Mercedes Marco Polo Latest Info 2017

[MartinMere]

The Marco Polo's MPG continues to impress as the engine beds in. Now getting 52mpg on a 500km+ trip of which 400km on motorways at a steady 70mph (112 kph), the rest on A roads and in towns.

 

[Digger]

That beats Mercedes own tests on rolling road. They never achieved anywhere close to this consumption ( or maybe the computer is the same as VW's)

 

[MartinMere]

Just out of interest, what is the consensus for the inaccurate component?

(a) The measurement of fuel consumed? (Surely over the course of 500 km this is going to be close to accurate if only because the system has to report when a tank is getting close to empty)

(b) The measurement of distance travelled? (Again, I assume this is largely accurate having measured my route against other sources)

(c) The division operator?

 

[Gary&Heather]

That beats Mercedes own tests on rolling road. They never achieved anywhere close to this consumption ( or maybe the computer is the same as VW's)

I love that

 

[larrylamb]

Mixed Marco Polo review in this months (Sept) C&MC magazine.

 

[MartinMere]

That beats Mercedes own tests on rolling road. They never achieved anywhere close to this consumption ( or maybe the computer is the same as VW's)

You seem to assume that the rolling road extra-urban test represents the maximal MPG possible from a vehicle. It doesn't. It attempts to represent one instance of 'real world' driving conditions, complete with accelerations, decelerations etc over a paltry 4.3 miles. There is no rolling road test that is even close to equivalent to my (or anyone else's) driving experience. There is no reason why by adopting an economical driving style on relatively quiet motorways and roads (the situation in Spain) one cannot easily beat rolling road tests for MPG, or conversely, on UK motorways with frequent braking it shouldn't be surprising that it is hard to reach the quoted MPGs. My question remains: what part of the MPG calculation as reported by the vehicle itself is being claimed to be in error?

 

[Digger]

You seem to assume that the rolling road extra-urban test represents the maximal MPG possible from a vehicle. It doesn't. It attempts to represent one instance of 'real world' driving conditions, complete with accelerations, decelerations etc over a paltry 4.3 miles. There is no rolling road test that is even close to equivalent to my (or anyone else's) driving experience. There is no reason why by adopting an economical driving style on relatively quiet motorways and roads (the situation in Spain) one cannot easily beat rolling road tests for MPG, or conversely, on UK motorways with frequent braking it shouldn't be surprising that it is hard to reach the quoted MPGs. My question remains: what part of the MPG calculation as reported by the vehicle itself is being claimed to be in error?

I do not require to be convinced as I would not take a Marco Polo (have owned Mercedes including a Hymer 555)
We (work) have a V class 250 which does motorway driving and manages true 44 -46 mpg and it is not what shows on the read out but tank to tank test. Suggest you do likewise. Maybe you are lucky but at 70 mph I think you may be surprised. It is known that the read outs of the VW read high as do every other manufacturer.
We acknowledge the errors and faults in the VW California so are not blinded to reality or trying to convince anyone. I did ask at the Mercedes dealer when looking at the Marco Polo and the knowledgeable dealer did quote Mercs own figures and said these were doubtful at best.

 

[aBusAndBeyond]

Just in case anybody wants to have a look inside a Marco Polo...

 

[MartinMere]

I do not require to be convinced as I would not take a Marco Polo (have owned Mercedes including a Hymer 555)
We (work) have a V class 250 which does motorway driving and manages true 44 -46 mpg and it is not what shows on the read out but tank to tank test. Suggest you do likewise. Maybe you are lucky but at 70 mph I think you may be surprised. It is known that the read outs of the VW read high as do every other manufacturer.
We acknowledge the errors and faults in the VW California so are not blinded to reality or trying to convince anyone. I did ask at the Mercedes dealer when looking at the Marco Polo and the knowledgeable dealer did quote Mercs own figures and said these were doubtful at best.

I think we need to separate out the two issues

1. The claimed or measured MPG in official tests
2. The reading given by the trip computer

Regarding 1, my argument is that a (for want of a better word) 'smooth' driving style in conditions that allow it, it ought to be possible to achieve better than the officially quoted MPG, because the extra-urban test does not, as some might think, measure the 'optimal' MPG possible. It includes some time at slower speeds, some accel/decl, including up to 75 MPH for a time. And all over a total test time under 5 minutes. It simply doesn't compare to what is potentially achievable on a 500 km trip. Therefore, when considering the reading offered by the trip computer, we should not dismiss it out of hand as impossible. That's the first point.

Regarding 2, of course the trip computer might be optimistic. I've read some reports on the web and one see a lot of opinions, including many who say it is remarkably accurate (not just MB, but across a range). One 'study' I did find that looked at a range of 7 vehicles found that they were out by 5.5% on average (applied to my quoted 52 MPG this would bring it down to 49, assuming the error is in that direction). Obviously, the way to test is as you say, but bearing in mind that a fill-to-fill test is also prone to errors (level ground, vehicle direction, same fuel, temperature etc) and it isn't clear what the scale of each of these differences would be. Still, it is something I intend to do.

BTW this isn't a Cali vs MP issue. I've actually no idea what the Cali's MPG is likely to be. But this is a light-hearted chit-chatty MP thread and so I think any information from actual owners on actual (if flawed) readings is of some interest to some readers of the thread.

 

[pjm-84]

On my old Volvo D5 XC70 . 50mpg equated to 40mpg and 40mpg equated to 32mpg. Computer was miles out.

On my V8 D3 I can reprogramme the software to provide a more accurate figure. A real world check and it was about 1 to 2mpg out. Thats about 5 to 10%. However for a 4.4v8 petrol weighing over 2.5 tones I'm happy.

Never bothered with the Cali. However I have achieved 600miles out of a tank.

The computer reading is typically called the lieometer!

 

[Roger Boeken]

If that is a corporate video its terrible. At 0.53 a hot drink arrives, from where neither of them moved!
..

This video is really fake news : they are drinking a cup of coffee lying on the bed in the morning with the back window opened ? This can only be opened from the outside !!

 

[MartinMere]

This video is really fake news : they are drinking a cup of coffee lying on the bed in the morning with the back window opened ? This can only be opened from the outside !!

Not true. Holding the appropriate button on the key fob for 3 seconds opens the rear window too.

 

[MartinMere]

BTW I think this is a clear example of why neutral readers of this thread need to apply a fair dose of skepticism (and question the motives) when certain VW owners feel the need to comment about the MP from a position of ignorance.

 

[Digger]

It is a VW California Owners forum so everyone can comment. Some you may agree with, some not but please refrain from pointed comments.

 

[MartinMere]

So it seems that when a VW owner claims -- falsely! -- that something is fake news, that is apparently not seen by you as a pointed comment or in any way problematic (perhaps you would care to comment on this); but if a MP owner asks readers of this thread to be skeptical, then that becomes a problem. Is it too much to expect a little consistency?

And in this particular case it is not a question of agreeing or not agreeing with a comment. It is a question of calling out falsehoods with hard facts (something this thread is rather short of).

 

[T6 CFO]

So it seems that when a VW owner claims -- falsely! -- that something is fake news, that is apparently not seen by you as a pointed comment or in any way problematic (perhaps you would care to comment on this); but if a MP owner asks readers of this thread to be skeptical, then that becomes a problem. Is it too much to expect a little consistency?

And in this particular case it is not a question of agreeing or not agreeing with a comment. It is a question of calling out falsehoods with hard facts (something this thread is rather short of).

Pure coincidence but your post made it 666 posts on this thread

Give it a break. You could have pointed out the error without the pointed remarks, I believe that was the point.




Mike

 

[MartinMere]

I find it immensely depressing that unlike other fora in other parts of the world, where VW and MP people rub along just fine, with lots in common (including at meets), this forum appears largely unable to do so. I recognise there are some members that try to take a more objective position, and others that see some good in the MP in terms of kicking VW up the backside, but these are in the minority. The majority of posts here are petty snipes with no real value to the topic of the thread and for this reason I'm not going to waste any more time here.

 

[T6 CFO]

I find it immensely depressing that unlike other fora in other parts of the world, where VW and MP people rub along just fine, with lots in common (including at meets), this forum appears largely unable to do so. I recognise there are some members that try to take a more objective position, and others that see some good in the MP in terms of kicking VW up the backside, but these are in the minority. The majority of posts here are petty snipes with no real value to the topic of the thread and for this reason I'm not going to waste any more time here.

RB made an apparent error in his post. ''Twas you who wanted to use that to have a general go at VW owners.

Goodbye


Mike

 

[WelshGas]

BTW I think this is a clear example of why neutral readers of this thread need to apply a fair dose of skepticism (and question the motives) when certain VW owners feel the need to comment about the MP from a position of ignorance.

View attachment 25391

Is it disabled if you have a tailgate bike rack on?

 

[Gary&Heather]

Come on ladies calm down and just say

 

[Digger]

Calm down? All that is required is common courtesy. A forum is for discussion and various opinions so there are always differences. As a VW owners forum primarily my thoughts are obviously towards the Cali but all are welcome but some seem intent to push their agenda. All that is asked is respect the contributors and if MM cannot then no loss.

 

[Bramco]

Mixed Marco Polo review in this months (Sept) C&MC magazine.

The thing I took from the review was that both upstairs and downstairs beds were very narrow. 3ft 8in downstairs and even narrower upstairs 3ft 7in. Which isn't much bigger than a single bed. We have a Beach so have the luxury of a double bed downstairs, not measured upstairs but I reckon it must be bigger than 3ft 7in.

Although the MP beds are longer 6ft 7in.

Anyone confirm these measurements?

 

[andyinluton]

As someone well under 6 ft tall a couple of inches on the width is far more important to me than extra length.

 

[MP1]

Just a quick plug for the Marco Polo Forum. We have a good bunch of guys over there now and hopefully it will stop us clogging up this forum.

http://marcopoloownersclub.com

 

[WelshGas]

While in Germany a Marco Polo arrived on site. Parked on pitch. Couple got out and removed some belongings and slept in one of the sites cabins.
Downstairs bed wouldn't deploy as a motor had failed and they didn't/couldn't sleep in the upstairs bed as the wife couldn't get up there because of some orthopaedic problem.