The point is, there's no difference. Look at the ratings for a '97 and they'll be even slightly lower than those for a '96. It's all within the margin of error.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

... this thread is worthless without pix.

Good thread, I have to chime in though. I have a '98 and get very high 30's consistently. I drive about 40k a year and keep meticulous records (fuel reciepts v. mileage) for business purposes. I also keep my tires inflated to 41 (cold) and drive very sensibly (on acceleration). I probably benefit from a temperate climate (Carolina's) and flat roads - I drive mainly in the SE.

The '96 has a different tranny (mentioned before) and the EPA revised the way they calculate EPA in the late '90's. I also know of others with '98 & '99 diesels that get similar MPG. There also was an Autoweek (??) article on the '98 where the press took the car from LA to SF and back on one tank. It was 800 miles, / 21.1 is...

You can extract very good mileage (relatively) out of any vehicle if you drive it right, or hyper-mile it as some people call it. However, in normal driving & conditions most people won't see such numbers. From the fueleconomy.gov site, the average user mileage for a '99 E300DT is 29.7 mpg based on 6 reviews.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL