I have a 220 gas W115, and a 280CE W123 gas. The fuel economy of those two cars helps you put into context that even at 25-30mpg the 240D and 300Ds were economy cars of their day

__________________
68 280SL - 70 280SL - 70 300SEL 3.5 - 72 350SL - 72 280SEL 4.5 - 72 220 - 72 220D - 73 450SL - 84 230GE - 87 200TD - 90 190E 2.0 - 03 G500

Nissan GTR - Nissan Skyline GTS25T - Toyota GTFour - Rover Mini - Toyota Land Cruiser HJ60 - Cadillac Eldorado - BMW E30 - BMW 135i

I have a 68 230 W110 and an 85 300TDT. Assumming $3.55 gas and $3.77 diesel in NC I spend $47 to drive 200 miles in the 230 at an average of 15mpg city/highway and $36 to drive 200 miles in the wagon at 21 mpg average. I like both... better than newer more fuel efficient cars but I feel less guilty in the diesel.

__________________
1968 230 W110 +3.5 M116 & 4-Speed Manual
1985 300TDT S123
1985 500SEC C126

Not sure why the guy would believe his non-scientific website, but not Jim's post? Especially since he can't personally check any of the reports. Jim reported that he had cross-checked his CDI's mpg manually too - enough times to rely on the car's mpg computation device.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and 48.3mpg in an E320 CDI is a very extraordinary claim given the fact that 12 identical vehicles only average 30mpg over 176,000 combined miles. Trip computers are notoriously inconsistent. They can be close to accurate in some situations and totally inaccurate in others. Without knowing miles traveled and gallons to full for that specific trip, the data is as good as garbage.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

As a CDI owner I believe him.

If you think that's an extraordinary claim there's actually a guy on the board here that apparently thinks if you install a manual transmission in your 300D you'll get a 10 MPG bump in fuel economy.

Go figure.

__________________
98 Dodge-Cummins pickup (123k)
13 GLK250 (135k)
06 E320CDI (323K)
16 C300 (62K)
82 300GD Gelaendewagen (54K)

Well, since you seemed determined to snark about my claim on this and on the original thread, I stopped on my way home from work to fill up, even though I still had another week or so before needing to...

Total on the odometer for the last TWO fillups was 1261 miles. The car had 30 or so miles on it when I started the trip. The total round trip was 497 miles each way, door to door.

Whilst we were in SC, we used the car for 168 miles of around town driving. My buddy was driving and we frequently left the car idling with the A/C on when our spouses jumped out to do some quick shopping. This, of course will reflect on the total average, necessarily dropping it down. He has a fairly heavy foot as well.


Total gallons for the trip was 30.82. Computed mileage is 40.91mpg.
I did fill up at my usual station, a Hess, near my home both just before the trip and today. Car was level, facing the same way, and topped off in the usual manner.

The trip computer read 42.1 for the 1261 mile average.
I've also mapped the odometer of the car to the Garmin mileage, and find it is also close enough to consider it to be accurate.

There you go.



Now perhaps we should cast the same harsh light on your claims for your 300D.

At one time I owned both a 1986 5 speed manual W124 M103 300E and a 1987 automatic W124 300E. Both sedans. I could consistently over the years I owned them get 22-23mpg out of the automatic, and 24 -25 out of the 5 speeder. That's about a 10% difference in favor of the manual.

Your claim of a 27% improvement is almost 3X the difference I had with two FACTORY spec cars. That seems like a pretty big difference..... Care to explain.

Regards,

Jim

__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles
95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles
94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles
85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles

I've never questioned on-forum your claimed mpg of "38.1" located in your sig., because for the most part, I believe in leaving ppl alone with their data.

Because of your vindictive past arguments and posts around PP, you've been on Ignore, but when you started up with the Freeh members here, unfortunately, I saw your posts.

I don't know why you seem so intent on going after anyone you disagree with, but I'm certain you're barking up the wrong tree with 05/06 CDI sedan owners here, especially when one provides (3) sources of cumulative mpg achieved. Care to explain why that is?

I'm with SRJ in this case, but the irony is striking.

__________________
"Senior Luna, your sense of humor is still loco... but we love it, anyway." -rickymay ____ "Your sense of humor is still loco... " -MBeige ____ "Señor Luna, your sense of humor is quite järjetön" -Delibes

1982 300SD -- 211k, Texas car, tranny issues ____ 1979 240D 4-speed 234k -- turbo and tuned IP, third world taxi hot rod

2 Samuel 12:13: "David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die."

Careful there, you might make his ignore list too. Oh the horror

I'm still waiting to see a verrified 48.3 mpg from ANY E320 CDI.

I gave you all the raw data including mileage, gallons, dates, prices, % in city vs highway (granted this last one is an estimate). What explanation do you need? If you see a problem in the data or the way its calculated then by all means, please tell us what it is.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

OK, since you asked....

Within our family, there's a fair amount of empirical data on W124 cars.
We are by no means unfamiliar with the OM603 engine and what to expect from it. And for that matter, the OM602 and the OM606.

On the surface, your data may indeed sum out to what you are posting.

The question then becomes, what is the accuracy of the data?

I've already told you that my real world experience with essentially identical W124 chassis cars, yielded a 10% improvement with the 5 speed.

I'd be willing to accept a claim of 20%, allowing for the difference between gas and diesel. Your claim of 27% is an outlier, and very similar to how you were portraying my observation of what the trip computer registered.

I'm not interested in taking on the quest to disprove you, I really don't care. I find it quite ironic that you make some pretty strong claims yourself, yet you mock my observations, which are much more comparable with other's experience.

I've posted the quantitative data for my trip, and I feel very confident that I can repeat this mpg number. I've noted a minimal correction to the real world vs computer estimate, but in the big picture, it is what I said, close enough to what actual is that I no longer bother to calculate it....

Regards,

Jim

__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles
95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles
94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles
85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles

My boss has two first gen Cummins trucks we use around the ranch, one 2wd and one 4x4 flatbed. His son drives the 2wd one and regularly gets 20+ mpg, and the flatbed used to get better mileage but now it has transmission issues and the odometer doesn't work so it's hard to say what it gets now. His '06 3/4 ton Dodge with the Cummins gets 26mpg

__________________
1982 300D Turbodiesel, daily driver. Mods so far: Fram 8038 paper filter, 4 brake light mod, Gen II w126 (front) rotors/calipers, boost turned up to 12lbs, non-egr manifolds, water/methanol injection, 4-speed manual
1980 300SD Turbodiesel, project car, nearly ready to hit the street

1974 240D, New paint

Gads, now we have Cummins in the mix.

At the risk of getting challenged, here's what I have observed on my 89 Dodge-Cummins 4wd, 5 speed Getrag, that I've owned for the last 17 years, and over 100k miles. Cousin Tim had it before me...

Empty = 21-23MPG.

Car trailer with car = 17-18 MPG

Airstream (27ft) = 14-15 MPG

Jim

__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles
95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles
94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles
85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles

My claim I based on 33 trips to the pump, 646.1 gallons consumed and 22,433 miles traveled. My odometer and speedometer have been verified vs several GPS devices and the fuel stations are regularly tested for accuracy by the state. Your claim is based on 2 observations of the trip computer. When you say your car's mileage was 61% above the average of 12 other identical cars with data points covering 176,000 miles, 2 observations of the trip computer is not going to be enough to convince me or anybody willing to apply a modicum of critical thought. Your car may very well be capable of 48mpg and that would be great but without the data to back it up...

Join fuelly or any of the other similar sites and track your mileage over the long run. It doesn't allow to you simply enter a random MPG number from your trip computer because they know how inaccurate that can be.. You must have both miles traveled and gallons to full in order to make an entry. Its free and after few fill ups we'll see exactly what the car is capable of.

cheers

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

Nothing ironic or striking there. The poster was making a claim that was not true. Simple....he got called on it.

Fair enough......I'm still waiting to see a *verrified* 38.1 mpg from ANY 87 300D.

Oh, the irony!