OM606 Unleashed: My 1998 E300 Chip Tuning Experience - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

gsxr · #46 07-25-2014, 12:46 PM

1.5mpg change over a total of 1 month (good catch, Sixto)... in the middle of winter with winter-blend fuel.. is not valid data to me. Also, 27mpg up to 29mpg on a 75mph freeway cruise over 500 miles? Seems terrible to me, that car should be mid-30's under those conditions. I can get 28-30 from my old OM603 without the benefit of overdrive tranny!!

shertex · #47 07-25-2014, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

1.5mpg change over a total of 1 month (good catch, Sixto)... in the middle of winter with winter-blend fuel.. is not valid data to me. Also, 27mpg up to 29mpg on a 75mph freeway cruise over 500 miles? Seems terrible to me, that car should be mid-30's under those conditions. I can get 28-30 from my old OM603 without the benefit of overdrive tranny!!

I don't know that mid 30's mpg is realistic for these cars....although I know several claim to get that. I think the EPA figure of 32 for the 99, 31 for the 98 (why the difference, I don't know) is pretty realistic.

gsxr · #48 07-25-2014, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shertex

I don't know that mid 30's mpg is realistic for these cars....although I know several claim to get that. I think the EPA figure of 32 for the 99, 31 for the 98 (why the difference, I don't know) is pretty realistic.

Anyone have a link to official EPA data?

The 210.025 should easily do mid-30's under long-range cruise conditions, at least on non-enviro-friendly low-BTU fuel. The 606 is more efficient than the 603, and the overdrive tranny helps, and the 6mm elements help. I've gotten 32mpg peak from my 124.133 with "good" fuel (generally peaks at 28 with the crap fuel we get now) and there is no way MB would have 15 years of development to get worse economy.

Besides engine/vehicle condition, fuel variability is one of the biggest factors for MPG differences on MB diesels. IMNSHO, anyway. It's also about the most difficult item to isolate... took me years to figure it out on my cars. Seems to vary between various regions in the nor'west. Not sure what it's like where you live. I have gotten the good stuff in Utah and certain areas of Nevada and Oregon, but we can't get it in Boise anymore, and California hasn't had the good stuff for over a decade now.

uberwgn · #49 07-25-2014, 01:22 PM

We've had a 1998 and a 1999 W210 diesel. Neither car ever showed in excess of 31.5mpg on the road.

(Wasn't the 1999 car EPA-rated at some nonsense like 37mpg?)

shertex · #50 07-25-2014, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

Anyone have a link to official EPA data?

Fuel Economy of the 1998 Mercedes-Benz E300 Turbodiesel

Fuel Economy of the 1999 Mercedes-Benz E300 Turbodiesel

shertex · #51 07-25-2014, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uberwgn

We've had a 1998 and a 1999 W210 diesel. Neither car ever showed in excess of 31.5mpg on the road.

(Wasn't the 1999 car EPA-rated at some nonsense like 37mpg?)

The EPA ratings got revised....the current ones are more realistic.

shertex · #52 07-25-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

The 210.025 should easily do mid-30's under long-range cruise conditions, at least on non-enviro-friendly low-BTU fuel. The 606 is more efficient than the 603, and the overdrive tranny helps, and the 6mm elements help. I've gotten 32mpg peak from my 124.133 with "good" fuel (generally peaks at 28 with the crap fuel we get now) and there is no way MB would have 15 years of development to get worse economy.

My 91 and 92 can get 32 mpg....at least as good as the 98 and 99.

Jeremy5848 · #53 07-25-2014, 01:38 PM

The '98-99 OM606.962 turbodiesel is supposed to do at least as well if not better than the '95-97 OM606.910/912 NA diesel. Our two NA diesels can get 32 mpg but rarely get the opportunity to drive long-haul on summer diesel and sea-level air.

The last longish trip was last winter from the San Francisco Bay area to Salt Lake City and return in the '95 E300D. A total of 1677 miles at speeds of 75+ mph on winter diesel and altitudes averaging 4000 feet still returned 30.8 mpg.

Jeremy

uberwgn · #54 07-25-2014, 04:51 PM

tjts1 · #55 07-25-2014, 05:05 PM

^^^^ Those numbers are pure fantasy, thats why the EPA test cycle got revised in 2008 and all old tests were revised down.

KarTek · #56 07-25-2014, 05:05 PM

Just for comparison, my car has gotten a best of 37 MPG, all highway miles, driving VERY gingerly. No cruise control, very careful application of throttle.

Regular case best highway MPG is 34, driving with AC and cruise without regard for economy.

Most of the time I get around 25 mixed town/interstate daily commute and errands.

All of these are full tank calculations of at least 17 gallons.

jake12tech · #57 07-25-2014, 05:23 PM

Longest trip the '99 E300 was on it nailed 35MPG. Full tank calculation. AC sometimes on others not @ 65MPH. Fuel wasn't that great or I'm sure I could have easily hit 36.5 at least. It's very possible to achieve those numbers.

suginami · #58 07-25-2014, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

I have gotten the good stuff in Utah and certain areas of Nevada and Oregon, but we can't get it in Boise anymore, and California hasn't had the good stuff for over a decade now.

Out of curiosity, what is the good stuff? How do you know when / if you're getting the good fuel, and how can you tell the difference from the bad stuff?

gsxr · #59 07-26-2014, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suginami

Out of curiosity, what is the good stuff? How do you know when / if you're getting the good fuel, and how can you tell the difference from the bad stuff?

The good stuff is the original #2 diesel fuel. The bad stuff has reduced BTU content, similar to winter blend, although I'm not exactly sure what the difference is... and we get it year-round, not just in winter.

The way I original figured it out was when I moved to Idaho in June 2002. When I lived in CA, all my cars got lower MPG, and I had years of data on their fuel economy. I saw a 10% boost in MPG across four different diesel vehicles using Idaho fuel (at the time). All four of them increased the same 10% at the same time, with no difference other than where the fuel was purchased. When any of those cars were filled in CA, the economy would drop (lose the 10%), same car filled in ID again, economy improved 10%.

Then we got the bad stuff in Idaho starting around 2006-2007 (approx) but it took me a couple years to figure it out... I thought something was wrong with my cars, replaced injectors, IP's, fiddled with timing, checked filters/brakes/etc to no avail. Then I went on a trip to Utah and got a 10%+ gain over several tanks of fuel, and the gain vanished when returning to ID and filling with local fuel. After I figured it out, it was fairly easy to determine... but it took YEARS, over many hundreds of gallons, and tens of thousands of miles.

On a related note... since power output is directly related to fuel quantity and BTU content, I believe that the original Bosch IP specs from the 1980's are all too low for the "bad" fuel... meaning there is reduced power to go along with the reduced economy. That is getting into a separate discussion though.

shertex · #60 07-26-2014, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsxr

The good stuff is the original #2 diesel fuel. The bad stuff has reduced BTU content, similar to winter blend, although I'm not exactly sure what the difference is... and we get it year-round, not just in winter.

The way I original figured it out was when I moved to Idaho in June 2002. When I lived in CA, all my cars got lower MPG, and I had years of data on their fuel economy. I saw a 10% boost in MPG across four different diesel vehicles using Idaho fuel (at the time). All four of them increased the same 10% at the same time, with no difference other than where the fuel was purchased. When any of those cars were filled in CA, the economy would drop (lose the 10%), same car filled in ID again, economy improved 10%.

Then we got the bad stuff in Idaho starting around 2006-2007 (approx) but it took me a couple years to figure it out... I thought something was wrong with my cars, replaced injectors, IP's, fiddled with timing, checked filters/brakes/etc to no avail. Then I went on a trip to Utah and got a 10%+ gain over several tanks of fuel, and the gain vanished when returning to ID and filling with local fuel. After I figured it out, it was fairly easy to determine... but it took YEARS, over many hundreds of gallons, and tens of thousands of miles.

On a related note... since power output is directly related to fuel quantity and BTU content, I believe that the original Bosch IP specs from the 1980's are all too low for the "bad" fuel... meaning there is reduced power to go along with the reduced economy. That is getting into a separate discussion though.

I wonder if this factor alone explains the different fuel economy results people experience. Seriously, there's not a chance that ANY driver can drive my cars at my filling stations and get 36 mpg.