economy of 220cdi versus 280cdi

[stumpy]

am looking at a viano for the fleet but can't decide which engine to go for. According to the book there is only a few mpg between the 2. The v6 I'm guessing is the detuned 3l from the e class and is a much nicer engine to sit behind than the 150bhp 4cyl. The v6 would be better when loaded but there is quite a difference in purchase price.

How close do you derv drivers get to the book figures?

 

[Mangy9]

Hi Stumpy,

Maybe an option is to go for the 4cyl and get a remap for more torque and MPG?

 

[hawk20]

am looking at a viano for the fleet but can't decide which engine to go for. According to the book there is only a few mpg between the 2. The v6 I'm guessing is the detuned 3l from the e class and is a much nicer engine to sit behind than the 150bhp 4cyl. The v6 would be better when loaded but there is quite a difference in purchase price.

How close do you derv drivers get to the book figures?

I have now had over half a dozen MB diesels and done 15-20k per year in them. This is what I find.

First I check the computer figures with tankful to tankful tests.
All of the MB diesels I have owned will do the combined figure shown in the sales pamphlets easily at normal 70-80 mph indicated cruising speeds ON A RUN.

Most will do more if you drive fairly gently. e.g. my S320cdi had a combined figure of 35 mpg according to MB and I could regularly get 37/8 mpg on a run at 70/80 cruising speed.

My E 220cdi estate has a combined figure of 38.6 and with two adults and two dogs aboard I regularly get over 40 mpg on a run and can get 44 mpg if gentle.

BTW the 220cdi has 170 bhp since about 2006 and 150bhp before that. Great engine.

Economy improves rapidly after about 9,000 miles has been done and the engine has loosened up a bit.

 

[stumpy]

Thanks hawk. The engine in the viano is still the 150 engine. The v6 has about 200. If the book is correct then the difference is only 3 mpg.

 

[hawk20]

Thanks hawk. The engine in the viano is still the 150 engine. The v6 has about 200. If the book is correct then the difference is only 3 mpg.

Sounds about right. Assume that is about 10% more mpg for the 220cdi. What normally seems to happen is that the bigger engine is not much different at high cruising speeds but the smaller engine gains more around town, and on mixed motoring.

 

[jberks]

get the 280. What you lose in mpg will be gained straight back in not working so hard. And that V6 is a honey.
After a 50 mile convoy, there was 2 mpg difference showing between my E270 and the Old Man's E220 and I'd been driving less smoothly as I was doing the following so true differences would be even less.

 

[hawk20]

get the 280. What you lose in mpg will be gained straight back in not working so hard. And that V6 is a honey.
After a 50 mile convoy, there was 2 mpg difference showing between my E270 and the Old Man's E220 and I'd been driving less smoothly as I was doing the following so true differences would be even less.

Money no object, I agree. But if money is no object, why worry about 10% on the fuel bill? The 280 costs a fair bit more.