Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The later 265bhp drivetrain really is more economical than the earlier one, in part due to engine changes but also due to the switch to the 7g+ gearbox. The difference is reflected in the lower CO2 emissions, and it's not a result of any measurement method change. Another benefit of the adoption of the 7g+ gearbox is that it eliminated the slight lag when pulling away from a stop that was present on the earlier cars.and my question was about how much difference there is in reality (i.e. between pre-2010 and post-2010 diesels) or if there was just a change in measurement method and there's none in reality... ?
Some incredible mpg figures. Wow. Best i ever got was an indicated 75 mpg from a VW 1.6 diesel hire car over 750 miles in 2 days. Diesels really are the best for motorway work.
It’s worth listening to few 250s. Mine sounded very canal boat like until I changed the engine and trans mounts. Made a huge difference to the noise. This was at about 80k miles. Mine is near silent from inside when cruising. Certainly can’t hear any engine noise over Road/wind noise.Thanks. I test drove a E250 and tbh I found the dissonance between lovely interior and canal boat noise not impressive so though I won't discount the 250 (because I'm tight and besides if it's in a nice spec I'd get used to it) I'd prefer a 350. 47 OBC sounds like low 40s in reality, which is probably fair enough.
Have you been in the 350 with the newer engine and 7 speed box? You're not that far from me if you wanted a spin.Thanks. I test drove a E250 and tbh I found the dissonance between lovely interior and canal boat noise not impressive so though I won't discount the 250 (because I'm tight and besides if it's in a nice spec I'd get used to it) I'd prefer a 350. 47 OBC sounds like low 40s in reality, which is probably fair enough.
I wouldn’t recommend an EU6 MB anyway, because of the potential pitfalls of the AdBlue system.
If the CAZ/ULEZ charge was a consideration (which, as stated, it isn't) then I would suggest a frugal 1.6L petrol engine (e.g. W204 2012 onwards with the M274). Just in case anyone else reading this find themselves asking the same questions.
Have you been in the 350 with the newer engine and 7 speed box? You're not that far from me if you wanted a spin.
Forget a horrid DIEsel, i have seen 52mpg from my w204 c180 2013 petrol in serene silence and comfort
A friend owns a 2011 204 diesel and the engine noise is nasty!
My 2015 c250 although tractor like on tick over was extremely quiet at speeds, it certainly wasn't slow either.You're right, they are horrid, but they also feel quick compared to non-turbo petrols and they do excellent mpg whch is cash I'm not burning (literally)
I used to see a real (tank to tank) 44mpg on a good run to Norfolk with the cruise set to 75mph (about 72 mph in reality), on my W211 320 CDi sometimes slightly higher.I really like the sound of my 231 horse E350 V6.....one of the better sounding dervs IMO.....when its running! As far as economy goes I've not had the chance to drive it long distance yet thanks to a combo of work, her lists of things to be done and blowing a turbo......but the sort of around town use and 10 to 15 mile journeys I've been doing have returned about 32 mpg.....so 40 plus should easily be doable on a longer trips....and with a healthy new turbo!!! Although I like to "use" a car as intended I'm also pretty good at eking out a good mpg if the mood takes me!!!
I really like the sound of my 231 horse E350 V6.....one of the better sounding dervs IMO.....when its running! As far as economy goes I've not had the chance to drive it long distance yet thanks to a combo of work, her lists of things to be done and blowing a turbo......but the sort of around town use and 10 to 15 mile journeys I've been doing have returned about 32 mpg.....so 40 plus should easily be doable on a longer trips....and with a healthy new turbo!!! Although I like to "use" a car as intended I'm also pretty good at eking out a good mpg if the mood takes me!!!
I used to see a real (tank to tank) 44mpg on a good run to Norfolk with the cruise set to 75mph (about 72 mph in reality), on my W211 320 CDi sometimes slightly higher.
I really think people become fixated on the RFL. £405 is not a great deal. It's £1.10 a day.What happened to the mega mile 159 ?!
So this is model of engine I'm curious about because the 230 horse one is (on the spec sheet) quite a bit less efficient than the 260 horse one. I.e. £385 road tax and 39 mpg average vs £305 road tax and 44 mpg average for post 2010 cars. Over a year and 25k miles that starts to mount up. I'm not fussy about the power difference but don't want to chuck away money... I just wondered if the difference in mpg on the specs was actually a reality for owners.
That's really good especially for the older model as on paper its only 37 mpg (£415 tax too, ouch).
For context my current 1.6 diesel is supposed to average 60 mpg. Driven when it was warmer it did get close to that but now its slipped down to about 53.
I really think people become fixated on the RFL. £405 is not a great deal. It's £1.10 a day.
My day to day mpg on a mix of local rural roads, Salisbury city and some dual carriageway was around 35.5 mpg
Not around hereTrue. But that 100 quid is a very nice meal out.
Sold it to a guy from Manchester.... he came down to Bognor, looked at it, paid in cash and drove it home. Never missed a beat and he loves it.What happened to the mega mile 159 ?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.