Mercedes CL fuel consumption
Of all Mercedes CL modifications produced from 2002 to 2013 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 15% higher compared to advertised consumption. Starting from 2002 Mercedes CL average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was significantly higher than average, at 2008 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.
Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values
Year | Gasoline cars | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
All carmakers | Mercedes CL | |||
2002 | +5% | +13% | ||
Show all years | ||||
2003 | +6% | +13% | ||
2004 | +7% | +13% | ||
2005 | +8% | +22% | ||
2006 | +9% | +18% | ||
2007 | +11% | +11% | ||
2008 | +12% | +10% | ||
2009 | +14% | +10% | ||
2010 | +16% | +16% | ||
2011 | +19% | +22% | ||
2012 | +21% | +22% | ||
2013 | +23% | +22% |
See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mercedes CL.
2010 - 2013
Mercedes CL 2010 fuel economy
Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 20.1 MPG 11.7 l/100km |
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 19.9 MPG 11.8 l/100km |
Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +22% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
---|---|---|
4.7 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 4.7 500 2010 435 HP automatic | 24.8 MPG 9.5 l/100km |
19.9 MPG 11.8 l/100km+24% |
Mercedes CL 4.7 500 2010 Blue 4Matic 435 HP 4x4 automatic | 23.8 MPG 9.9 l/100km |
19.9 MPG 11.8 l/100km+19% |
5.5 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 5.5 600 2010 517 HP automatic | 16.4 MPG 14.3 l/100km |
|
Mercedes CL 5.5 63 2010 AMG 544 HP automatic | 22.4 MPG 10.5 l/100km |
|
6.0 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 6.0 65 2010 AMG 630 HP automatic | 16.4 MPG 14.3 l/100km |
2006 - 2010
Mercedes CL 2006 fuel economy
Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 17.2 MPG 13.6 l/100km |
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 17.7 MPG 13.3 l/100km |
Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +10% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
---|---|---|
5.5 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 5.5 500 2006 388 HP automatic | 19.4 MPG 12.1 l/100km |
17.6 MPG 13.4 l/100km+11% |
Mercedes CL 5.5 500 2008 4MATIC 388 HP 4x4 automatic | 19.4 MPG 12.1 l/100km |
17.8 MPG 13.2 l/100km+9% |
Mercedes CL 5.5 600 2006 517 HP automatic | 16.4 MPG 14.3 l/100km |
|
6.0 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 6.0 65 2007 AMG 612 HP automatic | 15.9 MPG 14.8 l/100km |
|
6.2 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 6.2 63 2006 AMG 525 HP automatic | 15.8 MPG 14.9 l/100km |
2002 - 2006
Mercedes CL 2002 fuel economy
Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 18.4 MPG 12.8 l/100km |
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 15.5 MPG 15.1 l/100km |
Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +13% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
---|---|---|
5.0 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 5.0 500 2002 306 Hp Automatic 306 HP automatic | 19.8 MPG 11.9 l/100km |
18.4 MPG 12.8 l/100km+8% |
Mercedes CL 5.0 500 2004 306 HP automatic | 20.6 MPG 11.4 l/100km |
|
5.5 liter petrol engine | ||
Mercedes CL 5.5 55 2002 AMG 500 HP automatic | 17.8 MPG 13.2 l/100km |
13.9 MPG 16.9 l/100km+28% |
Mercedes CL 5.5 600 2002 500 HP automatic | 16.0 MPG 14.7 l/100km |
13.9 MPG 16.9 l/100km+15% |
* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.
User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.