E220 CDI Economy
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 8
From: Longmont, CO
04 E320 4 Matic, 95 Audi S6, 99 Carrera 4 Cabrio, 12 Fiat 500 Sport, 00 BMW R1200C 10, BMW R1200R
E220 CDI Economy
I know that most US drivers are still scared of Diesels (Thanks to the brilliant GM diesel models of the late 70s and early 80s). I am total Diesel Fan, but I am even a greater fan of All Wheel Drive cars. This is the reason why I am still driving gasoline cars. The minute a CDI 4-Matic hits the US I will be purchasing one!
Well, back from my digression, while I was in Germany I drove a 2003 (second year of production in Germany) E220 CDI. It had about 150 hp and a few more NM of torque than my E320 4-matic. The E220 drove significantly slower than my E320 does at 7,000 feet of altitude, but it had a great drive feel.
The E 220 had loads of low end torque and could pull the car at speeds around 115 MPH without any drama. Yes, the E320 CDI is a lightning –rod compared to this car, but the economy that this E220 (especially with the price of Diesel there) was stellar.
When you look at the trip computer display pictures bellow, you need to consider that I was either driving bellow 35 mph in European bumper to bumper traffic or bulleting on the autobahn as fast as I could safely drive (usually between 105 and 125 mph). I would HATE to see what My E320 would have consumed with this driving style.
It was a blast to drive so fast and still get great economy!
Steve
Well, back from my digression, while I was in Germany I drove a 2003 (second year of production in Germany) E220 CDI. It had about 150 hp and a few more NM of torque than my E320 4-matic. The E220 drove significantly slower than my E320 does at 7,000 feet of altitude, but it had a great drive feel.
The E 220 had loads of low end torque and could pull the car at speeds around 115 MPH without any drama. Yes, the E320 CDI is a lightning –rod compared to this car, but the economy that this E220 (especially with the price of Diesel there) was stellar.
When you look at the trip computer display pictures bellow, you need to consider that I was either driving bellow 35 mph in European bumper to bumper traffic or bulleting on the autobahn as fast as I could safely drive (usually between 105 and 125 mph). I would HATE to see what My E320 would have consumed with this driving style.
It was a blast to drive so fast and still get great economy!
Steve
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 2
From: FL410
'05 E320 CDI, '08 BMW X5 4.8i, '11 Duramax 2500HD
I don't have a picture (yet), but I got 42mpg driving at 65mph for a 30 miles stretch just the other day on my 320CDI...
Only thing I don't like about the 4-matic version coming later is it's going to be based on a Aluminum V6, and not the tried and true silky smooth Iron block I-6.
Only thing I don't like about the 4-matic version coming later is it's going to be based on a Aluminum V6, and not the tried and true silky smooth Iron block I-6.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 8
From: Longmont, CO
04 E320 4 Matic, 95 Audi S6, 99 Carrera 4 Cabrio, 12 Fiat 500 Sport, 00 BMW R1200C 10, BMW R1200R
Originally Posted by CE750
I don't have a picture (yet), but I got 42mpg driving at 65mph for a 30 miles stretch just the other day on my 320CDI...
Only thing I don't like about the 4-matic version coming later is it's going to be based on a Aluminum V6, and not the tried and true silky smooth Iron block I-6.
Only thing I don't like about the 4-matic version coming later is it's going to be based on a Aluminum V6, and not the tried and true silky smooth Iron block I-6.
I know what you mean about the I6 versus the V6, but the benefits of the 4-Matic will be greater than the losses caused by the V6. I switched from my I6 300E to this V6 E320 and I am OK with it.
Steve
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 2
From: FL410
'05 E320 CDI, '08 BMW X5 4.8i, '11 Duramax 2500HD
Originally Posted by SAguirre
I never had the discipline to drive that slowly with this E220, I can get about 34 mpgs on my E320 4-Matic here in Colorado when I drive about 65 mph. I don't think that is bad at all for a AWD gasoline car.
Steve
Steve
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,281
Likes: 8
From: Longmont, CO
04 E320 4 Matic, 95 Audi S6, 99 Carrera 4 Cabrio, 12 Fiat 500 Sport, 00 BMW R1200C 10, BMW R1200R
Originally Posted by CE750
It must be the high density altitude as my mom's E350 at sea level (SF bay Area) which has better fuel milage than an E320 never sees above 31mpg on the highway.
I was also doing the research about the E350 getting better fuel economy than the E320, however, that is only the case with RWD Es. Since the new E350 has a 7 speed transmission it is able to do better than the 5-speed E320, however, when you get an E350 4-Matic it comes with a 5-speed transmission and then gets worse mileage than the E320 4-Matic. I found this to be interesting.
Steve
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 274
Likes: 2
From: Georgia, USA
Honda Accord
Originally Posted by SAguirre
I am certain that my great mileage is due to the thinner air here.... Steve
I too have noticed the same thing. The highest mpg I have seen on my car has been slightly over 33 mpg at a steady 65 mph when driving on the high semi-desert plateus of the Western US. This mpg figure was calculated when filling the tank; I did not simply rely on the trip computer.
Even if I drive a steady 65 mph here in Florida, the best mpg I will see is about 31 mpg. I am still quite happy with my car since the fuel economy figures of 17 city and 27 highway are conservative unlike in many other cars where the fuel economy ratings seem to me to be quite optimistic.
William
2003 E320
