Anyone upgrade from a 211 Bluetec to a 212 Bluetec?
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 251
From: Virginia
W212 M276 DELA 30 ; W211 M113k, W126 M117, W126 OM617, W211 OM642 ; R107 M117 X2, Sierra 1500 LZ0
Anyone upgrade from a 211 Bluetec to a 212 Bluetec?
I'd almost feel stupid to upgrade to a car that has the exact same engine as my current car but lower performance due to weight. Has anyone replaced their W211 Bluetec with a W212 OM642 Bluetec? If so, can you share your thoughts? With the 2012+ E350 gassers being DI and getting great mileage, it almost seems like a bad idea to get the diesel that is down a 100 HP.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 9
From: Vancouver, BC
2015 E250 BT 4M
differences between W211 E320BT and W212 E350BT
Although the engines are basically the same, there are some significant differences in overall performance between these two cars.
I previously owned a 2008 E320BT. My 2013 E350BT has less turbo lag, better brakes and improved steering feel. The W212 chassis is also significantly stiffer than W211; the W212 feels more solid. The E350BT does not feel any slower than the E320BT.
As for fuel economy, city mileage is similar for both cars, but the E350BT is more fuel efficient for highway driving, achieving around 5-5.5 litres/100 km compared to 6.5-7.0 litres /100 km for the E320BT. Using US gallons, many E350BT owners report over 40 mpg for highway, well in excess of the EPA rating.
I previously owned a 2008 E320BT. My 2013 E350BT has less turbo lag, better brakes and improved steering feel. The W212 chassis is also significantly stiffer than W211; the W212 feels more solid. The E350BT does not feel any slower than the E320BT.
As for fuel economy, city mileage is similar for both cars, but the E350BT is more fuel efficient for highway driving, achieving around 5-5.5 litres/100 km compared to 6.5-7.0 litres /100 km for the E320BT. Using US gallons, many E350BT owners report over 40 mpg for highway, well in excess of the EPA rating.
