Agent-A01

Speaking from experience, surveys aren't always accurate nor do they reflect realistic comparisons due to the wide range of factors.
Besides, there are 4matic e500s in those years which get much less MPG due to using 5speed as well.

I averaged 28mpg in the e500 on a drive to texas avg speed was around 70~ last I recall so good MPG is possible with M113 + 7speed. Had like 560 miles on the tank before i filled up.

I doubt the 320 5 speed will get much better than that, maybe 30mpg.
The W211 2009 E350 I had could do 33mpg, but that was going like 65mph avg.

City really sucks on E500 but the hwy isn't considerably different.

tjts1

The data I posted in #25 is from RWD only E500s (722.9) and RWD only E320s (722.6), covering 90 vehicles and 1.6 million miles driven. I'll take the data over your 1 highway anecdote.

The fact remains that in the real world the V8 pays a huge fuel consumption penalty over the V6. All that extra torque and power requires extra fuel and the data proves it.

kajtek1

Each statistics is worthless without explanations.
V8 has more HP and more torque, so if the driver uses them for heavy acceleration, the fuel consumption will be higher comparing to V6, where you simply don't have the HP to use.
But at constant speed meaning use of the same hp, both engines will be pretty close to the consumption.
That is comparing engines of the same technology, when in last generation we had huge engine improvements and engine from year 2000 is dinosaur comparing to 2015 model.
Just like comparing androids from year 2000.

Agent-A01

You're splitting hairs.
You claimed a "big" difference. Myself and others don't think it's a big difference.
MPG on 320 and e500 are rated at 20/27 and 17/25 respectively.

The 500 takes a bigger penalty in the city but highway MPG is not a "big" difference.
There are plenty of others who have gotten better MPG than factory rated too.

Nobody is saying there isn't a a penalty of V8 vs v6 but 7speed makes the difference between the two marginal, not "huge".

But i suppose we have differing opinions on what's 'huge'.

Exactly.

Which is why statistics of fuelly aren't representative of real-world comparisons due to so many aforementioned factors.

cetialpha5

People always like to promote how great their gas mileage is, but my E-350 is pretty bad in the city. I rarely get more than 25mpg and that's on the highway with light traffic. There's too much traffic normally. I get more like 16-20mpg with a mix of city and highway driving. When it's mostly city driving, I can end up with 12 mpg. But then you notice your average speed might be 12mph as you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic for a long time.

kajtek1

Funny part I noticed how people report the mpg results.
Very often they say "at freeway speeds" or "speed around 70"
Than you ask them about cluster picture and it show average 52 "or so" mph
My freeway driving average usually above 80 mph, what with my diesels gives me what you see in footnote.
Driving in 55-60 mph my car make 60 mpg easy.

tjts1

Uh huh yeah sure and I have a 12 inch ****.

kajtek1

I have a picture to prove my claim, how about yours?

cetialpha5

Yeah, that's 2 minutes down a hill. I'd like to see it for an hour or a full tank. I could probably do 100mpg coasting down a hill for 1 minute. If you're going to claim 60, at least do it on the EPA drive cycle where they come up with estimated MPG.

dreib

Im going with a V8 and I am in Iowa so 4matic is a must. This car will be winter driver for my wife and if all goes well a car for my daughter this spring. Ill let you know what I find.

Thanks everyone!

kajtek1

YOU started it
To OP, we have fun here with old V-discussion, but the truth is that any of those engines is good engine. Buying used you will have limited supply, so don't sweat V8 and if you find desirable V6, don't hesitate to go for it.
For winter driving lower torque is much better as you will not loose traction so often.
With women it is additional issue. When I bought V12 car and use the hp at green light - my wife would panic. Had to get rid of it as the cost did not warrant limited fun.

tjts1

Oh you got your trip computer to show an average of 63mpg over the span of 2 miles of downhill driving. Thats really special. My gasser can do 99.9mpg at 80mph.

Beat that.

kajtek1

I misunderstood what you said in previous reply saying you have 12" since script covered it with stars.
Looks like you were talking about your mouth?
Not even saying you stole my 99 mpg in W211 picture from other thread.

tjts1

Are you soliciting dick pics?

cetialpha5

Nice. Did you start at 100mph and just coast down? Looks like you're only at 60 after 7 minutes.

John H

This is my daily one-way commute on my E550. (It’s actually 4% less based the actual gallons which I track). Best ever commute was 33.5 and I live/work at sea level with a few 400’ hills in between. My overall for the last 60,000+ miles is 26.6 (less 4%) but I don’t have a picture handy.

Car at runs smooth and strong. Biggest costs have been suspension, including air struts, and tires.

kajtek1

He stole my picture when I drove diesel.
It is WB I-80 approaching Salt Lake City where you have 10 miles of steep grade.
-the 99 mpg is end of the scale as car was making better
-I actually had to use brakes as some curves taken above 80 mph were too dangerous.
Now the 99 mpg in W212 I do locally coming down to City from Mt Charleston. Any time any day.

cetialpha5

Wow, that's nice mileage, I guess you can get two high mileage badges.

https://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/Digital...leageaward.pdf

John H

Thanks for the link!

in case it wasn’t obvious from my post, I give a huge thumbs up for a facelift w211 550 over the 350. Not sure I would say the same for the earlier 500 over the 350.

Kiwibenz

Here is my 2 cents worth.
I own a 2005 E350 and a 2004 E500.
The E350 I generally use as my daily driver, I travel an 80 km (50 mile) round trip for work. Which is mostly open road speed.
The E350 is a cheaper car to run, for that activity, than the E500.
The E350 is at a mileage of 184,000 odd kms, and the E500 is at 161, 000 odd.
Also have the fact that the E350 has the standard springs/shocks setup, whereas the E500 has airmatic.
Which do I prefer?
OVERALL, for me, the E500 is the nicer ride, and better car.
Then there is my E55.......but thats another story!
Graeme

cowboyt

Dick pics aside, everyone....

I've very recently driven a 2004 E320 4Matic. That car has plenty of get-up-and-go, and it's sure-footed. There's nothing wrong with the M112 V6 engine, nor with the 5-speed transmission that came with it. Matter of fact, if I'm DIY'ing my own maintenance, which I do, I prefer the 5-speed greatly.

As for the M113 V8, that's a good choice as well. The M112 is the M113 with two less cylinders and thus they share the same stellar reliability and ease of maintenance. The M112/M113 family of engines is well known to hit well in excess of 300,000 miles with even a modicum of basic care. Between V6 and V8 in this family, I'd be looking a lot more at overall condition of the car.

The M272 is probably a very good engine, once the balance shaft sprocket problem is sorted out. It's a shame that M-B pairs it with the 7-speed on which it is much harder to DIY the maintenance. The 7-speed is also somewhat less durable than its 5-speed predecessor, and that would concern me as well.

cetialpha5

The 4matic came with the 5 speed, the RWD models had the 7 speed. In this area, way more 4matics than RWD models.

In the W212, they went to the 7 speed.

cowboyt

Ah, so the M272 (with sprocket fix) would be a fine choice then, in the 4Matic cars. That's good to know. Thanks!

tjts1

It's still far more complex than the m112/m113 with many more failure points. For example ask your favorite indie mechanic for a quote on m272 rear cam seals replacement. It's a fun one.

Merc Mania

I am guessing that a fair chunk of that bill would be to cover the labor charge for removal of the engine, and its re-installation, with the parts cost being a comparatively low figure.