Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help




Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > ML, GL, G-Wagen, R-Class, Unimog, Sprinter

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-01-2001, 05:26 PM
agupta
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
2002 fuel economy - why is it different?

For the 2002 ML320, the fuel economy is listed as 15/19, while for all the previous models, it was 17/21. I pointed this out to a salesman at the dealer, and he looked at me as if I was from Mars (obviously he hadn't even noticed it).

My question - The engine is the same, the transmission is the same, then why is the 2002 ML listed with lower economy figures? Probably the 2002 and previous model years owners could resolve this by posting the mileage that they ACTUALLY get out of their MLs.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-01-2001, 06:24 PM
Q Q is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 839
On a trip from Atlanta to Dallas (875 miles), we got an average of 19 in our 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2001, 08:58 PM
porsche
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Pfft, that's the fuel economy in the ML320? That's pretty unbelievably bad. That's not even remotely better than the v8's of many of the SUV products.

I really am interested why that's the case. Even the AWD E320's are in the 19/26 ballpark.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2001, 09:37 PM
Q Q is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 839
I wonder what the cd of both vehicles is.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2001, 10:53 PM
Gilly's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Evansville WI
Posts: 9,616
Good question! I will try to find the answer, I was unaware of the change as well.
I have the Cd listed at 0.39, this is from 2001 info though.
Gilly
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-02-2001, 04:54 AM
Kuan's Avatar
unband
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At the Birkebeiner
Posts: 3,810
The '98 ML weighed in at 4,237lbs with a GVWR of 6,000 lbs. The '02 has 1,100 different parts and weighs in at 4,786 lbs with a GVWR of 6,374 lbs. The beast is putting on weight! That could be the reason.

Kuan
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-02-2001, 10:02 AM
agupta
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Good point Kuan. Even compared to 2001, the 2002 ML is 200 lbs heavier. Plus its 2.2 inches longer, has a turning radius of 39 ft as compared to 37 ft for 2001, plus has 17 inch wheels instead of 16, plus has 8.7 inches ground clearance instead of 8.4 (the Coeff of drag is still 0.39 though). Plus the 2002 model is ULEV, while 2001 and before were LEV. Could these factors put together explain the lower fuel economy? Heck, 15/19 is not good at all for a 3.2 V6. Why is this beast putting on so much weight - what are we gaining - is it just cosmetic, or something structural? And what's it doing to the pickup?

As a soon to be ML owner, these things bother me a bit!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-02-2001, 10:23 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oconomowoc, Wisconsin
Posts: 37
I just returned from a trip to the west coast a week ago. On this trip of 5,388 miles I averaged 21.39 MPG with my 1998 ML-320 with 39,000 miles on the odometer. Engine oil was Mobil 1, 10W-30.

Two years ago I made the same trip, with 8,400 miles on the odometer, and got 20.95 MPG. Engine oil was Castrol 10W-40.

On a 3,300 mile trip to Disney World in 1999, with 17,000 miles on the truck, I got 22.40 MPG (no hills), and using Castrol 10W-40.

My overall milage is 20.7374 MPG (all driving).
__________________
Tom H.

Last edited by Tom Hock; 11-02-2001 at 11:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-02-2001, 10:24 AM
Q Q is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 839
I would argue that 15/19 is a more acurate figure for the 2000 model. We get a little over 16 on average with it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-02-2001, 11:20 AM
porsche
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
agupta,

The 2001 ML320/430 are ULEV. The 2001 ML55 is LEV.

Some things that they added to the 2002 were not especially insignificant. They added an automatic lighting system, a climate control system, new dash computer. And, with the new wheels, the pounds probably add up.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-02-2001, 11:28 AM
Lebenz's Avatar
backwoods member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In the fog
Posts: 2,862
The 2000 was also ULEV. That was a big marketing issue at the time...

Regards
__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuel economy 300SDL bhatt Tech Help 1 06-25-2004 12:24 PM
I have info on symptoms/diagnosis of a failing/failed Fuel Pressure Regulator! azhari Tech Help 0 12-14-2003 11:23 AM
Best diesel fuel stations? Cetane levels. Premium diesel. (long) BoostnBenz Diesel Discussion 19 07-13-2003 01:18 AM
300d vs. 300sd fuel economy apsharp Diesel Discussion 4 11-20-2001 09:34 AM
230E fuel economy us6111@ubaya.ac.id Tech Help 1 07-26-1999 11:39 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page