PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)
-   Diesel Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-discussion/)
-   -   Prices for early W211 have finally come down! (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/diesel-discussion/403217-prices-early-w211-have-finally-come-down.html)

Father Of Giants 01-27-2020 04:22 PM
Seems like a lot of GLK fans here

tjts1 01-27-2020 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Of Giants (Post 4002408)
Seems like a lot of GLK fans here
It's a cute little chick car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimFreeh (Post 4002348)
Agree with all your above points. The newer generation direct-injection gas engines are a major jump foreword in technology. The M274 you mentioned at 2 liters of displacement makes 25 more hp and almost 40 lb/feet more torque than the older M112 at 3.2 liters of displacement.

Just completed a 450 mile drive in a 2016 C300 and I got 35.7 mpg for the trip. 95% of the trip was at 80mph.

Technology is just an amazing thing!!
So are the out of warranty repair bills. There's a reason so many people swear by the m112 and m113 20+ years after they first came out.

Diseasel300 01-28-2020 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Of Giants (Post 4002408)
Seems like a lot of GLK fans here
Very popular with the elderly Caucasian.

pawoSD 01-28-2020 12:33 PM
Hey that works, people say I live the life of a 65 year old man. :D

tjts1 01-29-2020 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawoSD (Post 4002279)

Not going to run 87 in my M112, I've tried 89 before, and economy went down from 93.
87 octane on snow tires with with roof box and a loaded wagon from South Tahoe to Truckee and back with several detours along the way. Temp in the 30s. The m112 gets it's best fuel economy on 87 octane. My guess is 87 octane contains less ethanol than 91. Ethanol is a cheap way for refiners to increase octane at the expense of BTUs.
https://i.imgur.com/6QTfGAt.jpg?1

TimFreeh 01-29-2020 12:30 PM
interesting. I seem to recall that I was in a thread with you a 5-6 years ago where you mocked my cousin for reporting that his W211 CDI trip computer had reported 48MPG on a trip with exactly the same running parameters you've sited above?

My cousin made it abundantly clear that he thought the 48 MPG claim was a bit optimistic but he did report that manual calculations when he filled up resulted in 46 MPG. And you proceeded to mock him - how come using computer based fuel displays are apparently OK when it serves your naratives but when others do the same they are deserving of ridicule?

You are postulating that a W211 M112 powered vehicle is a plausible substitute for a W211 powered OM648 vehicle. Totally absurd, have you actually ever driven a OM648 or OM642 powered vehicle? As others that have driven both have pointed they are totally different driving experiences and the market reflects that in the 2-4K price premium between the two equivalent examples.

I have no issues with your high 20's MPG claim on your W211 M112, a CDI would have been in the mid-40's and would consistently beat the M112 by 10-12 MPG over equivalent running conditions. The extra 150 lb/ft of torque the diesel has over the M112 is a transformative experience. They are not the same car at all.

The M112 is a very good and very reliable engine, so is the OM648.

pawoSD 01-29-2020 01:13 PM
If I drove at an average speed of 49mph for hours in my GLK I'd be seeing numbers in the mid 40's for MPG. My highest ever was around 45mpg @55mph. My W210 with the M112 will get ~28mpg at 50mph....but thats So. Slow.

The key with the M112 is a VERY light foot, then MPG will remain "reasonable".

With the diesels you can plow along at high speeds with brisk acceleration and still get great results.

They are opposites in driving experience. The M112 is pretty wimpy until it gets revved up to 2500+ rpm unless you just flat out floor it, while the diesels make HUGE torque right off the line....way more fun, especially in city traffic.

TheDon 01-29-2020 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actros617 (Post 4001760)
I bought my W211 E320 CDI with 204k miles for $1900, the only problem it has that was effecting cars drivability was injector black death and the previous owner got a hefty quote at an indy to repair and he didn't want to deal with it, $30 for injector seal and bolt kit and 1 week later and it's running like a clock, there's a few things elase to sort out ie suspension, and some minor services.

These W211 about $3000 is about average in the market from private owners that is run and drive however most are in dire need to moderate or major service, however onces sorted out these W211 are a delight to drive, its smooth, quiet, and excellent road trip cruisers (ie CDI, Bluetec most efficient)

Also W211 Gen 1/Pre-face lift has SBC brakes warranty 25 years/unlimited miles so if sbc breaks take to a dealer and you'll receive a new replacement, my E320 CDI SBC pump and ABS was replaced in 2013!
I sold my W211 because of black death and at the time there werent any decent tutorials on how to fix it. It wasn't that bad but I took it as an excuse to dump the car. Wish I didnt now...

tjts1 01-29-2020 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimFreeh (Post 4003283)
.

I have no issues with your high 20's MPG claim on your W211 M112, a CDI would have been in the mid-40's and would consistently beat the M112 by 10-12 MPG over equivalent running conditions. The extra 150 lb/ft of torque the diesel has over the M112 is a transformative experience. They are not the same car at all.

The M112 is a very good and very reliable engine, so is the OM648.
Still not worth the premium over a gasser m112 or m113. The om648 is far more expensive to maintain than either of those gassers. And it's not even available as a long roof.

Can you believe there's strong LTE signal on the lifts at Heavenly?
:D

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawoSD (Post 4003299)
If I drove at an average speed of 49mph for hours in my GLK I'd be seeing numbers in the mid 40's for MPG.
Is that with or without snow tires? I think it would be quite entertaining to watch a GLK try to maintain a 49mph average while circumnavigating Lake Tahoe with a loaded roof box this time of year.
LOL

pawoSD 01-29-2020 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 4003347)
Still not worth the premium over a gasser m112 or m113. The om648 is far more expensive to maintain than either of those gassers. And it's not even available as a long roof.

Can you believe there's strong LTE signal on the lifts at Heavenly?
:D


Is that with or without snow tires? I think it would be quite entertaining to watch a GLK try to maintain a 49mph average while circumnavigating Lake Tahoe with a loaded roof box this time of year.
LOL
With snow tires. The GLK is far more capable in the snow than a W211, helps having 3.5+ more inches of ground clearance and 4matic. I used it last winter to pull my brother's (4matic) W211 out of a snowdrift, did it with ease. I've never even come close to getting stuck, even in some of the worst weather Michigan has to offer.

ROLLGUY 01-30-2020 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimFreeh (Post 4003283)
interesting. I seem to recall that I was in a thread with you a 5-6 years ago where you mocked my cousin for reporting that his W211 CDI trip computer had reported 48MPG on a trip with exactly the same running parameters you've sited above?

My cousin made it abundantly clear that he thought the 48 MPG claim was a bit optimistic but he did report that manual calculations when he filled up resulted in 46 MPG. And you proceeded to mock him - how come using computer based fuel displays are apparently OK when it serves your naratives but when others do the same they are deserving of ridicule?

You are postulating that a W211 M112 powered vehicle is a plausible substitute for a W211 powered OM648 vehicle. Totally absurd, have you actually ever driven a OM648 or OM642 powered vehicle? As others that have driven both have pointed they are totally different driving experiences and the market reflects that in the 2-4K price premium between the two equivalent examples.

I have no issues with your high 20's MPG claim on your W211 M112, a CDI would have been in the mid-40's and would consistently beat the M112 by 10-12 MPG over equivalent running conditions. The extra 150 lb/ft of torque the diesel has over the M112 is a transformative experience. They are not the same car at all.

The M112 is a very good and very reliable engine, so is the OM648.
Totally agree. Having had cars with all three engines available in America, I love the driving experience of the CDI (and Bluetec) way more than the M112. The Bluetec driving experience is very similar to the CDI, but has proved to be more problematic in my experience (engine and transmission issues). However, the T model is so useful with it's utilitarian aspects, I am not complaining about it's lower MPG's compared to the Diesels. It still has plenty of power to tow my trailers, and haul whatever I need to. One day I may get the chance to do a CDI engine swap into the T. That would be the ultimate 211!......Rich

tjts1 02-03-2020 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Of Giants (Post 3999258)
In 2019 you could get a dead W211 for $3000, now you can get a fair car for $3000 and a nice one for $4000, and $5000 gets you a pampered example.

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/516653942310311/

E500 Wagon for $4000
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/389037611746193/

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/516377775631722/

Been waiting for this moment for a long time.
Back on topic, this past weekend a friend replaced his audi S6 avant with an 05 E500 sport with 98K miles for $4k. Full service history, new airmatic components at all 4 corners, 722.9 serviced multiple times, engine and trans mounts replaced recently. The car was meticulously maintained by the previous owner. The only broken item is the rear window roller blind. You can hear the electric motor winding away but nothing is happening. Seems to be a common failure point with an easy fix. It has the massaging seats and a few other goodies I wish my E320 had. The 5.0 m113 pulls hard and 722.9 shifts are very quick compared to my 722.6.

https://i.imgur.com/KrWQbfJ.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/cneMeXI.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/TmEZw3Z.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/pTslGXK.jpg?1

https://i.imgur.com/g56w0I2.jpg?1

KrustyKustom 02-04-2020 06:04 PM
With the discussion being on fuel economy I was going to chime in on my w211 E500 experiences. I have found the M113 to be a sweetheart, endless torque and decent economy and so fun to drive. The 722.6 on the 4matic wagons is so well matched to the easy going nature of the M113.
I recently passed up 50 years old and find the fun in driving starting to exceed fuel economy!

g300d 03-10-2020 05:06 AM
So...the CLS 55 just blew the front left Airmatic strut, which I replaced Feb last year with a Bilstein strut and drove maybe 1k miles since then.

Just absolutely horrible luck with this model lol!

Skid Row Joe 03-10-2020 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by g300d (Post 4017570)
So...the CLS 55 just blew the front left Airmatic strut, which I replaced Feb last year with a Bilstein strut and drove maybe 1k miles since then.

Just absolutely horrible luck with this model lol!
???

You've posted in Diesel Discussion Forum.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:57 AM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website