Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
#11
09-13-2006, 03:23 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
ORIGINAL: danbrady
Hehe. That particular type of sunshade is the type that we kept when we traded in wifey's Land Rover on a CLS 500. Still use it (on her car). Essentially silvered/black fabric on metal hoops that can be twisted into smaller loops for storage if you have the right technique. But they don't block the corners of the windows as well, catch on the mirror all of the time, and storing them at times feel like you're wrestling to try and put a pop-up snake back in it's trick can. So, ok, call me a sunshade snob 
; it's just that I own both types and the custom fit jobby from MB is sooo much nicer to use on a daily basis.
Now when it comes to a car cover; it wouldn't suit my particular situation. I expect to reach 6 figure milage in the C230 in just over 4 years, and I live in the Denver area (Colorado, USA). The weather here has rapidly varying temps in winter, and the road crews use rocks/pebbles instead of salt for winter driving conditions. Protecting the finish from sun damage isn't going to help the exterior that much compared to the regular beatings it will get each winter. I've also found that Zaino 3 times a year pretty much keeps the finish in tip-top shape, and my cars always end up looking much newer than they are.
As for the 2008 body style; I don't at the moment feel compelled to wait. The '06 C class is a gorgeous vehicle when parked next to anything else on the road today; I expect it will still look mighty fine in a couple of years. Classic lines and good looks. That's not to say I won't considering trading up when the 08s come out, but I suspect that the '06 C is at a price point that might not been seen in a couple of years. With my mileage situation, I'm starting to eyeball the MB desiel varients of the E as a potential trade-up target down my own timeline. A 320 CDI verion of the C would be sweet!
What's a "floppy eyeball" sunshade look like and why don't you like them?
; it's just that I own both types and the custom fit jobby from MB is sooo much nicer to use on a daily basis.Now when it comes to a car cover; it wouldn't suit my particular situation. I expect to reach 6 figure milage in the C230 in just over 4 years, and I live in the Denver area (Colorado, USA). The weather here has rapidly varying temps in winter, and the road crews use rocks/pebbles instead of salt for winter driving conditions. Protecting the finish from sun damage isn't going to help the exterior that much compared to the regular beatings it will get each winter. I've also found that Zaino 3 times a year pretty much keeps the finish in tip-top shape, and my cars always end up looking much newer than they are.
As for the 2008 body style; I don't at the moment feel compelled to wait. The '06 C class is a gorgeous vehicle when parked next to anything else on the road today; I expect it will still look mighty fine in a couple of years. Classic lines and good looks. That's not to say I won't considering trading up when the 08s come out, but I suspect that the '06 C is at a price point that might not been seen in a couple of years. With my mileage situation, I'm starting to eyeball the MB desiel varients of the E as a potential trade-up target down my own timeline. A 320 CDI verion of the C would be sweet!
#12
09-13-2006, 06:45 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
My mpg has been stellar: lifetime (using the "since reset" display) is up to 29.4 mpg. I've gotten single trip segments up to the mid 33s. It seriously impresses me that my C230's V6 is almost as fuel efficient as the 1.6L engine I had in my prior car (Mini Cooper S, 32.2 mpg lifetime). Be advised that my numbers are probably *not* typical; I commute 45 miles to and from work each day, and only pass 4 stoplights over that distance. I'm also very smooth on the throttle and believe that braking when going faster than 35 mpg means I wasn't anticipating traffic in front of me well enough.
But mpg really shouldn't be that big of an issue. Look at two cases:
case 1: Say you average 30 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 400 gallons of gas used. You'll want Premium, and say that runs $3 per gallon. That's $1,200 spent on gas per year.
case 2: Say you average 25 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 480 gallons of gas used. That's $1,440 spent on gas, or only $240 more than case 1. Averaged over 12 months, thats $20 more per month.
That $20 amounts to 4 meal deals per month at McDonalds, or, in my mind, no reason at all not to pick a nice car as long as the mpg isn't downright atrocious.
IIRC, the EPA Highway number for my V6 was 29 (30?, I find both numbers on the web). I see 33-34 highway actual for stints longer than 45 miles (it's kind of fun to see it start at 19 mpg when I leave the house and then creep up as a motor to work). The site www.fueleconomy.gov shows 31 mpg for an '05 C230 Kompressor with an auto tranny. So if the EPA numbers are understated like they were on mine, I'd expect you to see about the same average 30 mpg that I get; slightly better if you drive mostly highway; maybe worse if you do more city driving.
I think the 7-speed tranny on the '06 made the good mileage numbers on the v6 possible (along with some stellar aerodynamics, of course).
But mpg really shouldn't be that big of an issue. Look at two cases:
case 1: Say you average 30 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 400 gallons of gas used. You'll want Premium, and say that runs $3 per gallon. That's $1,200 spent on gas per year.
case 2: Say you average 25 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 480 gallons of gas used. That's $1,440 spent on gas, or only $240 more than case 1. Averaged over 12 months, thats $20 more per month.
That $20 amounts to 4 meal deals per month at McDonalds, or, in my mind, no reason at all not to pick a nice car as long as the mpg isn't downright atrocious.
IIRC, the EPA Highway number for my V6 was 29 (30?, I find both numbers on the web). I see 33-34 highway actual for stints longer than 45 miles (it's kind of fun to see it start at 19 mpg when I leave the house and then creep up as a motor to work). The site www.fueleconomy.gov shows 31 mpg for an '05 C230 Kompressor with an auto tranny. So if the EPA numbers are understated like they were on mine, I'd expect you to see about the same average 30 mpg that I get; slightly better if you drive mostly highway; maybe worse if you do more city driving.
I think the 7-speed tranny on the '06 made the good mileage numbers on the v6 possible (along with some stellar aerodynamics, of course).
#13
09-13-2006, 06:58 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
case 1: Say you average 30 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 400 gallons of gas used. You'll want Premium, and say that runs $3 per gallon. That's $1,200 spent on gas per year.
case 2: Say you average 25 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 480 gallons of gas used. That's $1,440 spent on gas, or only $240 more than case 1. Averaged over 12 months, thats $20 more per month.
That $20 amounts to 4 meal deals per month at McDonalds, or, in my mind, no reason at all not to pick a nice car as long as the mpg isn't downright atrocious.
IIRC, the EPA Highway number for my V6 was 29 (30?, I find both numbers on the web). I see 33-34 highway actual for stints longer than 45 miles (it's kind of fun to see it start at 19 mpg when I leave the house and then creep up as a motor to work). The site www.fueleconomy.gov shows 31 mpg for an '05 C230 Kompressor with an auto tranny. So if the EPA numbers are understated like they were on mine, I'd expect you to see about the same average 30 mpg that I get; slightly better if you drive mostly highway; maybe worse if you do more city driving.
I think the 7-speed tranny on the '06 made the good mileage numbers on the v6 possible (along with some stellar aerodynamics, of course).
[/quote]
hmmm ..is there any differences 'aerodynamically' between the 06 and o5? .. i assume u mean the body aerodynamics, and I'm definitly amazed by your numbers on the 06 C-230, this is a real impressive engine
I agree with you on the milage differcen calculation , i actually did the same formula a week ago 'though i live in los angles, so the premium is a bit over $3.5 / gallon
, but still i totally agree with you..Thanks a lot
#14
09-13-2006, 07:00 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
ORIGINAL: washoor
case 1: Say you average 30 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 400 gallons of gas used. You'll want Premium, and say that runs $3 per gallon. That's $1,200 spent on gas per year.
case 2: Say you average 25 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 480 gallons of gas used. That's $1,440 spent on gas, or only $240 more than case 1. Averaged over 12 months, thats $20 more per month.
That $20 amounts to 4 meal deals per month at McDonalds, or, in my mind, no reason at all not to pick a nice car as long as the mpg isn't downright atrocious.
IIRC, the EPA Highway number for my V6 was 29 (30?, I find both numbers on the web). I see 33-34 highway actual for stints longer than 45 miles (it's kind of fun to see it start at 19 mpg when I leave the house and then creep up as a motor to work). The site www.fueleconomy.gov shows 31 mpg for an '05 C230 Kompressor with an auto tranny. So if the EPA numbers are understated like they were on mine, I'd expect you to see about the same average 30 mpg that I get; slightly better if you drive mostly highway; maybe worse if you do more city driving.
I think the 7-speed tranny on the '06 made the good mileage numbers on the v6 possible (along with some stellar aerodynamics, of course).
case 1: Say you average 30 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 400 gallons of gas used. You'll want Premium, and say that runs $3 per gallon. That's $1,200 spent on gas per year.
case 2: Say you average 25 mpg, and drive the typical 12,000 miles per year. That comes out to 480 gallons of gas used. That's $1,440 spent on gas, or only $240 more than case 1. Averaged over 12 months, thats $20 more per month.
That $20 amounts to 4 meal deals per month at McDonalds, or, in my mind, no reason at all not to pick a nice car as long as the mpg isn't downright atrocious.
IIRC, the EPA Highway number for my V6 was 29 (30?, I find both numbers on the web). I see 33-34 highway actual for stints longer than 45 miles (it's kind of fun to see it start at 19 mpg when I leave the house and then creep up as a motor to work). The site www.fueleconomy.gov shows 31 mpg for an '05 C230 Kompressor with an auto tranny. So if the EPA numbers are understated like they were on mine, I'd expect you to see about the same average 30 mpg that I get; slightly better if you drive mostly highway; maybe worse if you do more city driving.
I think the 7-speed tranny on the '06 made the good mileage numbers on the v6 possible (along with some stellar aerodynamics, of course).
Thanks a lot
[/quote]
hmmm ..is there any differences 'aerodynamically' between the 06 and o5? .. i assume u mean the body aerodynamics, and I'm definitly amazed by your numbers on the 06 C-230, this is a real impressive engine
I agree with you on the milage differcen calculation , i actually did the same formula a week ago 'though i live in los angles, so the premium is a bit over $3.5 / gallon
, but still i totally agree with you..
#15
09-13-2006, 08:03 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
I am not seeing that mileage....and I make an effort to get good mileage driving this car.
I get about 23-24 MPG thus far. This is in suburban S. Ca. traffic. The typical commute
to work in 22 miles mixed surface street and some freeway.
The best I had was on a 90 mile freeway drive where I got 28-29 MPG.
My old BMW 318is got about 28 MPG on the same commute flogging it around
and not even thinking about mileage.
On the other hand my Miata only gets about 26 MPG, is lighter, 4 cylinder and only
seats two - and not that comfortably either!
The car cover is critical down here in the sun, I would cringe dealing with the
harsh environment described in Colo.
-Eric
I get about 23-24 MPG thus far. This is in suburban S. Ca. traffic. The typical commute
to work in 22 miles mixed surface street and some freeway.
The best I had was on a 90 mile freeway drive where I got 28-29 MPG.
My old BMW 318is got about 28 MPG on the same commute flogging it around
and not even thinking about mileage.
On the other hand my Miata only gets about 26 MPG, is lighter, 4 cylinder and only
seats two - and not that comfortably either!
The car cover is critical down here in the sun, I would cringe dealing with the
harsh environment described in Colo.
-Eric
#16
09-13-2006, 08:32 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
I think the '05 and '06 are virtually the same aerodynamically (drag coefficient is 0.27, which is only bettered by a dozen or so current production cars). The '06 has slightly altered side skirts, and may have wider wheels, but those don't seem to have altered the Cd much. Both are very clean, and reported as the best of all MB models.
I should have also mentioned that my mileage has improved over time. When I first got the car, it would maybe do 29 mpg on commutes. Over time, after 4-5k miles, it's crept up into the 30s and has recently reached 33+ on given trips. I attributed that to engine break-in.
There may also be some benefit to living at 5,300 ft above sea level; golf ***** fly farther, the baseballs at Coors Field leave the park alot, I suspect day to day drag at speed is less as well, maybe even enough to offset/overcome altitude effects on the engine. Hmmm. Just did some google research, and it looks like not only does higher altitude yield less drag, it also requires a leaner mixture of fuel in order to match up to the thinner air. This apparently is well known stuff to pilots, who deal with combustion at altitude all the time. The thinner air and leaner fuel mix also translates to less power, but as long as enough is being generated to overcome drag (I like that 0.27 number), then life is cool. So we high altitude types may get better mpg, but don't get the full thrill of jack rabbit starts!
I should have also mentioned that my mileage has improved over time. When I first got the car, it would maybe do 29 mpg on commutes. Over time, after 4-5k miles, it's crept up into the 30s and has recently reached 33+ on given trips. I attributed that to engine break-in.
There may also be some benefit to living at 5,300 ft above sea level; golf ***** fly farther, the baseballs at Coors Field leave the park alot, I suspect day to day drag at speed is less as well, maybe even enough to offset/overcome altitude effects on the engine. Hmmm. Just did some google research, and it looks like not only does higher altitude yield less drag, it also requires a leaner mixture of fuel in order to match up to the thinner air. This apparently is well known stuff to pilots, who deal with combustion at altitude all the time. The thinner air and leaner fuel mix also translates to less power, but as long as enough is being generated to overcome drag (I like that 0.27 number), then life is cool. So we high altitude types may get better mpg, but don't get the full thrill of jack rabbit starts!
#17
10-10-2006, 05:52 PM
RE: Picking Up my new C230 Sports Sedan Tomorrow!
Hi Eric. I'm also living in So. California and get HORRIBLE mileage on my C230. I have 2006 and love it - but I'm getting an average of 13-14 mpg in the city! I've taken it in a couple of times to the dealer (in Bev. Hills), and they say they made adjustments on it. But it's still not right! There must be something wrong with the car - I shouldn't have anywhere near that low mileage, don't you think?
Val
Val
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jslau1
Mercedes C Class
1
10-30-2007 12:10 AM
DGW203
For Sale / Trade Classifieds
0
07-06-2006 12:19 AM
