Diesel RVs: Re: [diesel_mercedes] OMG Gas mileage SUCKED this tank!

Apparently I wasn't clear about "stomping on it". I was not driving like a teenager trying to beat someone off the line. I meant that I had to keep my foot pressed down hard to get anywhere. If I let off for even a second I lost a lot of speed and while cruising down the freeway I had to keep my foot pressed down hard to at least keep to the speed limit. I know to expect to start out slow and build up. But when I'm on the freeway or in speed limits of 55mph, which is 99.0% of my travel, I do expect to be able to get up to speed within a decent time frame. I actually had a driver behind me the other day waving her hand around like hurry up, hurry up. I waved back, in a nice way, no fingers involved. I was going as fast as I possibly could up hill.

Further more back when I first got the car and was "stomping" on it, is when I got the 36.5mpg! I would expect to get crummy gas mileage if I were trying to jack rabbit everywhere. I kind of ease out there and the car gets up to speed when it's ready.

Trish

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:34 PM, <audiolaw@aol.com> wrote:

We need to remember Patricia's earlier posts, where she talks about "stomping" it and being unhappy with the acceleration. THAT's where the 18 mpg comes from.

    These cars have the aerodynamics of a brick. Not at all like the lovely, wind tunnel design assisted 126 model (300SD), which is much heavier and bigger, but regularly gets better mileage with the same engine that's found in the 300D turbo.

    The 300D normally aspirated shouldn't approach 30 mpg, with even the best, most economical driver at the helm (YES, I know that there are dozens of you who want to post that you regularly get 40 or 50 or even 150 mpg - but NO ONE has ever been able to back that claim up with a peer reviewed test).

    Considering the comfort, durability, safety, and just plain class you get while driving your 300D, turbo or non, you should learn to drive according to its needs and capacities and be happy with mid-20s around town and a little better over the road.

Tom

In a message dated 10/4/2011 8:01:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, beeser750@q.com writes:

I can't really explain why you achieved 37 mpg on one tank, then 18 on the next. That averages out to 27.5, which is pretty close to expected (and pretty good, too!). How did you measure? By filling the tank to the tippy-top of the filler neck each time? If you went by the fuel guage alone, you should know that the sending units often get crudded up, making them at least a little unreliable....