Where should I start /w MPG on 87 260E - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

neanderthal · #1 06-07-2009, 11:39 PM

It does also depend on your driving style though. If you are more of a leadfoot, then you are never going to get good fuel economy.

I do not race everywhere, and tend to drive very economically, like one of those hypermilers; except that i am usually late to wherever I am going. Does not make sense, I know. But most of my driving is on the freeway and I can get a very easy 25mpg with just about every tank in my 2.6. The E320 (1994) will be from 22- 25 mpg. My driving is probably 80% or more freeway. And I choose my routes that way deliberately.

My tires are one size larger, 205/65-15. My speedometer is dead accurate with this tire size on the 2.6. Havent checked on the 3.2.

Remember that the rear end ratio in the wagons and the 2.6 is the same, 3.27. So the different milage can be attributed to the larger engine and wider tires on the wagon.

Ivanerrol · #2 06-08-2009, 12:27 AM

I have owned a 2001 W210 E240 which in reality had a 2.6 V6, A 2004 CLK 240 which had the same engine and now have a 1989 Japanese spec W124 260e

I never have reset the mileage computer on either of the W210 E Class or W209 CLK.

Results E240 for 34,000 Kilometres = 10.2 litres per hundred K's which is around 24 mpg - combined city/country driving
Results CLK 240 for 38,000 kilometres = 9.8 litres per hundred kilometres which is around 25 mpg - combined city/country driving.

No computer in W124 260e but after about 15 tanks averaged about 13 kilometers per litre which is around 18mpg - combined city/country driving

MPG figures are for U.S. gallons not imperial gallons.

pawoSD · #3 06-08-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neanderthal

It does also depend on your driving style though. If you are more of a leadfoot, then you are never going to get good fuel economy.

I do not race everywhere, and tend to drive very economically, like one of those hypermilers; except that i am usually late to wherever I am going. Does not make sense, I know. But most of my driving is on the freeway and I can get a very easy 25mpg with just about every tank in my 2.6. The E320 (1994) will be from 22- 25 mpg. My driving is probably 80% or more freeway. And I choose my routes that way deliberately.

My tires are one size larger, 205/65-15. My speedometer is dead accurate with this tire size on the 2.6. Havent checked on the 3.2.

Remember that the rear end ratio in the wagons and the 2.6 is the same, 3.27. So the different milage can be attributed to the larger engine and wider tires on the wagon.

Interesting....the wagons have a 3.27 diff? Why? For potential towing use?

That could explain it right there why a 2.6 would get around the same or less mpg than the 3.0 M103....as it'd be running higher rpms and sucking more fuel. My 300E seems to run around 2900-3000 or so at 70mph.....

Amazing how much quieter a M103 is at 3000rpm than a 617.