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.

On a trip from Atlanta to Dallas (875 miles), we got an average of 19 in our 2000.

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.

I wonder what the cd of both vehicles is.

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

__________________
Click here to see the items I have up for auction at EBay

Click here to see a photo album of my '62 Sprite Project Moneypit (Now Sold)

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

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!!

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.

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.

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.

The 2000 was also ULEV. That was a big marketing issue at the time...

Regards

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"