MBNUT1

Thinking about buying a 2011 E350. The number one thing holding me back is the improved mileage with the 2012's. EPA rates the '11 at 24 hwy vs the '12 at 30 mpg. Which is a whopping 6 mpg difference. I have heard of people claiming to get up to 30 mpg on the hwy with their pre '12's. If that is true I just don't believe anybody is getting 36 with the 12 model.

Any data to support the real world difference between the two?

dfordham

My 2011 E350 consistently beats the EPA rated highway mileage. On a recent 140 mile interstate trip I got 32 travelling at the speed limit (60-75) all the way.

I'm sure the '12 also beats its EPA rating. If you are looking to max your MPG, then go with the '12, but if you're simply looking for an acceptable MPG the '11 is there, in my opinion.

Another consideration is the long term reliability of the two engines. The older engine is well proven, while the new one with DI still has to prove its long term reliability with our dirty fuel. If you trade cars frequently, as I do, this need not enter the equation, but if you plan on keeping it beyond 50,000 miles or so, do your research.

Regards,
Don

MBNUT1

Thanks Don for the prompt response.

I am a long term car holder and wanting to keep the car for over ten years. Which is why mileage matters because I am projecting the cost of ownership with the possibility of the price of gas increasing further of that ownership period. So the dilemma is I expect I can negotiate a pretty good deal on the 2011 and if I was able to get the kind of mileage you are with your 2011 I think it would take me a long time to recapture the difference with a 2012. On the other hand if the 2012's really are able to get 2011 mileage +6 that puts them in econobox territory and may be a better bet over the long haul.

One might suggest a bluetec. Here again the real world mileage differences are the issue because if you compare a 2012 E350 gasser to an E350 diesel epa highway is 30 vs 33 not insignificant but not as big as the 2011 vs 2012 E350 gas differences and there tends to be a law of diminishing returns as the mileage improves in terms of money saved and there are intangibles like the difference in the steering and engine sound.

Raymond Lee

E350 BlueTec will give you 40 highway miles per gallon, no kidding!

MB500

My Bluetec gives me 37-38mpg on highway. City driving is around 23-24 mpg.

hofb99

Looks like Bluetec is the way for you!

K-A

From what I've seen, it seems the '12's get a good 3-4 more MPG.

The D/I situation is one to really consider when going long on the car. The '11 motor is a solid motor, not too high strung with super compression, F/I or D/I, etc., so it'll probably continue to be extremely durable. The new D/I engines, who knows, but D/I's long term faults are well noted thus far.

HRPOWER

Whats wrong with diesel - more power more consumption. Any blue tec engine will blow you away.

Raymond Lee

HRPOWER
1+. Frankly I prefer BlueTec over Gas engine. My friend went to dealer to buy Gas but after test driving, he went with BlueTec and he loves it now.

clints 350

Here is my humble opinion: I bought an '11 because of the initial cost savings and the proven engine. While 6 mpg is substantial my thought was "if I can afford a Benz I can afford 6 mpg". Granted, I am putting very few miles per year on mine so long term cost could be a factor for some.

MBNUT1

I am now leaning toward the Bluetec.

belgoen

check the http://www.fuelly.com/car/mercedes-benz/e350 and see the difference.
However, remember that we are not driving the same. Some uses the gazpedal harder than others, and some are living in flat areas, where other more hilly. I am living in Europe, and have the highest "fueling" of the E350 Bluetec's. I have often driving very high speed, and the consumption is reasonable in the 2011 estate/wagon.
City drive i get the same as the official, where highway is easily done with lower consumption.
The 2011 model is "squezed down" to 211 bhp, due to some EU countries are taxing hard above 211 bhp. I have seen that the 2012 model has more power.
After almost 2 years and 48.000 KM i am happy with the car, only the boot could be bigger (but i came from a SUV with smaller diesel engine and lots of space)...:-)
Enjoy your ride, use the music to get you more relaxed from A-to-B...:-)

hyperion667

I have never seen 30 from a gallon......but wait....I have 550

Nuru

My next one will be a BLUETEC 4MATIC for sure.

txace01

My 12 Bluetec got (computer readout) 42 MPG on 510 mile trip this weekend. Impressed.

Mbenz260e

As others have said Bluetec always beats the EPA estimate. My tank averages are rarely below the highway estimate even with city driving.

belgoen

I just checked my on board computer, which tells for around 46.000 km i have an average consumation of 8.0 L/ 100 km.
The actual average consumation, checking to the bills, gives a little higher consumption: 8.44 L/ 100 km (so the onboard is 5.5% different).

While driving i have noted that with my "smaller tires", as I have opted for 16 inches to consume less, the speedometre shows 2-3 KpH more than on the "radars" on the side of the road. That is 2-3%. I have not checked the extra driven distance, but given the extra 5.5% consumption, that should be 2-3 % extra also, no?

belgoen

ADBlue consumation for the last 46000 km is 0.08 L/ 100 km, which we I have paid in average (on the street) 0.59 Euro/ Litre or 2.00 Euro/ Litre at MB (MB insisted to fill in "around" 5 litre last service"), giving an average litre price of 0.82 Euro/litre.
Just a few statistical information.
So ADBlue is an extra costs, which over last 38.000 km has costs me 25 Euro. Not big amount, but an extra costs, that MB is not informing about.

Mbenz260e

My computer read out overstates about 5% as well compared to the actual amount of fuel I put in the car and miles driven. Not sure why they can't fix that, seems to be common to everyone.

17" is the "smallest" stock tire they offer here in the US. If they had 16s I'd probably go for that for fuel savings and potential comfort? Is fun taking exit ramps at 50mph in a big car however (only when dry).

HBerman

My 2013 E550W4 seems to be settling in on 31+ on the highway and around 26 in suburban driving. This compares with my previous 2011 E550 with 26+ on the highway and around 21+ in suburban driving. The car isn't fully broken-in yet so I expect that the mpg will slightly increase when I get to 2000 miles on the clock.

belgoen

In Belgium you can get the E350 (standard) without AdBlue with 16". But the dealer was not happy.
Getting wintertires I saved a bit as 16" is cheaper, too.
I have until now had no problems to have grip when needed.

threeMBs

Wow. My '12 E350 rwd (much ligter than '13 E550 awd) is not getting 30 highway mpg, and my former '10 E550 coupe (same engine as '11 E550 sedan while being much lighter) was not getting anywhere close to 26 highway mpg. Naturally my non-highway mpg was even lower than above. Which again means not as much what you drive but how. I'm heavy on a pedal and normally do 80-90 mph on highway. To achive your numbers, one must be in 50-60 mph highway range while keeping S/E (or S/C) button on E (or C) while I alway keep mine on S (there is almost no power in V6s in E or C when trying to pass on highways).

As to the OP's question ('11 vs '12 E350), I'm getting about 20-25% better highway fuel milage in '12 E350 than in '10 E350 (no changes '10 to '11). This is in line with what Mercedes advertised for older V6 vs. newer DI V6.

nir

I drive the same route every weekend for 140 miles at 75- 80 with 2013 E350 (2 months old), and have never gotten more than 28 mpg.

HBerman

Yes, right now on "E" for the break-in period. I try to keep under 70 on the interstate. The numbers that I posted for the 2013 E550 are about 20% better than what I was getting on the 2011 E550. As to the power, I tried a short test while accelerating on the onramp by using 2/3 throttle and the car surged forward while I held on the wheel. Went from 30 to 70 in extremely short order and I was significantly pressed back into my seat. WOW!!!! I could not own a E350 with the V6. It's just too anemic for me. The V8 is turning around 1500 rpm at 65mph which is just 100 rpm below the torque peak which is very efficient. but it can really burn fuel if you so desire.

threeMBs

Yes, that's the difference of extra 100 horses and an incredible extra 170 lb-ft of torque. And yes, compared to MB's V8s, MB's V6s are too anemic. People raise eyes when I tell them I switched from E550 coupe to (an other) E350 sedan.