Originally Posted by TimFreeh

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.

Originally Posted by ROLLGUY

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