 5000 miles in the 2 months since getting my new SLK and the fuel Economy is really surprising me.

That's good for a petrol. I'm finding that my deisel improved even more when it got past about 10k miles.