2018 4x4 4 CYL

I love the FB from members who've experienced both of those engine/transmission configurations-would you mind comparing? Also, how much travel did you do in the snow; what worked best?

Danke
I went from a 4 cyl. 170 2wd to my 4x4 144. The 4 cyl. was a great engine, now compared to the 6 cyl. in the 4x4 i do notice that the 6 has more off throttle grunt and a strong pull all the way to the top end, noticeably more than the 4 cyl.

The transmissions, the 7 speed was really nice but in city driving it was constantly shifting, nothing bad but you could tell it was shifting, the transmission with the 6cyl. seems to be perfectly matched to the 6 cyls. torque and there always seems to be power on tap.

In my 4 cyl. i was averaging 22 mpg in the 6 right now i`m averaging 19 mpg this is combined city and hwy.

Personally i like driving the 6 cyl. better than the 4 cyl. Just my preference.
 

Nhuskys

Member
I love the FB from members who've experienced both of those engine/transmission configurations-would you mind comparing? Also, how much travel did you do in the snow; what worked best?

Danke
I drive a good bit in the snow and I prefer the '14 4/7spd. It's a 144/3500 and a heavily loaded mobile workshop. I run studded winter tires on the rear. The ASC seems to be completely different on the '14 from the '08 though.
 

FourWheelers1987

A 2017 2500 144” Crew 4x4 High
I went from a 4 cyl. 170 2wd to my 4x4 144. The 4 cyl. was a great engine, now compared to the 6 cyl. in the 4x4 i do notice that the 6 has more off throttle grunt and a strong pull all the way to the top end, noticeably more than the 4 cyl.

The transmissions, the 7 speed was really nice but in city driving it was constantly shifting, nothing bad but you could tell it was shifting, the transmission with the 6cyl. seems to be perfectly matched to the 6 cyls. torque and there always seems to be power on tap.

In my 4 cyl. i was averaging 22 mpg in the 6 right now i`m averaging 19 mpg this is combined city and hwy.

Personally i like driving the 6 cyl. better than the 4 cyl. Just my preference.
I never thought about a NYCity driving effect on Sprinter 7 vs. 5 speed tranny . . .
I'm a manual shift fan who's resigned to 'shifting' these autos (especially the 5 speed) to keep the rpm' above DEF clogging at lower levels due to stop-n-go traffic realities. My needs dictate a 4x4 and wish my bio.logical clock permitted waiting until MB produces the perfect setup (in 2020? 2021? 2031?) down in South Carolina:

-OM-651 4 cylinder/ 7G-tronic 7 speed transmission with
-4ETS high/low range transfer case 35%/65% 4x4.
(courtesy of sailquik)

Ready to build and get in line for a 2017

:bow:
 
Many moons ago i had a Land Rover 109 with a 4 banger and what a wonderful motor that was for four wheeling and just all around use. When Land Rover came out with a 6 cyl. i thought this has to be better but in reality it was far from it and the 4 banger ran circles around the 6 cyl. from an off road standpoint. In the case of the MB Sprinter 4 vs 6, i question the 4 banger for 4x4 work, while i had the 4 banger in my 2 wd Sprinter and it performed great the 6 in my 4x4 has noticeably more torque at all rev points compared to what my 4 banger had. If MB can get the 4 to work in the 4x4 it could be great but it will need a different tranny and some ECU adjustments. I just hope that MB takes their time and does it right.
 

zither99

Active member
I went from a 4 cyl. 170 2wd to my 4x4 144. The 4 cyl. was a great engine, now compared to the 6 cyl. in the 4x4 i do notice that the 6 has more off throttle grunt and a strong pull all the way to the top end, noticeably more than the 4 cyl.

The transmissions, the 7 speed was really nice but in city driving it was constantly shifting, nothing bad but you could tell it was shifting, the transmission with the 6cyl. seems to be perfectly matched to the 6 cyls. torque and there always seems to be power on tap.

In my 4 cyl. i was averaging 22 mpg in the 6 right now i`m averaging 19 mpg this is combined city and hwy.

Personally i like driving the 6 cyl. better than the 4 cyl. Just my preference.
These are my exact same feelings about the 6cyl 5spd. Just prefer it for city driving and overtaking on the freeway

Had a 2007 v6 2wd
got a 2014 i4 2wd and missed the v6
2015 4x4 is pretty good besides the smaller fuel tank and extra noise from diff.
 
Last edited:

jackbombay

2003 158" shc
A 4 banger 4x4 is the only reason I would *consider* buying a new sprinter...
Well, I had some time to kill and went to the MB website and configured a 2500 4 banger 170" wheel base sprinter, and it offered 44 as an option, so I clicked it, and when I got to the end of the build the engine was not downgraded to the 6 banger. If the MB website lets you "build" a 4 banger 4x4 does that mean you can actually order one, and it'll get built?

About a year ago I tried to configure a 4 banger 4x4 and I'm pretty sure it forced me to get a 6 banger fuel hog to go with the 4x4, does anyone else recall this happening in the past?
 

Wrinkledpants

2017 144WB 4x4
That must be a mistake from the website. The first page of the configurator shows 4-cyl, 6-cyl, or 6-cyl 4x4 as the engine/trans choice for all lengths of the van.

Adding 4x4 isn't a free option from a mpg perspective. With a 2wd van, power goes straight from the transmission through 1 driveshaft to the rear differential. Same basic setup as any RWD car. When you add the 4x4 option, you've increased the drag on the drivetrain quite a bit even if you're not using 4x4. The front axles, differential, and front driveshafts are still attached to the tires, and still require force to get spinning. You also have a transfer case attached to the transmission to send power through. This isn't like an AWD setup where you typically have power to the front axles coming straight out of the transmission.

A 4-cyl 4x4 won't get the same mpg numbers as the 2x4 version.
 
Completely agreed, but it will be much better than a V6.
It could be worse as i have noted there is a noticeable decrease in torque in the lower RPM`s with the 4 cyl. A mapping change of the ECU would be needed otherwise your foot would always be on the gas.

If MPG is a consideration then a 4x4 should not be an option. People complain about this with any brand when compared to their 2wd counterpart, it`s simple math and physics a 4x4 is going to cost in the MPG department.
 

Wrinkledpants

2017 144WB 4x4
Completely agreed, but it will be much better than a V6.
I don't see that a moderately weighted 4-cyl 4x4 is going to do any better than 2-3 mpg over a V6 (assuming similar weights) - at most. That seems like more of an annoyance than deal breaker if you want 4x4.
 

jackbombay

2003 158" shc
A mapping change of the ECU would be needed otherwise your foot would always be on the gas.
Nope, 4x4 is not such a parasitic draw that you need a larger engine.

Years ago when I bought a 2003 TDI Jetta from the dealer I asked about the possible future avalability of awd, he told me that with 90 HP the TDI "didn't have enough power to turn all four wheels", LMAO! I had driven there in a 1991 subaru that when new had 62 HP at sea level, I live at 6,200 feet, with losses for altitude and the subaru being 13 years old at that point I believe the engine was making less than 50 HP, and I've driven that car through hood deep snow more times than I can remember, but somehow 90 HP with 3 times as much torque from the TDI "isn't enough power to turn all 4 wheels"?

If MPG is a consideration then a 4x4 should not be an option.
I'd like 4wd, and I was to maximize MPG's with 4wd, so the 4 cylinder is the only possible option for me, thats fine if you don't want one.

a 4x4 is going to cost in the MPG department.
Yep, I'm glad you agree with me.

I don't see that a moderately weighted 4-cyl 4x4 is going to do any better than 2-3 mpg over a V6 (assuming similar weights) - at most.

I think your numbers are pessimistic when it comes to the 4 banger, sailquik sees 22-23 MPG when driving heavily loaded in a 4 banger, the 4x4 V6 seem to get about 17 MPG, but lets run some math on your numbers, an improvement of 3 MPG is a %17 improvement, over 200,000 miles that will save you $5,300 in fuel with a fuel cost of $3 per gallon.

BUT, lets back up a bit, if sailquik can haul 5000 pound of cargo and still get ~22.5 MPG, how will an unloaded 4 banger 4x4 get 20? Do you believe that the 4x4 drivetrain will consume so much power that it will reduce MPGs more than hauling 5000 pounds of cargo? For a trans/geardrive unit to consume that much energy it would have to be exceedingly inefficient, so much so that it would be generating a tremendous amount of heat, and I don't believe that the 4wd system in the sprinter does that.

So, more reasonable math, V6 4x4 gets 17 MPG, I4 4x4 gets 22 and will save you $7,000 over 200,000 miles of driving, thats %15 of the purchase price of the vehicle, thats significant, and when fuel costs rise the savings will be even larger.

Also, we know that long tall NCV3 vans get 17-18 MPG, and the NCV3 long tall 4x4's get pretty much the same, 17 MPG, as there isn't really a hit on MPG when the 4x4 is paired with the V6 there is no reason to expect a notable hit on MPG if the 4x4 was paired to the I4.
 

Wrinkledpants

2017 144WB 4x4
I'm just posting averages as mpg is going to be heavily dependent on your weight, external parasite drag, and how you drive. I've seen V6 mpg postings in the low 20's and 4-cyl in the low 30's. I've also seen people post V6 vs I4 mpg numbers that are essentially the same. Winnebago did an I4 vs V6 test out here in Colorado, and at the end of the day, the I4's hand calculated mpg was less than 0.9 higher than the V6. There is a video of the review floating around somewhere.

Audi's TORSEN based AWD has a 28% drivetrain loss. Most RWD based cars are in the 18% range for drivetrain loss. I'm guessing the Sprinter is probably in the low 20% range in 2x4 and closer to 30% in 4x4. You'll probably lose 1.0, or less, MPG in 2x4 mode overall. That's a fuel cost over $1,000, which isn't negligible if you're only looking at absolute values.

I'm not trying to convince you one way or another. I'm just providing different numeric perspective on this.
 

jackbombay

2003 158" shc
mpg is going to be heavily dependent on your weight, external parasite drag, and how you drive.
Certainly, but I've read enough MPG posts and know enough people that have V6 and I4 vans to feel that the numbers I posted previously are pretty representative of "normal".

Winnebago did an I4 vs V6 test out here in Colorado, and at the end of the day, the I4's hand calculated mpg was less than 0.9 higher than the V6.
Yea, when you load a V6 heavily the MPGs will decrease less than when an I4 is loaded heavily, but the I4 will still get better MPGs, and the V6 costs $1000 extra, and keeps costing you more for fuel the whole time you own it.

I'm not pretending I'm going to save the planet by potentially getting an I4 at some point, I just like the extended range and reduced fuel costs of the I4.

Typically I hit the road at 7,000 to 7500 pounds gross vehicle weight, so extreme cases (heavily loaded or empty) aren't all that relevant to me.

You'll probably lose 1.0, or less, MPG in 2x4 mode overall.
Thats where I'd ballpark it too, so I'll end up at about 22 MPG compared to about 17 MPG with the V6, that is a %29 increase in MPGs, thus a %29 increase in range which is significant.
 

Wrinkledpants

2017 144WB 4x4
You may get your wish with the 2018 van. The fact they have mules running around with a FWD system means they may have dropped the 4x4 system all together and are going to adopt the AWD system found in their cars. Substantially less weight, less rotating mass, but likely just as capable offroad. It may not be a 4-cyl, but I suspect the V6 improvements if they're able to slap in more gears and a different drivetrain could result in low 20's for mpg. It's hard to imagine they would design the subframe and suspension with a FWD van in mind, but then go with a V6 motor that has a tradition 4x4 system. I can't think of a vehicle where this has happened. Lots of vehicles with FWD or AWD options, but the AWD is usually differential-based.
 

avanti

2022 Ford Transit 3500
You may get your wish with the 2018 van. The fact they have mules running around with a FWD system means they may have dropped the 4x4 system all together and are going to adopt the AWD system found in their cars.
That would be awesome. The current 4WD system is pretty neanderthal. I've never even been tempted...
 

jackbombay

2003 158" shc
You may get your wish with the 2018 van. The fact they have mules running around with a FWD system means they may have dropped the 4x4 system all together and are going to adopt the AWD system found in their cars.
I'll keep my fingers crossed!


I did send my online van build to the "local" MB dealer (320 miles away, MB's aren't too popular in the northern rockies) and they emailed me back, right into the hard sell on a V6 4x4, I told him I wanted the I4, he said, no dice, I told him, deal is off, I'll run my current van untill MB makes what I want. So, as previously thought, 4x4 and an I4 is still not an option.


Substantially less weight, less rotating mass...
I'd love it if the van didn't have to be 4" taller for the 4wd!

but likely just as capable offroad.
IMO "off roading" in cars/vans is annoying, before my van has issues travelling on a rough road due to road roughness I've already become quite annoyed by the slow travel and terrible ride quality. 1wd is the supreme superior off road means of travel, be it dirt bike or mountain bike.

I'd like 4wd for snow, and sand in the desert, I've done fine for the last 20 years of van life without 4wd, but it'd be nice if I could get it without the significant MPG penalty of the V6.
 

Wrinkledpants

2017 144WB 4x4
That's where that 4" lift comes in - put some bigger tires on and air them down on the long, rough roads :) Plus, the bigger rolling diameter means you're not sinking so far into the holes between rocks or other features.

Vancompass and Sportsmobile are experimenting with 35" tires on the 4x4. Beast mode :)
 

jackbombay

2003 158" shc
I can blow down that same road at 4 times the speed in twice the comfort and have an order of magnitude more fun on my dirt bike than getting thrashed around in a nice new expensive van. I really have no desire to "see what the van can do". I've been 4 wheeling enough to know I just don't like it. There are plenty of dirt roads that are just fine, but anything that 4 wheeler guys get stoked on are a bummer for me due to stress about breaking vehicle parts, and the previously mentioned terrible ride quality. If there is something that cool to see at the end of the road I'll moto or mountain bike to it.
 

Wrinkledpants

2017 144WB 4x4
I can blow down that same road at 4 times the speed in twice the comfort and have an order of magnitude more fun on my dirt bike than getting thrashed around in a nice new expensive van. I really have no desire to "see what the van can do". I've been 4 wheeling enough to know I just don't like it. There are plenty of dirt roads that are just fine, but anything that 4 wheeler guys get stoked on are a bummer for me due to stress about breaking vehicle parts, and the previously mentioned terrible ride quality. If there is something that cool to see at the end of the road I'll moto or mountain bike to it.
Yeah - agreed. I'm not into wheeling or going over rough terrain for the sake of just driving technical trails. They need to lead somewhere for riding, climbing, etc. At least out here in CO, there are some pretty amazing areas that can be accessed with 4x4 and high ground clearance, but aren't "wheeling" type trails. To be able to get up there, mountain bike, and then stay the night - that's what we're looking forward to. Especially in the winter for access BC skiing.
 

jackbombay

2003 158" shc
Yeah - agreed. I'm not into wheeling or going over rough terrain for the sake of just driving technical trails. They need to lead somewhere for riding, climbing, etc.
We're pretty much on the same page.

I've actually been pretty impressed with the T1N on crap roads, drove ~6 miles of "4x4" road in Alaska to get to some rock climbing, the trans got a little warm and it was slow going due to the minimal suspension travel of the sprinter, but we got there, we were getting jostled around bad enough in the van on that drive (1 wheel off the ground numerous times) that I have no desire to go down rougher/crappier roads, the road from Apple Utah up to Gooseberry mesa was the same way, we made it just fine without 4wd, but it was an hour of annoying uncomfortable driving.

4wd wouldn't make either of those roads less annoying or uncomfortable and I have no desire to increase the annoying/uncomfortable factor by driving down worse roads so for me 4wd would be occasionally for snow and sand, turning the van around while pulling sleds would be nicer with 4wd, for example, but I've done fine without 4wd and pulling sleds behind the T1N with snow tires for 7 years now.

For BC ski access 2wd is fine here, Teton pass is the steepest road to deal with but its plowed really well, but it's also not really worth going to anymore as it's so crowded and skied out most of the time. I have a snowmobile too to get out and about with my splitboard.


Hatcher pass alaska,

 

Top Bottom