2010 mpg
- Thread starter punter
- Start date
Altered Sprinter
Happy Little Vegemite
From the introduction of the NCV July 2006 All engines with progressive HP increments and with the latest of the Transmission ratios, more so for the NCV European Blue Efficiency unit's [Not Blutec] Have proven to be more powerful and fuel efficient .
One only has to look at Mean in Green form the England as to a UK 35 MPG economy run,as proof.
The latest reports for fuel efficiency for the Mercedes Sprinter from July 2010: Are View the latest Sprinter fuel consumption data V6 with autos elsewhere have a higher fuel economy, Higher HP and Higher Maximum torque.
South Africa has both V6 engines in diesels and Petrol variants.plus the usual 4 in-lines with optional transmission ratios to select from including NGT engines, as is now offered everywhere else.
Richard
Last edited:
flman
Well-known member
Power increase yes.
Low end torque no.
MPG No WAY!
Owning both the old I5 and the new V6 here is what I found.
Power: The V6 seems to have more horsepower and is snappier then the I5
Torque: Pulling a steep grade the smaller I5 would easily blow the doors off the V6. That I5 keeps pulling steady, while the V6 starts lugging and dropping gears.
MPG: Our I5 with a ladder rack on the roof (wind resistance) still gets 3-4 MPG better then then the V6 with nothing on the roof.
As far as comparing the 2007-2009 to the 2010, most are getting the same mileage, but I think the 2010 is rated higher in HP and Torque?
mean_in_green
>2,000,000m in MB vans
Agreed but... the in line five is no longer an option. Having one less cylinder is where you gain the MPG. It is a peach of an engine though isn't it?
I read it as "is the 2010 V6 more economical than it's predecessor?"
I think an economy and torque improvement of around ten percent was claimed for 2010. I don't know anyone who has one here, the fuel price sees to that.
I read it as "is the 2010 V6 more economical than it's predecessor?"
I think an economy and torque improvement of around ten percent was claimed for 2010. I don't know anyone who has one here, the fuel price sees to that.
sprintertom
'10 2500 HiTop 144 Cargo
If 17-18 mpg w/ a fully loaded 8600lbs gvw is what your looking for than the 2010 is a good deal.
I used to get 16-17mpg w/ a Ford Extended 1ton van w/ 10k lbs gvw & 6.0 turbo diesel... so the Sprinter ain't so much better mpg.
I used to get 16-17mpg w/ a Ford Extended 1ton van w/ 10k lbs gvw & 6.0 turbo diesel... so the Sprinter ain't so much better mpg.
renagade69
Member
The 6.0 Turbo was a pos though.Enough said.
I am skeptical the I5 motor has more pulling power than the v6 when the v6 is rated with more torque and HP. My 2010 seems pretty peppy but there are no hills in my neck of Florida. My cummins Dodge pickup with 650 lb pounds of torque drops gears when towing up hills. It has allot to do with the learning curve of the tranni and the programming it has.
flman
Well-known member
Put your Cummins up against any V diesel up the same hill with larger displacements, and it will beat the pants off them. I have owned both Cummins and V8 Ford diesels. All those short stroked V8s would do is rev.
It has to do with physics, and you can not change that with a rating sheet. Inline engines put out more torque at lower RPMs, they have a longer strike. Go turn a short crank, and a long crank on a bicycle, which one can you turn with less effort?
Since I own, both, and the V6 is my daily driver, I know it is faster on the straight track. But driving it up the same hill it hits about 40 mph, and drops to about 37 before the peak. The smaller, less powerful I5 runs this same steep hill at about 45 mph right to the top with no lugging. So you cant change physics and facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-six_engine#Straight-six_diesel_engines "Virtually every medium-duty to large over-the-road truck employs an inline-six diesel engine. Its virtues are superior low-end torque"
Last edited:
ben322
Member
I would have to agree with flman's assessment of the differences between the T1N & NCV3. We just picked up a 2006 T1N, (Roadtrek SS Agile built on the SWB chassis), and driving back noticed the way the I5 does not need to downshift pulling grades. Now the 2009 is a LWB 3500 so there is a big difference there. That said, I would love to have the I6 out of the E320 in the 2009. Mileage difference @ 65mph was almost 5mpg over the same highway.
Ben
Ben
flman
Well-known member
I see you have a TDI as well, they are very torquey, when I owned them I could let out the clutch with no accelerator pedal on any grade from a standstill, just like when driving a large truck. I own a couple of CRD Liberty's with the inline 4 cylinder, and they respond very well to the skinny pedal
That V6 Sprinter is nice and smooth and quiet compared to the I5 but it still has the shorter stroke, but I like it, it does what I need it to do.
MB.Diesel.ON
New member
I use to own until last month a NCV3 . That was a 3500 long wheelbase chassis and cab with a 14 footer contractors box. That one got me a fuel consumption of 14 MPG.
I downsized it to a T1N, 140" wheelbase 2500 trim, regular roof with a ladder rack. This gets me around 20-22 MPG.
I downsized it to a T1N, 140" wheelbase 2500 trim, regular roof with a ladder rack. This gets me around 20-22 MPG.
ben322
Member
That's the one thing about the V6: Smooth almost to the point of a gasser. The funny thing is that the I6 is so much smoother than the I5 which never lets you forget you're driving a diesel. We got 24mpg @ 65mph going south on I87. Love the tilt wheel & driving position in the NCV3 which makes it the choice for long distance.I see you have a TDI as well, they are very torquey, when I owned them I could let out the clutch with no accelerator pedal on any grade from a standstill, just like when driving a large truck. I own a couple of CRD Liberty's with the inline 4 cylinder, and they respond very well to the skinny pedal
That V6 Sprinter is nice and smooth and quiet compared to the I5 but it still has the shorter stroke, but I like it, it does what I need it to do.
The TDI is a great driver but E320 pulls like a freight train all the way to the limiter and gets almost 40mpg on the road.
Ben
sailquik
Well-known member
My brand new 2010 NCV3 3500 144" WB high top seems to be getting 19.49 mpg (1st refueling with < 1000 miles on it.
Thats within 1 mpg of what the computer in the Sprinter is reporting.
So far, I'm delighted with this new Sprinter.
ScanGauge II Readings on the 2010 3500 144 wb (OM-642 V6 Blue Efficiency)
are very different than what I was getting on the '06 3500 158" wb with the OM-647 I5 engine.
I find it interesting that several here have suggested that the I5 has more/better torque than the V6, but so
far the new van has way more power than the old, and at less RPM.
The I5 hit 99% on the ScanGauge II all the time.
I've been babying the new van, but never seen 99% for more than a couple of seconds and it drops
off much more quickly than the I5.
Roger
Thats within 1 mpg of what the computer in the Sprinter is reporting.
So far, I'm delighted with this new Sprinter.
ScanGauge II Readings on the 2010 3500 144 wb (OM-642 V6 Blue Efficiency)
are very different than what I was getting on the '06 3500 158" wb with the OM-647 I5 engine.
I find it interesting that several here have suggested that the I5 has more/better torque than the V6, but so
far the new van has way more power than the old, and at less RPM.
The I5 hit 99% on the ScanGauge II all the time.
I've been babying the new van, but never seen 99% for more than a couple of seconds and it drops
off much more quickly than the I5.
Roger
flman
Well-known member
When they start putting V-6 and V-8 and V-everything in OTR trucks, and dozers etc. You will have me convinced. But there is a reason they don't use Vs in these high torque diesel applications. Hmm, what could it be?
Packaging could be the answer.When they start putting V-6 and V-8 and V-everything in OTR trucks, and dozers etc. You will have me convinced. But there is a reason they don't use Vs in these high torque diesel applications. Hmm, what could it be?
A V engine is shorter, and fits better in some engine compartments.
I don't see this being an issue in a bulldozer.
flman
Well-known member
Low end torque is the answer, a bull dozer with a V diesel would be useless, as it would not have the torque unless the engine was enormous.
Old Crows
Calypso 2014 View Profile
Our 2010 Sprinter based Ventura R/V is getting about 18.5 on the last fill up. It's a 170" wb and at the top of the air conditioner bonnet its about 11' 10" tall. I also have an awning box mounted on the passenger side top and all the other bumps and warts associated with an R/V.
To be fair, it has only 2300 miles on it so it is hardly broken in and it's likely that on my first fill there was a lot of idleing while it was at the R/V store having its air conditioning checked out late last summer. It is up a bit from the my first fill which managed a spare 16 mpg. I believe my mpg will improve with more miles on the engine.
It's all about torque and where its made..... Well, its no secret that 'straight' engines will develop a lot more low end torque and at lower rpm than any V design. 'Straight Eight' power was the real McCoy back in the 40s and 50s. I loved my '87 Jeep Wrangler with the 'four-deuce' big six and the two gear transfer case. It would pull damn near anything in Low Range - First Gear at idle. The MB turbo diesel in the Sprinter is very similar to my V6 aspirated 'torque motor' engine in my '04 Sienna van. Same displacement, about the same peak torque and power, about the same rpm ranges. The MB's torque, thanks to the 'intelligent' turbo starts just off idle and remains steady up to its peak. That's SWEET!!! The Toyo doesn't peaks about 1000 rpm lower than the same year Honda Oddy van.
Ford (Gag!
) is on the right track with its gasser smart, 'eco' turbo engines.... similar to what VW-Audi has been doing since the turn of the century. 
To be fair, it has only 2300 miles on it so it is hardly broken in and it's likely that on my first fill there was a lot of idleing while it was at the R/V store having its air conditioning checked out late last summer. It is up a bit from the my first fill which managed a spare 16 mpg. I believe my mpg will improve with more miles on the engine.
It's all about torque and where its made..... Well, its no secret that 'straight' engines will develop a lot more low end torque and at lower rpm than any V design. 'Straight Eight' power was the real McCoy back in the 40s and 50s. I loved my '87 Jeep Wrangler with the 'four-deuce' big six and the two gear transfer case. It would pull damn near anything in Low Range - First Gear at idle. The MB turbo diesel in the Sprinter is very similar to my V6 aspirated 'torque motor' engine in my '04 Sienna van. Same displacement, about the same peak torque and power, about the same rpm ranges. The MB's torque, thanks to the 'intelligent' turbo starts just off idle and remains steady up to its peak. That's SWEET!!! The Toyo doesn't peaks about 1000 rpm lower than the same year Honda Oddy van.
Ford (Gag!
) is on the right track with its gasser smart, 'eco' turbo engines.... similar to what VW-Audi has been doing since the turn of the century. jackbombay
2003 158" shc
I think low end torque output has everything to do with stroke length and little to do with engine configuration, the wiki article doesn't substantiate the statement about inline engines making more low end torque.
In-line 6's are so popular because they are inherently very well balanced.
flman
Well-known member
Forget the Wiki article, the inlines have a longer stroke, that is why they produce more torque in comparison to Vs, of the same and larger displacement.
It has nothing to do with a popularity contest, every one knows that Vs run alot smoother then in-lines. I own both Sprinters, and the V6 is very smooth and balanced compared to the torquey I5.
