Just curious, does anyone know why the 98 210 TD was rated at 34mpg on highway and the 99 210 TD was rated at 36mpg highway (from MBUSA site)?
Maybe a difference tranny ratio in 5th? Curiosity is getting to me on this one.

__________________
Barker

Probably just the vagaries of the EPA testing - the engine and rear axle ratio were the same.

I don't know of any running gear changes at all between the two cars. Can't explain the difference in EPA numbers. Didn't the city number go up by 1 as well?

They don't seem to achieve the rated numbers either. My '98 generally delivered 32MPG highway, and never varying more than 1MPG plus or minus. In contrast, I almost always exceed the highway MPG rating in my petrol powered vehicles. Wierd...

- JimY

Both my 1996 E300D and my 1998 E300DT never achieved the mileage that was stated on the sticker. The E300DT does achieve higher mileage than the E300D - I think that is because we live at 6,000 ft and the non-turbo is just a dog.

If I want to get a mixed driving 31 mpg in the E300DT, I have to be real gentle on the accelator.

Now, my wifes 2001 Jetta TDI and 2004 Passat TDI do get the stated mileage. The Passat is rated for 38 highway and if I keep it to 65 mph, I can achieve low 40 mpgs. The Jetta easily gets 50mpg......