Real Mercedes SL fuel consumption
Mercedes SL real fuel consumption by user reviews is approximately 15% higher compared to official consumption. Above consumption difference is the average for all Mercedes SL produced from 1998 to 2018. For Mercedes SL produced up to 2008 the difference in real fuel consumption by user reviews is on average minor, while for those produced after 2008 it is on average +34%.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
Average difference between user reported and stated consumption
All carmakers average fuel economy difference between advertised and user reported
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
2012
Mercedes SL 2012
Average real petrol consumption difference: +53%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Mercedes SL versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 3.0MERCEDES BENZ SL-Klasse (R231) 400 BlueEFFICIENCY AT | 7.7 l/100km | 12.9 l/100km+68% |
| 3.5Mercedes SL 3.5 350 2012 AT | 6.8 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km+50% |
| 4.7Mercedes SL 4.7 500 2012 AT | 9.1 l/100km | 12.9 l/100km+42% |
| 5.5Mercedes SL 2014 5.5 AMG SL 63 AT | 9.9 l/100km |
2008
Mercedes SL 2008
Average real petrol consumption difference: +15%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Mercedes SL versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 3.0Mercedes SL 3.0 280 2008 AT | 9.4 l/100km | |
| 3.5Mercedes SL 3.5 350 2008 AT | 9.7 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km+6% |
| 5.5Mercedes SL 5.5 500 2008 388 HP AT | 11.6 l/100km | |
| 5.5Mercedes SL 5.5 600 2008 517 HP AT | 13.9 l/100km | |
| 6.0Mercedes SL 2008 6.0 AMG SL 65 V12 AT | 14.0 l/100km | |
| 6.2Mercedes SL 6.2 63 2008 AMG AT | 13.9 l/100km | 17.3 l/100km+24% |
2006
Mercedes SL 2006
Average real petrol consumption difference: +10%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Mercedes SL versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 3.5Mercedes SL 3.5 350 2006 AT | 10.3 l/100km | 11.8 l/100km+15% |
| 5.4Mercedes SL 5.4 55 2006 AMG AT | 13.5 l/100km | 15.2 l/100km+13% |
| 5.5Mercedes SL 5.5 500 2006 388 HP AT | 12.2 l/100km | 12.4 l/100km+2% |
| 5.5Mercedes SL 2006 5.5 SL 600 V12 517 HP AT | 14.3 l/100km | |
| 6.0Mercedes SL 6.0 600 2006 517 HP AT | 14.3 l/100km | |
| 6.0Mercedes SL 6.0 65 2006 AMG 612 HP AT | 15.1 l/100km |
2001
Mercedes SL 2001
Average real petrol consumption difference: minor
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Mercedes SL versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 3.7Mercedes SL 3.7 350 2002 MT | 11.5 l/100km | 11.5 l/100km0% |
| 3.7Mercedes SL 3.7 350 2002 Automatic AT | 11.7 l/100km | 11.5 l/100km-2% |
| 5.0Mercedes SL 5.0 500 2001 306 HP AT | 12.7 l/100km | 12.5 l/100km-2% |
| 5.0Mercedes SL 5.0 500 2004 306 HP AT | 12.7 l/100km | 13.3 l/100km+5% |
| 5.4Mercedes SL 5.4 55 2002 AMG 476 HP AT | 14.2 l/100km | |
| 5.4Mercedes SL 5.4 55 2003 AMG 500 HP AT | 13.5 l/100km | 14.5 l/100km+7% |
| 5.5Mercedes SL 2003 5.5 SL 600 V12 AT | 14.4 l/100km | |
| 6.0Mercedes SL 6.0 600 2003 AT | 15.1 l/100km | 16.0 l/100km+6% |
1998
Mercedes SL 1998
Average real petrol consumption difference: minor
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Mercedes SL versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 2.8Mercedes SL 2.8 280 1998 MT | 10.7 l/100km | |
| 2.8Mercedes SL 2.8 280 1998 Automatic AT | 10.8 l/100km | |
| 3.2Mercedes SL 3.2 320 1998 AT | 11.0 l/100km | 11.7 l/100km+6% |
| 5.0Mercedes SL 5.0 500 1998 AT | 12.5 l/100km | 13.0 l/100km+4% |
| 5.4Mercedes SL 1999 5.4 AMG SL 55 V8 AT | 12.8 l/100km | |
| 6.0Mercedes SL 6.0 600 1998 AT | 15.5 l/100km | |
| 7.3Mercedes SL 1999 7.3 AMG SL 73 V12 AT | 15.9 l/100km |
Real fuel consumption of other carmakers
The fuel consumption reported by users does not reflect the experience of all users, may be selective (depending on the driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the car and other circumstances) and should therefore not be taken as a representative indicator.