Last post on Sep 17, 2007 at 5:06 PM
You are in the Mercedes Benz M-Class
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Ford Explorer, Buick Rendezvous, Acura MDX, Car Safety, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), SUV
Jun 18, 2001 (9:32 am)
Interesting that you were only able to get 16.03 mpg in the old V6 Explorer on a highway trip (if I understood correctly that this was a highway trip from SLC to Yellowstone NP). I have a 2002 Explorer with the V8 (not the V6) and get better highway mileage than that, every single time.
So far I've gotten anywhere from 17.2 to 18.6 highway mpg in the first 2300 miles, and from 14.3 to 15.6 city mpg. The V8 is supposed to get 14 city/19 highway, so I guess what I've been getting seems to be pretty dead on with how it's rated.
Also, FYI, I accelerate quickly and set my cruise on 80mph. If I accelerated slower and set my cruise on 65-70mph, I could easily get an extra 1-2 mpg for both city and highway.
I also calculate my own mileage, rather than trusting the trip computer, which I have also observed to be +/- 0.5mpg. I would have thought that it would have been consistently low or consistently high, but I have seen it both ways.
The mileage figures I used for my example were the average of the city and highway mpg for both vehicles. For the Explorer V6, the average of 15 city and 20 highway is 17.5 mpg. For the Mercedes, the average of 17 city and 21 highway is 19 mpg. I was just trying to make an objective comparison using the rated mpg for each. I think that is a more fair comparison than basing it on one trip by one person with a rental car vs. a car they owned.
My point, however, was not to say that the Explorer will be greatly superior in how much it costs you for fuel. Rather, I was just trying to say that the two are in pretty much the same league. I think that in the long run you will spend a _little_ less on fuel with the Explorer than you will with the Mercedes. However, I would certainly not make my decision on which vehicle to buy based on this small difference.
(If you drive 15,000 miles a year, with the current Atlanta costs of regular ($1.389) and premium ($1.589) gas, using the average mpgs for each, it would cost you $63.90 less per year for fuel for the Explorer -- not very significant on a $30,000 vehicle).
I just get tired of proteus using the ML mpg as a huge bargaining point, as if it is SO wonderful, while the Explorer's is SO awful. In my opinion, the Explorer may win by a nose in overall fuel cost, but there's not a big enough difference for anyone buying a $30K (or $40K for the ML) vehicle to care.
#89 of 473 darrenjones by nikorr
Jun 18, 2001 (4:49 pm)
HI , take my post as my experience. I dont post much , I just read them . THAT TRIP WAS NOT ON HWY . Both ,,cars ,, drive OK . But in the hills and mountains was biger diferent between them . The transmition was working not OK . It shifts on the way up to hill from 5 to 4 and you dont see any improvments in the speed or power .For exempl , driving on cru.control 50 MPH Ford shifted from 5 to 4 and to 3 to keep same speed . MB from 5 to 4 ,I think that is why Ford need more gasoline .I'm driving well above speed limit , and I speed up a lot , so I dont care about couple extra gal.of the gas .
One more thing . You still mention PREMIUM and REGULAR . MB DON'T NEED PREMIUM ONLY . The comp. is ,,watching ,, for you what type of gas you put in . Not even manual says that you have to use premium . And I dont think manny people who wants to buy a truck thinking between EXPLORER or ML BECAUSE THAT 10 k MORE .I have been thinking between 4Runner and Outback and ML and Volvo and Audi and E - wagon .
But I needed higher view and space inside where I can sleep . And car must drive in deep snow and mud too . For me is it just a car that I'm using to deth and than I get another one and another one....( I'm traveling a 60 mi./ year for nature photography )
Anyway good luck with your ex. )
PS : I dont like some things on ML , but I can live with them .
I will try to post pictures from the trips , but maybe in couple weeks.. 3 or 4 I hope )) From SW wilderness
#90 of 473 nikorr
Jun 18, 2001 (6:07 pm)
True that the manual doesn't say that you HAVE to use premium, but that you should use premium. If that's not available it says that you can use regular octane, but you should switch back to premium as soon as possible. The retardation of the ignition and other adjustments that the computer makes causes the engine to run slightly less efficiently and hence the savings that you get from running regular will be none at all (or perhaps very little + you get slightly less power) so there's not much point anyway.
All the best,
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Jun 19, 2001 (4:55 pm)
Right , but what is PREMIUM ?????????
Premium in Europe is 96 oct.
Premium in Chicago is 91 to 93 oct. Premium in Iowa , Col , Utah and manny other places is 87 to 89 oct. So what you can do ? I'm using premium , but what is premium in Chicago is not premium over there.
#92 of 473 Hi Nikorr
Jun 19, 2001 (9:35 pm)
MB specifies premium as octane 91 and above. The different explanations are in the owner's manual. In Colorado and other high spots, 91 is not needed since the air is thinner up at those altitudes, and their 89 would surfice.
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
#94 of 473 Is this group dead?
Jul 10, 2001 (11:17 pm)
#95 of 473 Luxi, short answer would appear to be Yes.
Jul 12, 2001 (8:36 pm)
#96 of 473 Looks like you guys came to your conclusions.
Jul 23, 2001 (2:17 pm)
Remember, price is what you pay: value is what you receive in return.
Looks, aftermarket friendly, and the ultimate reason, VALUE, are my reasons to my Suburban vessel. Safety, race car-like speed and drawing attention to yourself are not.
A vehicle is only as safe as the driver. If you need all of those curtains and sensors to increase your confidence on the road, you have no reason behind the wheel.
Resale: If you are leasing (of which, I know most of you guys will), It does not matter. If you intend to keep this thing longer than 5 or 6 years, who cares? It won't be worth much anyway.
Gas? Most of these things suck gas (except for the worthless baby suv's). If you cannot afford to set aside $30 weekly on gas, you have no reason considering an SUV.
Reliablility: C'mon people. No car lasts forever, they all need maintenance!
SOmething that is based off of a TRUCK that costs luxo sedan price is a waste of money. It is not an SUV, it is a bloated ego soother.
Your decisions of your consideration to purchase should not be based on others.
ML: Looks like a minivan.
Buick: It IS a minivan with 4 doors.
Explorer: That box shape has grown old and dull. Needs more aftermarket stuff to spice it up.
Mountaineer: It looks good from the front only. Other than that, see explorer.
Acura: Looks like a minivan, but is a far better value than the ML.
I wish the Industry would go back to the stone ages of 4x4's. Just like it used to be. Luxury was having your spare tire out of the rear!