5:15 - that's Mercedes thing. In Eco mode or comfort mode depending on the cars age it will turn down the heated seats. However in sport or manual it won't. It was like it with my A45, so I asked Merc and that's what they told me 👍
I think if you use heated seats while your cars cold and in winter its alot more. You feel the car putting more effort in then to get them heated. But id think newer cars just do it more efficiently
Hello Nathan, dude another awesome MPG Video for the W204 C63. Dude since we have the same car except that you have a coupe with 19" rims with PS4's I have the Sedan with 18" rims with PS4's. I was wondering can you do a few more MPG Challenges and find out if they are Myth of Fact. For example does running your tyre PSI at manufacturers recommendations MPG compared to the Tyre having 5 PSI Less and 5 PSI more. Also what the MPG would be with the Sunroof open compared to closed and MPG with the A/C on compared to off and the A/C with Recirculation on/off. Maybe not a great time in the UK to do the A/C Challenge, but maybe the tires and sunroof one can be done in winter. Thanks Tim
Hello Tim, nice to hear from another C63 owner especially with a like minded spec! Thank you very much for the suggestions, if I get the chance I may give it a try! : ) I do have another C63 challenge in mind though…
Hey Nathan great video but going from your numbers it would seem you could get 360 miles to a tank on pure motorway driving, would you say that’s accurate? My workings out are 47 miles from 8.6l of fuel. So the c63 tank size is 66 litres so 66/8.6= 7.67. Then multiply the 7.67 by 47 miles would give a total of 360 miles. I’m looking at getting one of these and I have already accepted I will be making frequent trips to the petrol station however for a 6.3l v8 those are decent numbers if I am correct and a lot different to the 150-200 miles per tank I see posted online
Thank you! It really depends on your driving style and what sort of commutes you do. The C63 isn’t as bad on fuel as people make them out to be. I have achieved around 30mpg on a really long run at 70, medium runs more like 25/26mpg. I have very mixed driving and get around 200 miles before filling up (I fill up when I hit a quarter of a tank)
@@NathanMannin thanks for the reply Nathan, 200 miles to a tank of mixed driving isn’t too bad for what the car is. If you don’t mind me asking how much is a full tank costing you right now? Also do you only put premium unleaded in?
a better test would beto see how much fuel using the normal climate controls compare to the heated seats.my guess would be tat using regual climate controls to stay warm would use more fuel than the heated seats
Hey Nathan. Great video. Have you made a video using cruise control on a motorway Vs your foot? I had a 3.0 petrol Audi A4 and to use its cruise control v just keeping it at 70 with my foot the cruise control seemed to be a lot more thirsty. Just a suggestion
Thank you! That’s actually an amazing idea, I’ll need to test that, thanks a lot! 😁 Very interesting to hear about your experience. When getting up to 70, did you allow the cruise control to accelerate for you? Or did you do it manually and then select cruise control at 70? Only reason I mention that, is because in my Mercedes I can select cruise control and keep pushing the lever up to 70. It’ll accelerate for me all the way to 70 without any input of me touching the throttle. So I was just wondering if you did the same in your A4? Or did you get up to speed manually and then select cruise control?
@@NathanMannin it was a 3.0 quattro sport with a 6 speed manual box. I used to get it up to 70 with the accelerator and use cruise to maintain the speed. But yeah with the A4 you could use the stalk to accelerate and decelerate. Love the videos though
I will answer the question before watching the video: Effectively, absolutely nothing. Or to be more specific, so little as to be impossible to measure, let alone see for anyone outside of a very controlled lab. Margin of error in any real world test is going to be magnitudes higher. Now to watch the video though, I am sure you did your best to find out anyway!
Ok, I have watched the video now. First, I want to give kudos for you running the experiment, its always good to try to find out things. I like your attitude! However, in this case, the findings, even as small as 1,3% increase are misleading. You are going to really struggle to drive the same route, even on the same day, with less variation than a few percent. Any difference in traffic or stopping or weather and it shoots up to above 5% easily. On the other hand, physics of what the electric seats consume is less than 1% of the total energy of the trip, so not possible to separate, sadly. This is probably also why no one really have done this test, because if you just look at the raw math, its impossible to find out in a real world test. Still, as I said, not everyone knows this, so I salute you for testing it, its only your conclusion thats a bit flawed in the end. Its cool that you like doing statistics and numbers, I am the same way myself. Sadly some things and enviroments are just not conducive to form any conclusions at all. Cheers mate!
@@GoldenCroc Thanks for watching! I do have fun making these videos but maybe I should’ve researched more into it before doing the test. Perhaps the difference could’ve been slight stronger headwinds, who knows, the route I took on both journeys, traffic and driving style were as identical as they possibly could’ve been. On to the next test I suppose! At least we know for sure it’s under 1.3% 😉
@@NathanMannin Heres a bit of my math if you are curious: Seat warmers are generally in the vicinity of 50w when in their heating cycle. Now, even at the top setting they are almost always thermostatically controlled, and wont always be at max power, even with you turning them on again trick. But lets say its 40 watt average. Now, if you drove your C63 at mostly a steady speed of 70mph, that would take about (very roughly) 15kw of propulsive power to push forward through the aerodynamic drag and rolling friction etc, 40/15000 is 0.27% or 2.7 thousands. So way less than 1%. Now, the process of converting fuel to electricity isnt all that efficient in a car, but it should still be less than 1% indeed. So you are quite right. I know you are joking with the last part sentence, but for those that dont know how margins of error work, it could actually theoretically be the case that the second run was either one of the "best" or "worst" outlier ones, making it theoretically possible from this experiment that either the seat heating consumption was 2-3% of the total, or that you actually saved you fuel having it on... 😅 . Yeah its not easy to measure. People like to make a similar experiment with electric cars and the lights on to see if they can eke out more range. Even though the lights sometimes consume more than twice as much as a single heated seat, as well as the electric car not having any conversion losses to speak of since its electric already, its still almost impossible to measure in real world traffic. Cheers! 😀
@@GoldenCroc Cheers for the in-depth write up, trying to get my head around all the numbers! There’s lots of limiting factors with this test and is hard to do on the public road like you said. I do have another test in mind, so no doubt I’ll be giving that a try!
Apologies for the Audio only working predominantly on one side of the speakers. I’ll have to investigate further so it won’t happen again, cheers!
5:15 - that's Mercedes thing. In Eco mode or comfort mode depending on the cars age it will turn down the heated seats. However in sport or manual it won't. It was like it with my A45, so I asked Merc and that's what they told me 👍
I think if you use heated seats while your cars cold and in winter its alot more. You feel the car putting more effort in then to get them heated. But id think newer cars just do it more efficiently
Video idea - how quickly can a C63 burn through a set of rear tyres? ;)
Did you have the passenger seat on too? I can't do three bars. It's just too hot.
You’re a genius, why didn’t I just do that instead 🤣 I only had one seat on, in hindsight I should’ve just heated the other one instead!
Hello Nathan, dude another awesome MPG Video for the W204 C63. Dude since we have the same car except that you have a coupe with 19" rims with PS4's I have the Sedan with 18" rims with PS4's. I was wondering can you do a few more MPG Challenges and find out if they are Myth of Fact. For example does running your tyre PSI at manufacturers recommendations MPG compared to the Tyre having 5 PSI Less and 5 PSI more. Also what the MPG would be with the Sunroof open compared to closed and MPG with the A/C on compared to off and the A/C with Recirculation on/off. Maybe not a great time in the UK to do the A/C Challenge, but maybe the tires and sunroof one can be done in winter. Thanks Tim
Hello Tim, nice to hear from another C63 owner especially with a like minded spec! Thank you very much for the suggestions, if I get the chance I may give it a try! : ) I do have another C63 challenge in mind though…
@@NathanMannin Awesome sounds good. I look forward to your next challenge :) 😀
Hey Nathan great video but going from your numbers it would seem you could get 360 miles to a tank on pure motorway driving, would you say that’s accurate? My workings out are 47 miles from 8.6l of fuel. So the c63 tank size is 66 litres so 66/8.6= 7.67. Then multiply the 7.67 by 47 miles would give a total of 360 miles. I’m looking at getting one of these and I have already accepted I will be making frequent trips to the petrol station however for a 6.3l v8 those are decent numbers if I am correct and a lot different to the 150-200 miles per tank I see posted online
Thank you! It really depends on your driving style and what sort of commutes you do. The C63 isn’t as bad on fuel as people make them out to be. I have achieved around 30mpg on a really long run at 70, medium runs more like 25/26mpg. I have very mixed driving and get around 200 miles before filling up (I fill up when I hit a quarter of a tank)
@@NathanMannin thanks for the reply Nathan, 200 miles to a tank of mixed driving isn’t too bad for what the car is. If you don’t mind me asking how much is a full tank costing you right now? Also do you only put premium unleaded in?
a better test would beto see how much fuel using the normal climate controls compare to the heated seats.my guess would be tat using regual climate controls to stay warm would use more fuel than the heated seats
Hey Nathan. Great video. Have you made a video using cruise control on a motorway Vs your foot? I had a 3.0 petrol Audi A4 and to use its cruise control v just keeping it at 70 with my foot the cruise control seemed to be a lot more thirsty. Just a suggestion
Thank you! That’s actually an amazing idea, I’ll need to test that, thanks a lot! 😁 Very interesting to hear about your experience. When getting up to 70, did you allow the cruise control to accelerate for you? Or did you do it manually and then select cruise control at 70?
Only reason I mention that, is because in my Mercedes I can select cruise control and keep pushing the lever up to 70. It’ll accelerate for me all the way to 70 without any input of me touching the throttle. So I was just wondering if you did the same in your A4? Or did you get up to speed manually and then select cruise control?
@@NathanMannin it was a 3.0 quattro sport with a 6 speed manual box. I used to get it up to 70 with the accelerator and use cruise to maintain the speed. But yeah with the A4 you could use the stalk to accelerate and decelerate. Love the videos though
I will answer the question before watching the video: Effectively, absolutely nothing. Or to be more specific, so little as to be impossible to measure, let alone see for anyone outside of a very controlled lab. Margin of error in any real world test is going to be magnitudes higher.
Now to watch the video though, I am sure you did your best to find out anyway!
Ok, I have watched the video now. First, I want to give kudos for you running the experiment, its always good to try to find out things. I like your attitude!
However, in this case, the findings, even as small as 1,3% increase are misleading. You are going to really struggle to drive the same route, even on the same day, with less variation than a few percent. Any difference in traffic or stopping or weather and it shoots up to above 5% easily. On the other hand, physics of what the electric seats consume is less than 1% of the total energy of the trip, so not possible to separate, sadly. This is probably also why no one really have done this test, because if you just look at the raw math, its impossible to find out in a real world test. Still, as I said, not everyone knows this, so I salute you for testing it, its only your conclusion thats a bit flawed in the end. Its cool that you like doing statistics and numbers, I am the same way myself. Sadly some things and enviroments are just not conducive to form any conclusions at all. Cheers mate!
@@GoldenCroc Thanks for watching! I do have fun making these videos but maybe I should’ve researched more into it before doing the test. Perhaps the difference could’ve been slight stronger headwinds, who knows, the route I took on both journeys, traffic and driving style were as identical as they possibly could’ve been. On to the next test I suppose! At least we know for sure it’s under 1.3% 😉
@@NathanMannin Heres a bit of my math if you are curious: Seat warmers are generally in the vicinity of 50w when in their heating cycle. Now, even at the top setting they are almost always thermostatically controlled, and wont always be at max power, even with you turning them on again trick. But lets say its 40 watt average.
Now, if you drove your C63 at mostly a steady speed of 70mph, that would take about (very roughly) 15kw of propulsive power to push forward through the aerodynamic drag and rolling friction etc,
40/15000 is 0.27% or 2.7 thousands. So way less than 1%. Now, the process of converting fuel to electricity isnt all that efficient in a car, but it should still be less than 1% indeed. So you are quite right.
I know you are joking with the last part sentence, but for those that dont know how margins of error work, it could actually theoretically be the case that the second run was either one of the "best" or "worst" outlier ones, making it theoretically possible from this experiment that either the seat heating consumption was 2-3% of the total, or that you actually saved you fuel having it on... 😅 . Yeah its not easy to measure.
People like to make a similar experiment with electric cars and the lights on to see if they can eke out more range. Even though the lights sometimes consume more than twice as much as a single heated seat, as well as the electric car not having any conversion losses to speak of since its electric already, its still almost impossible to measure in real world traffic.
Cheers! 😀
@@GoldenCroc Cheers for the in-depth write up, trying to get my head around all the numbers! There’s lots of limiting factors with this test and is hard to do on the public road like you said. I do have another test in mind, so no doubt I’ll be giving that a try!
So that’s 0.31 MPG. I’ll leave them on
It all adds up ;)
Adds up to £4.33 per 1000 miles in your car. I’d imagine in a car less thirsty could cost even less. Good to know though.
Calculated with a fuel cost @ £1.80 a litre btw.
All it takes is one good pull to make heated seats irrelevant in that car.
@@whollymindless I made sure that wasn’t the case 😉
I just put on an adult diaper and save fuel costs and embarrassment. 👍
You can thank me later 😉