1998 E300 low mpg
 

Hey all,

I've been tracking my mpg over the past three tanks of gas and found it was only 28 on the highways at 75mph. I've heard so many people talking about at least 30+ with this vehicle, even higher in some instances.

The air filter, oil filter, and fuel filters are all new. I called a local diesel shop and was told if the injectors were the causation the engine would idle roughly, or there would be some sort of smoke kicked out the exhaust (which it does SOMETIMES going down hills while accelerating on the highway). He recommended that the Mass Airflow Sensor may be bad. I've read if the MAF is bad you will easily know, as it will trip a CEL and the car won't function properly - not just a reduction in mpg.

Thanks for all your help, and if you guys want any further information I'll supply!

I'll be watching this thread for sure
 

I've yet to go through a full tank in my "new" '98, but I'm think I'm not getting as good of mileage as I did in my '95 NA w124 OM606. Could it be that the fuel gauge isn't calibrated as well in the w210? I'll find out when I fill the tank.

More likely is that I can't seem to keep my foot out of it. I HAD to keep my foot in it with the '95, but the '98 makes more power - and I am weak & yield to temptation. ;) More power made = more fuel used. (Maybe once the 'newness' factor wears off I'll do better?)

No offense intended whatsoever, and I am actually being a hypocrite, but what you stated there may have something to do with it. Accelerating while going downhill? You're definitely not using "hyper-mileing" techniques.

Your car is rated 23 city, 31 highway, 26 combined. The highway portion of the test is done at UP TO 60mph.
Fuel Economy of the 1998 Mercedes-Benz E300 Turbodiesel

3 cars from same model year averaged 27.5mpg over 38,000 miles.
1998 Mercedes-Benz E300 MPG Reports | Fuelly
I don't see anything wrong with your 28mpg at 75mph.

tjts1:
Yes, you are correct. And I was not aware of the 60mph highway speed used on the tests. That's ridiculous.

The "corrected" mileage vs. the original mileage estimates are interesting however. I'm not sure what formula they utilized to "correct" the original ratings, or how the correction factor affects a diesel vs. gas engined car.

Also, I would postulate that people whom track their mileage on Fuely.com probably would tend to be a bit more focused on efficient driving, thus their interest in Fuely. So if the Fuely drivers are getting 27.5 on average.... well, the lead-foots may not do so well.

Are you running the correct size tires? Inflation correct?

Little things like coasting up to stopped traffic or red lights rather than charging forward and braking at the last second, and constantly activating the turbo accelerating from a stop can make a difference in mpg's.

Did you buy your car off e-Bay or Craig's list ? Cars sold there get up to 50mpg.

1: It's winter. You're burning winter fuel. = < mpg
2: It's winter. Higher mechanical resistance in cold weather. = < mpg
3: You are driving too fast. The mpg difference between 65 and 75 is a lot. Spend $60 on an Ultra-gauge : UltraGauge OBDII Scan tool & Information Center
4: Inflate your tires.
5: Wipe that silly grin off your face and get your foot out of the throttle.

Or, for the extra $3.899 / fill-up, just drive it the way that makes you happy. That's cheap happiness.

My '98 gets 28MPG combined and low 30's on long highway trips. I peaked at 37 once but most times it's around 34. This isn't just a random sample, I check every tank on trips and most times daily driving.

J, welcome aboard! I hope you aren't filling the car with gasoline...that might be an issue. OTOH, running thru the Rocky Mtns at 75mph and achieving 28mpg sounds pretty darned good to me :)

Our 1998 diesel is lucky to hit 31mpg traveling on level terrain at 70mph or less. And that's during the warm months.

We've had two of these W210 turbodiesels. They both achieved the same fuel economy when operated under similar conditions. No surprises there.

former 99 E300 owner checking in:

your mpgs seem normal for the conditions.

to improve them, you'd have to drive like an old man w/hat and that's no fun

let the engine oil come up to temp, then flog it & grin:)

I have been averaging 26-28 mpg in my W210 over the course of last year.

I don't drive like grandpa but I don't drive it like I stole it either.

28 mpg on winter diesel is about what I get....though I can see 30-31.

When I had my '98 the best I got was 31, but the average was around 26 running biofuel. My friend has the exact same car and we drove it down to Mexico last month. From the Hesperia to Mexicali (downhill most of the way) we got 39.7 MPG (filled it to the brim on level ground both times). Of course we had to do the math from liters to gallons (Smartphone app). I would not expect to get much more than 29ish with combined city/highway driving above 65 MPH.

Although the highs and lows of that car model is a lot higher and lower, the '98 E300TD's window sticker from Mercedes-Benz was EPA rated @ 26 City / 36 Highway.


The:
28 mpg @ 75 mpg is stunning, for the dead of winter in Colo for that car, considering that all the calculation was likely not all @ 75 mph.

I believe he EPA highway figure is 31.... That window sticker figure sounds inflated.

The old EPA numbers prior to 2008 were all BS.

There are two EPA ratings for older cars - original & revised. If the links don't work, see the thumbnail below, and the one in my earlier post.

Of course, the question arises as to why the EPA has differing results for the 1998 & 1999, which to the best of my knowledge are mechanically identical in regards to anything pertaining to fuel economy. That's our gooberment at work...:rolleyes:

1998: Compare Old and New MPG Estimates

1999: Compare Old and New MPG Estimates

And Joe, I'd be curious to know how you're doing with the CDI - but I don't want to thread-jack this away from the w210 focus...

I'm looking @ my old 99 E300TD's window sticker. 26 City / 36 Highway. The '98 E300TD was an identical engine car. It wasn't "31," on a 98, since the 96/97 E300's non-turbo window sticker was; 25 City 35 Highway.

Driving back from Dallas Love Field last night with only 8 miles of Interstate 60 mph and 15 miles of city 40 mph stop n go; 23 mpg. Unless you keep this CDI car @ HWY speeds, it doesn't get any measurable better mpg than the '99. The window sticker on the 06 CDI was 27 / 37 IIRC. My window sticker is around here somewhere I can put my hands on it if necessary.

Back when I first owned the '99, I asked the MB dealer ppl why it didn't get anywhere near 36 HWY. They said it was because the HWY figure was achieved on a roller bar treadmill @ a steady 50 mph, with Germany sourced diesel fuel in the test car, at the test facility near Washington, D.C.

Not necessarily all of them. For example, the original number provided for our Corolla -- 40 highway -- is consistent with 60 MPH highway driving. OTOH, the revised 36 is a number that I can get at even 75 MPH, making it definitely too low given the claimed test conditions.

The numbers for a 1990 Geo Prizm are all too low, based on what we got in our old one. The 24 highway MPG for a 1984 300SD is also loony.

Their revised numbers for the Buick seem about right. Their 23 HWY for our Sienna is again too low.

I guess my point is that I take EPA numbers with a large chunk of salt and would research enthusiast sites to get a general sense of what sane people are reporting for mileage and buy assuming that.

Who drives 60mph on the highway? You're likely to get run off the road by a semi if you're going that slowly.

Hey tjts1, I'm sure that you've seen (on the 405 when it actually moves) those clueless hyper-mileing IDIOTS in priuses (priussi?). 60mph on a good day.

When they're not plugging up the left lanes, you can find them with a semi truck parked on their bumper, ready to roll right over them. They are either completely unaware, or just have no consideration for how their behavior adversely affects everyone around them.

revenge
 

whenever I see a prius derping along, saving the planet, I often give in to temptation & floor it for a nice cloud of soot.

I am a bad person

No, you're not a bad person. I am. You *think* about it, I actually do it. And I make sure to get right in front of them first.

I must say however that it was a much more effective maneuver when I still had my w123...

Southern California brings out the best in me. :rolleyes:

I need to get the hell away from here....

Anyone following the 60mph speed limit.;):P

There's so few mph signs in So. Cal. on the Interstates, I guess you can drive as fast as you want to - until the CHP catches you. ;)

we should change places:)
 

I got more satisfaction out of doing it in the E300 because they would rapidly get really small in the rear view mirror.

dang I miss that car.

there was a saying I read once somewhere...

everyone should live in California for awhile before life makes you too hard...
and leave California before it makes you too soft...

That's a cool saying.......

I wish I could remember the quote exactly & who said it.

I had the good fortune to take a cross country road trip 20 years ago that took me from my home in Boston out to Seattle, down to LA and back across. I feel very lucky to have seen some of the most beautiful parts of america, so different from what I call home. I hope to see all that and more from behind the wheel again before I die.

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, at least for around here. When there isn't much traffic on the road, going 60 in the right lane is not unreasonable at all. If faster-moving people can't gauge from a distance that i am moving slower than they are, they are the problem, not me. When there is consistent traffic, I move at the speed of the right or middle lanes, which is typically somewhere around 65-75 (depending on the highway).
That's funny, around here the slow drivers don't seem to be attracted to any specific kind of car. In fact, I probably get passed by more Prii than I pass. We have a friend who has a Prius, and she says that on the highway, she drives at or over the speed of traffic because the car is very quiet and efficient at high speeds.

It's the Prius' fault that some overzealous semi driver is tailgating him? Huh?
The unimaginable horror :rolleyes:. Who would DO such a thing?

Who, yes who indeed would DO such a thing? Oh, the remarkable, imaginable horror :rolleyes:.

Apparently, some believe the tailgater driving above the speed limit is the good guy. ;):P

In all seriousness, if someone wants to go slow, fine - that's their prerogative. However, that person has a responsibility to NOT try to dictate how fast others "should" be going by impeding the flow of traffic ("should" being an opinion) - so stay in the right lane(s) and allow others to go past you without causing them to do something stupid, i.e., forcing them to pass you on the right. If you are in the far right lane and a big-rig, with it's reduced allowable speed limit, is crawling up your ass because your car is in the way, that should be telling you something. It's called situational awareness, and it's no time to become an indignant self-righteous ass. Unless of course you *really* want to challenge Darwin's theories.

The same applies towards someone that wants to go faster - it needs to be done in a prudent manner with consideration towards the safety of others. That includes others that have far less situational awareness and spatial perception capabilities. And lack of spatial abilities is a BIG factor.

The errors of judgement as to what is prudent in either situation is another matter. Suffice it to say that most Americans do not even know what the term "lane discipline" means, let alone follow it.

I did a round trip run from Zurich to Brussels this past October, partially at night, and I can't even begin to describe what a pleasure it is to drive where people are (usually) aware of what's happening around them, obey the laws (generally) and *especially* the laws pertaining to lane discipline. It makes for a pleasant, efficient, safe, & fast driving environment for everyone - the speed demons AND the slow-pokes.

Hmmmm.... I think we've gotten a bit off subject here. :o

Maybe a bit off, but none the less true....Rich

Sorry about the rant. I need to get off this soapbox - it's feeling really rickety and wobbly, like it's about to collapse. Hey.... what's this label on the side? U-R-O....

I would not suggest relying upon a single tank to assess mileage - it's better to average out at least 3 tanks or more to allow for fill-up discrepancies.

That being said, my 1st tank came in at 22.3 mpg. That was with a LOT of heavy-footed acceleration runs, about 30% heavily congested traffic, and a propensity for "checking out" the available torque on a far too regular basis. I've been driving it more aggressively than I do in my NA '95 - the torque allows for more "point & shoot" utilization of holes in traffic, and that's obviously not good for mileage.

I'm sure the car will do better when the loose nut behind the wheel gets a grip & chills out a bit...

Baz Luhrmann == Sunscreen
 

Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle
For as the older you get, the more you need the people you knew when you were young
Live in New York City once but leave before it makes you hard
Live in northern California once but leave before it makes you soft

Travel

Accept certain inalienable truths
Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you, too, will get old
And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young
Prices were reasonable, politicians were noble
And children respected their elders

Respect your elders

Read more: Baz Luhrmann - Everybody's Free (to Wear Sunscreen) Lyrics | MetroLyrics

I think your mileage is excellent. Most people that I know, that have this model, don't get anywhere near 30 mpg...FWIW

Driving style has a lot to do with the equation too and driving 60 mph in So Cal is like swimming with Great Whites. For comparison, the design of a particular engine has a lot to do with efficiency too. I get 26-28 mpg in my 2001 Mustang GT (4.6 V8 Supercharged) and on my 2012 trip to Florida, I pulled 30 mpg (in Arizona, Louisiana & Alabama at 75mph with the cruise on...I think the 2 mpg increase was likely due to the Non-California fuels in these states as the pumps have no vapor foreskins and the fuel smells different....