2011 vs 2012 E350 fuel mileage




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




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
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.
Last edited by MBNUT1; May 5, 2012 at 09:01 PM.
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.
Trending Topics
The Best of Mercedes & AMG




Any data to support the real world difference between the two?
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...:-)



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?
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.



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?
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).




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).
Getting wintertires I saved a bit as 16" is cheaper, too.
I have until now had no problems to have grip when needed.
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.
Any data to support the real world difference between the two?




Last edited by HBerman; Nov 28, 2012 at 06:04 PM.





