|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-10-2004, 07:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
W124 E280 gas mileage
now that my 300E is sold and England beckons next month, I'm looking for my next MB.
I'm looking for a wagon and it looks like the best bet for my budget will be an M104 93-95 E280. I'd ideally like an E300D wagon but they're pretty rare and tend to be expensive, while the 280's are more easily available. I'm gonna be doing a lot of miles and hauling stuff & people about so I don't want a 4-cyl. For those of you with the E280 I was wondering what kind of gas mileage the 2.8 litre gets?
__________________
1993 320TE M104 --------------------------------------------------- past: 1983 230E W123 M102 1994 E300D S124 OM606 (x2) 1967 250SE W108 M129 1972 280se 3.5 W108 M116 1980 280SE W116 M110 1980 350SE W116 M116 1992 300E W124 M103 1994 E280 W124 M104 ---------------------------------------------- "music and women I cannot but give way to, whatever my business" -Pepys Last edited by chazola; 11-10-2004 at 08:01 PM. 
|
|
#2
11-10-2004, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The wagon should get a bit better than my TE -- 19 in town, 21-23 on the highway. The M104 is a more efficient engine (and smaller) so I'd guess 20 in town, 24-25 highway.
The wagon is hampered by a higher numberic rear end ratio, so burns more fuel. Peter
__________________
1972 220D ?? miles 1988 300E 200,012 1987 300D Turbo killed 9/25/07, 275,000 miles 1985 Volvo 740 GLE Turobodiesel 218,000 1972 280 SE 4.5 165, 000 - It runs!
|
|
#3
11-10-2004, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not much different than a 3.2. My recollection is that in 1993, when there was a 300E 3.2 and 300E 2.8, the EPA rating on the 2.8 was 1 mpg better than the 3.2 - I believe it was 20/26 versus 19/25. Euro rear axle ratios may well have been different.
|
|
#4
11-11-2004, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
We got the E280 for one year in the U.S. - 1993. I have one - a sedan -which my wife drives and likes very much. The EPA numbers for the car are quite a bit lower than Dean quotes - 19/25, actually. These are pretty much spot on my experience. I think the 3.2 liter was 18/24; haven't looked lately.
A wagon uses more fuel than a sedan - it's heavier and has poorer aerodynamics. The first hurts city fuel economy, the second highway. A Euro car may have a standard transmission and higher compression engine - both should help fuel economy somewhat. - JimY
|
|
#5
11-11-2004, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 400E was 18/24, the 300E 3.2 was 19/25, and I thought the 2.8 was 1 mpg better on both the city and the highway - but perhaps it was just one of them. But the point is there isn't much difference between them.
|
|
#6
11-11-2004, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreed with Dean. The numbers are mostly the same between small six, big six, and eight.
I dug around http://www.fueleconomy.gov for a bit. The 400E/E420 engined car is indeed rated at 18/24. The 3.2 liter M104 is rated at 20/26 in 1995, isn't listed for 1993. The numbers seem to have moved quite a bit between 1993 and 1995 - perhaps the EPA changed their rating system? They don't have a listing for the 2.8 liter car; somewhere in the distant past I recall it being 19/25. Anywho, point being there isn't much difference. All these numbers are for the sedan. Wagon (better start calling it an estate...) are consisently 2MPG lower city and highway. - JimY
|
|
#7
11-11-2004, 04:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
thanks everyone (I only called it a wagon for you guys
 )- Based on those figures I think I might pay the bit xtra and get a OM606-powered diesel instead. I'm not looking forward to UK petrol prices again, but the range on diesel is a bit easier to swallow.
__________________
1993 320TE M104 --------------------------------------------------- past: 1983 230E W123 M102 1994 E300D S124 OM606 (x2) 1967 250SE W108 M129 1972 280se 3.5 W108 M116 1980 280SE W116 M110 1980 350SE W116 M116 1992 300E W124 M103 1994 E280 W124 M104 ---------------------------------------------- "music and women I cannot but give way to, whatever my business" -Pepys
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
