Merc C180 MPG and cost to fill

pastyp

Hi,

baby on the way so am looking at getting a c180 estate as our sole family car. Can anyway shed some light on costs of running - i.e. cost to fill the tank and mileage/mpg.

Many thanks,

Pasty

biko

http://whatmpg.co.uk/Mercedes%20MPG%20information.html
Tank capacity about 60L.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/mercedes-benz/c-class-estate-s204-2008/
http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/mercedes-benz/c-class/

Gophur

What relevance is there to the size of the fuel tank?

DubDani

Gophur wrote: »

What relevance is there to the size of the fuel tank?

I guess the "cost to fill" part of his question. The maximum cost to fill would be "Tank Capacity x Price p/l".

Gophur

DubDani wrote: »

I guess the "cost to fill" part of his question. The maximum cost to fill would be "Tank Capacity x Price p/l".

And the relevance of that is?

The true cost is litres(Euro) per week, totally unrelated to the size of the fuel tank. It's amazing how many judge the economy of their car by the km/tank figure.

pastyp

Thanks for your feedback - it would be good to hear from someone's experience in the 'real world' - that is with normal driving how many miles does a tank last for.

Thanks,

Pasty

The Bishop Basher

I used to get about 330 miles out of a tank on both c180's I owned. One was manual, one was auto. Interestingly enough, I got the same from the E240 auto. Mostly urban driving with some motorway. I still gauge a cars economy by how far I can get on a full tank. If that works for you, happy days.

pastyp

appreciate your feedback - many thanks. To me it is always about how many miles I get from a tank also. The information I go on, is how expensive it is to fill and what the counter is when I go to fill it up again. This is going to be the family car and I think i should look at diesel as I have a e200 k at the moment and those figures are similar to what I get from it. The tank also appears to be the same size as the E class.

How much did it cost you to fill the tank full?

shamwari

Any estate car's I've had have been a little thirstier than their saloon / hatch siblings, so one to be aware of.

Best of luck with the baby by the way. More important than any car too!

The Bishop Basher

pastyp wrote: »

How much did it cost you to fill the tank full?

Given the fluctuations in the price of fuel it's a bit of a moveable feast. I suppose it was usually around the €70 mark and that was from near the red line.

I'm on the first full tank of the 523i and watching the counter with intrepidation :eek: It's a similar size tank so anything over 320 miles at empty and i'll stop clock watching and just enjoy the car

Gophur

The running cost of the car will be Euro per week, or litres per week, the tank size being irrelevant.

A larger capacity tank does not make a car cheaper/dearer to run.

shedweller

Gophur wrote: »

The running cost of the car will be Euro per week, or litres per week, the tank size being irrelevant.

A larger capacity tank does not make a car cheaper/dearer to run.

+1

For me it gives an indication of the kind (vaguely anyway!) of mpg the car does though. By that i mean that you could have two cars, one with a 45 litre tank and another with a 60 litre tank. They might both cover the same distance on a tank, but the one with a 60 litre tank will obviously cost more to cover that distance.
They don't put bigger tanks in them for the craic you know!

The Bishop Basher

Gophur wrote: »

The running cost of the car will be Euro per week, or litres per week, the tank size being irrelevant.

A larger capacity tank does not make a car cheaper/dearer to run.

It is relevant when you measure the economy the way myself and shamwari choose to.

I compare like with like.

If 60 litres gets me 330 miles in one car but only 280 miles in another then I know my costs have risen considerably. 330 miles just happens to be the watermark as that's what i've got from my last 3 cars.

Obviously if the tank is larger or smaller then the comparison is invalid.

It's exactly the same as looking at MPG, Litres per week or cost per week. It's just another way of looking at it.

Henry Ford III

Swanner wrote: »

I still gauge a cars economy by how far I can get on a full tank.....

Does that mean a car with a comparatively large tank is somehow more economical?

Max Power1

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Does that mean a car with a comparatively large tank is somehow more economical?

+1

I'd love to know where these measurements are coming from

miles/tank is not valid as the tank is not constant between cars! FFS

Its MPG (or l/km if you really must :P )

Zubeneschamali

Max Power1 wrote: »

miles/tank is not valid as the tank is not constant between cars! FFS

Its MPG (or l/km if you really must :P )

My car does 6 light years per cubic mile of diesel.

Gophur

Who ever fills up his/her car with the same amount each time?

The Bishop Basher

Jesus lads it's not rocket science.

2 cars with 60 litre tanks. One goes 400 miles on a full tank. The other one goes 300 miles. The first car is getting an extra 100 miles out of the same amount of juice and is therefore more economical. Simples.

As I said above, unless the tanks are the same capacity, the comparison is irrelevant and measuring economy this way is pointless.

If, like myself and op, you are comparing cars that you have owned with the same tank capacity then this seems like a reasonable way to compare economy and it's certainly more reliable then trusting the mpg reading on your car.

To be honest, I don't really care what the mpg is, I just want to know if I'm spending more or less then before.

You may not like that we choose to do it this way, that's your call but arguing that it's not a valid measurement is quite simply incorrect and shows that your not grasping the concept.

Max Power1

Swanner wrote: »

Jesus lads it's not rocket science.

2 cars with 60 litre tanks. One goes 400 miles on a full tank. The other one goes 300 miles. The first car is getting an extra 100 miles out of the same amount of juice and is therefore more economical. Simples.

As I said above, unless the tanks are the same capacity, the comparison is irrelevant and measuring economy this way is pointless.

If, like myself and op, you are comparing cars that you have owned with the same tank capacity then this seems like a reasonable way to compare economy and it's certainly more reliable then trusting the mpg reading on your car.

To be honest, I don't really care what the mpg is, I just want to know if I'm spending more or less then before.

You may not like that we choose to do it this way, that's your call but arguing that it's not a valid measurement is quite simply incorrect and shows that your not grasping the concept.

Im sorry, but :eek:!

Im not grasping the concept?? Fine then, you continue measuring in Litres/Tank and see where it gets you.

The Bishop Basher

Max Power1 wrote: »

Im sorry, but :eek:!

Im not grasping the concept?? Fine then, you continue measuring in Litres/Tank and see where it gets you.

Again...failing to grasp a simple concept.

It's not litres/tank. It's miles/tank or miles/60 litres.

And as it's a valid measurement that's served me well for my last 4 cars, I will stick to it thanks.

trout

To answer the OP ... I get 30 MPG on average from a C180K, doing mostly city driving. On a motorway, with a gentle foot, this can be slightly better, around 35 mpg.

A fill up from empty is about 75 euro.

Alanstrainor

Swanner wrote: »

Again...failing to grasp a simple concept.

It's not litres/tank. It's miles/tank or miles/60 litres.

And as it's a valid measurement that's served me well for my last 4 cars, I will stick to it thanks.

You're right. Your calculation is not rocket science. But MPG or l/100km is a far better way of measuring fuel consumption, as it doesn't depend on the tank size remaining constant. As had been said the capacity of fuel tanks changes from car to car.

And to confuse your calculation more, you are assuming you use your full 60 litres in between fills. I'd bet there'd be 4/5 litres left in the tank when you fill up.

shedweller

Swanner wrote: »

And as it's a valid measurement that's served me well for my last 4 cars, I will stick to it thanks.

You are perfectly entitled to use that system.

The reason i don't use the miles/ km per tank system is that if i change car and its fuel tank is a different size then does that mean my mpg is different? Maybe so, but not because the tank is smaller or bigger.

Anyone remember Jeremy Clarkson driving to Scotland in an audi? If i remember correctly he did it in one tank. Amazing you would think, until it is pointed out that the fuel tank in the car in question is massive. I think his mpg was in the 40's. Which isn't so impressive. Well, it hardly justified a whole section of the top gear show.

The Bishop Basher

I agree. As an industry recognised measurement, mpg or Litres/100 km make total sense as you're comparing cars of all different shapes, sizes, fuels and tank capacities.

In the vein of this thread though the op is measuring like with like. Likeiwse it just so happens that my last 4 cars had 60L tanks and so I compared them that way.

I also agree that miles/tank isn't 100% accurate but anyone who's measuring that way is probably only looking for a rough guide and from full tank to red line or petrol light on will be there or thereabouts.

On the downside the new 523i is over halfway between 3/4 and 1/2 and only reading 120 miles. It's got a bit of making up to do to get over the magic 320 mark And i've been taking it very handy.