w203 wagon fuel economy
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 724
Likes: 31
Car free at the moment
w203 wagon fuel economy
Existing fool economy discussions are mostly sedan owners, I want to start one for the wagons. Am curious what owners of w203 wagons see as typical fuel economy numbers.
Here's my story. I bought a nicely kept, 65K mile 2004 C240 wagon earlier in 2011. It's useful for carrying around my dogs, bicycles, etc. This is my, uh, 10th Mercedes, give or take one. It's up to date on all maintenance and runs properly.
My question is the fuel economy is surprisingly low, given that it is not a large car, and has a relatively small, low powered engine. Anecdotally, I typically get about 20MPG in my suburban/urban driving, with a mix of surface streets and a bit of urban highway. I recently took a 400+ mile road trip from Dallas to points south. The route out and back was 200 miles of highway, about 50 miles @ 60MPH limit, the remainder at 70MPH limit. Driving mostly at the speed limit, and never more than 5MPH over, I got 24.1MPG on the way down, and 24.8MPG coming home. There were no traffic jams or stops, my average speed each way was about 63MPH per the trip computer. I'll note it was very hot - up to 108F at times, so the a/c was working hard.
This seems awfully low for an aerodynamic, small car with a 2.6L engine. As a comparison, my last MB wagon was a 210 E320. Quite a bit larger, with a larger variant of the same engine/transmission family. It returned the same or better fuel economy in the city, and quite a bit better highway. That car typically returned 28MPG on highway trips, and occasionally broke 30MPG under favorable conditions.
I'm wondering why the 203 seems to be less fuel efficient than the 210? What do you-all see from your 203 wagons?
Here's my story. I bought a nicely kept, 65K mile 2004 C240 wagon earlier in 2011. It's useful for carrying around my dogs, bicycles, etc. This is my, uh, 10th Mercedes, give or take one. It's up to date on all maintenance and runs properly.
My question is the fuel economy is surprisingly low, given that it is not a large car, and has a relatively small, low powered engine. Anecdotally, I typically get about 20MPG in my suburban/urban driving, with a mix of surface streets and a bit of urban highway. I recently took a 400+ mile road trip from Dallas to points south. The route out and back was 200 miles of highway, about 50 miles @ 60MPH limit, the remainder at 70MPH limit. Driving mostly at the speed limit, and never more than 5MPH over, I got 24.1MPG on the way down, and 24.8MPG coming home. There were no traffic jams or stops, my average speed each way was about 63MPH per the trip computer. I'll note it was very hot - up to 108F at times, so the a/c was working hard.
This seems awfully low for an aerodynamic, small car with a 2.6L engine. As a comparison, my last MB wagon was a 210 E320. Quite a bit larger, with a larger variant of the same engine/transmission family. It returned the same or better fuel economy in the city, and quite a bit better highway. That car typically returned 28MPG on highway trips, and occasionally broke 30MPG under favorable conditions.
I'm wondering why the 203 seems to be less fuel efficient than the 210? What do you-all see from your 203 wagons?
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
2002 C320 Wagon
2002 C320 Wagon. Used to get 23 MPG on average, but down to about 21.5 now 
113K miles, 100K fluid changes/new spark plugs/5W30 Mobil 1 oil. Agree that it should be a bit better, but I think it is simply the added weight compared to the sedans that dumps the fuel economy. Aside from that, love the car 
I am thinking of taking the Evosport pulley route to see if that will improve MPG a bit, certainly would improve low end pickup from what i read here 
It certainly is a hoss when fully loaded with luggage and trailer
113K miles, 100K fluid changes/new spark plugs/5W30 Mobil 1 oil. Agree that it should be a bit better, but I think it is simply the added weight compared to the sedans that dumps the fuel economy. Aside from that, love the car I am thinking of taking the Evosport pulley route to see if that will improve MPG a bit, certainly would improve low end pickup from what i read here It certainly is a hoss when fully loaded with luggage and trailer
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,848
Likes: 15
From: Orange County
2005 C Wagon (No snickering please!)
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 724
Likes: 31
Car free at the moment
Thanks guys. Sounds like I'm in the expected neighborhood, fuel economy wise. I know wagons are generally at a disadvatage relative to sedans because they are both heavier and (usually) less aerodynamic.
One thing I noticed is that MB created the 2.6L by reducing only the stroke relative to the 3.2L engine. They share the same bore, and presumably bore centers, etc. I wonder if the oversquare, short stroke 2.6L engine is less efficient at converting the potential energy in gasoline to mechanical work?
One thing I noticed is that MB created the 2.6L by reducing only the stroke relative to the 3.2L engine. They share the same bore, and presumably bore centers, etc. I wonder if the oversquare, short stroke 2.6L engine is less efficient at converting the potential energy in gasoline to mechanical work?
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 724
Likes: 31
Car free at the moment
Yes, it is naturally aspirated. The pullies "underdrive" the water pump, alternator, a/c compressor, etc. reducing the power losses to these accessories. This increases the power available at the wheels, and reduces fuel consumption. I don't know how significant an impact this can have. My guess is it's pretty darn small. And of course the tradeoff is that you have less electricity, less air conditioning, etc. available...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,384
Likes: 800
2019 G70 6MT & 2022 Ford Maverick XL
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 651
Likes: 5
From: So. Cal.
'02 C320 Wagon, '78 308 GTS, '06 Highlander Hybrid
My wife usually averages about 25mpg...I usually average around 22. I did the Eurocharge ECU tune and power increase and especially throttle response was better. We are also getting around 2mpg more, each. When my wife's cruising on the freeway she can be in the high 20's.
Also, I think going 0-30 or 0-40 oil made a difference when I tried it a while back.
Also, I think going 0-30 or 0-40 oil made a difference when I tried it a while back.
