coldtaco - 10/20/2004 1:53 AM

Can anyone tell me the driving differences between the G320 with the 4 speed auto and the 5 speed auto? What year did the 5 speed auto show up?

1997 in the G320.

 

Driving differences related to the trans are as simple as you state, one more gear in the trans, I doubt it makes much difference. The 5 speed has more electronic control and is likely the smoother shifting of the two.

As far as MPG differecnes, I'm not sure if the M104 inline six came with the five speed or if the five speed came when the newer V6 showed up. Behind the inline six, milage will probably not change at all. Behind the V6, a more modern efficient design, you might pick up 1-2 mpg. You are still trying to push a 5500lb brick with ~200hp, it has to work for it. G500's do better because they are geared taller (lower number) and have enough torque to move the truck at reduced engine speeds. Anyway, milage and the G rarely are mentioned together. My G320 gets about 11 mpg, don't expect much more especially in you climate.

 

RE: G320 auto + Usage Question

Brent - 10/20/2004 10:46 AM

Behind the inline six, milage will probably not change at all. Behind the V6, a more modern efficient design, you might pick up 1-2 mpg. ... My G320 gets about 11 mpg, don't expect much more especially in you climate.

I always feel compelled to contribute to 320 issues (out of elite pride, no doubt.)[:I]

Around town, with a lot of stop/go, I've never gotten worse than 13 mpg... for the 400 mi drive down to LA, cruising 85-90mph, I get between 17-19. I would love to hear from some Europeans v6 owners (or know whether there are any other US users.)

--
I've got a potentially annoying situation, where a client that I have to drive to (I'm normally a walker) has valet parking only, and they seem to move the G around a lot- how adverse is this (start, move 20 feet, turn off, etc. a few times a day.) What components will this impact? thanks!
m

 

I have the '98 G320 with the M104 inline six and 4 speed transmission. I think that I average between 11-14 MPG. I should also say that I have a lead foot and drive around 75-80 mph everywhere I go (on the highway of course).
I think that the transmission shifts great. It's always smooth and responsive.
All of the cars that I have owned have been diesels, so I'm not used to the engine revving (and maintaining) over 4000 rpms all of the time. I know that most diesels develop their torque at lower RPMs, while gas engines develop their power at higher RPMs. I'm sure that the 5th gear would bring the RPMs down, but I think that things like towing heavier loads would suffer.

Chuck

 

cfowler - 10/20/2004 9:40 PM

I have the '98 G320 with the M104 inline six and 4 speed transmission.
Chuck

Cold Taco- The issue is the manufacturer year (as Dutch notes) versus the 'registered' year. I think my G was listed by the dealer as a 2001, although it is a '98. Europe G320 '98 are usually made in 1996, when they were inline and 4 speed.
m

 

I believe that mine was actually a late 1997 and is a Europa 1998.

Chuck

 

Thanks to all for the input. So, to get the 5 speed auto you need the V6 engine? Was wondering how the V8 with the 5speed compared mpg wise with a G320. I know that G's aren't made to be fuel efficent, just like to know what to expect and what set up would yield the best mpg, besides getting a diesel which is even harder[].

 

The G500's get 2-4 mpg better depending on conditions, so they are generally better.

 

My G 320 runs fine on regular gas here in flat Florida. A 10% fuel cost advantage over the G 500 which requires Super gas.

 

The 320 requires super as well. By not running it you are likely allowing the computer to retard timing which reduces power and requires a larger throttle opening and MORE gas to maintain the same speed. I bet you're not saving a thing, and driving around with less power[B)]

 

love those Puch badges...

I really like those puch badges... kinda wish mine wasn't a benz because i'm not particularly impressed by their current marketed image.

On fuel consumption. Do you have any long term averages of mileage?... like in the last 10,000 miles of assumedly mixed driving you used XXX gallons of gas which equals YYY mpg. It'd be nice to know a rolling average because it cuts out all the noise of tank to tank variations which can be pretty big in my experience.

13-15 is my appx. average including mixed driving.
12-17 is my appx. max range... although it wouldn't be hard to do worse, or manage the situation to record better. Because of how much air this truck pushes i've noticed that driving down hill, with tail/head wind, or following other cars makes a surprisingly big difference.

i've got the data for a long term average, but haven't run the numbers.

 

My owner's manual states and I quote:
Petrol Engine
Unleaded regular fuel,
at least 91RON/82.5 MON


That amounts to an octane rating at the US pumps of 86.75. Regular fuel is rated at 87 octane.

I still rather believe what MB put in their manuals.

As far as average fuel consumption goes, mine appears to be no different from what others have stated on this forum.

 

Another good example why it is important to have a complete profile (including vehicle year) to avoid misunderstanding.
The I-6 G320 (engine M104 E 32) 94-97 takes unleaded,
the V-6 G320 (engine M112) 97-04 takes only premium.

http://www.4x4abc.com/G-Class/production.html

Harald

 

Brent - 10/21/2004 2:36 PM

The G500's get 2-4 mpg better depending on conditions, so they are generally better.

I know this point has been brought up before (and I should just let it go), but it's simply not true that the V8 gets better gas mileage than the V6. The mercedes specs show a 2-4 mpg advantage to the V6.
m

 

NewBuyer - 10/21/2004 8:28 PM

Brent - 10/21/2004 2:36 PM

The G500's get 2-4 mpg better depending on conditions, so they are generally better.

I know this point has been brought up before (and I should just let it go), but it's simply not true that the V8 gets better gas mileage than the V6. The mercedes specs show a 2-4 mpg advantage to the V6.
m

I agree that the G500 gets better fuel economy. I am willing to trade that for lack of electronics and computer crap.

 

I stand corrected. For some reason I was under the impression that my gas door had a sticker stating the need for 95 RON, must be a different car[:I]

So thanks captainpete, you just saved me more than switching to Geico[] (which I would never do)

As far as the milage difference between the G500 and the G320....In the real word I got at least 4mpg better with the G500 than my G320. I owned them at the same time, filled them at the same staitions and drove them on the same roads. New Buyer, I have no idea how you get such good milage with yours, but more power to ya! I have had this 320 for four years now and have NEVER done better than 12mpg, and I haven't done any city driving in that time either.

 

Brent - 10/21/2004 6:43 PM
... New Buyer, I have no idea how you get such good milage with yours, but more power to ya! I have had this 320 for four years now and have NEVER done better than 12mpg, and I haven't done any city driving in that time either.

I'll have to agree here. Excepting the G270CDI, my turbodiesel is about as efficient as a G gets. I've managed an average of 19.8MPG over my ownership period. I tend to drive the limit in the city and limit+9 on the highway. It has the 5 speed automatic and turns ~2650 @ 65MPH. In my experience, fuel economy really starts to plummet over 70MPH.

 

AlanMcR - 10/22/2004 12:04 AM
I'll have to agree here. Excepting the G270CDI, my turbodiesel is about as efficient as a G gets. I've managed an average of 19.8MPG over my ownership period. I tend to drive the limit in the city and limit+9 on the highway. It has the 5 speed automatic and turns ~2650 @ 65MPH. In my experience, fuel economy really starts to plummet over 70MPH.

Alan,
I'll trade you. I'll even toss in the Warn Winch and a Mercedes 300D.

Chuck

 

Brent - 10/21/2004 9:43 PM

As far as the milage difference between the G500 and the G320....In the real word I got at least 4mpg better with the G500 than my G320. I owned them at the same time, filled them at the same staitions and drove them on the same roads. New Buyer, I have no idea how you get such good milage with yours, but more power to ya! I have had this 320 for four years now and have NEVER done better than 12mpg, and I haven't done any city driving in that time either.

Brent,
Is your 320 an inline 6 or a V6? As I've noted, I have a V6 5 speed- maybe that is the difference? I know you're a lot more knowledgeable than me on all things G, so please correct me I'm being presumptuous- that was why I was requesting similar stats from any other board members who own the V6 model - there seem to be very few in the US.
m

 

cfowler - 10/21/2004 9:46 PM
Alan,
I'll trade you. I'll even toss in the Warn Winch and a Mercedes 300D.

Chuck

Fat chance[] You can hit up Norm Keiser, he brought in all three of the G300DTs currently in the US.

 

That is the answer, the V6 / five speed auto is a more efficient combo, just as I would have guessed. It shows the advantages of more precise electronic powertrain management, and designs that reflect fuel economy as a higher priority.

 

it's quite valid for you to argue the difference between the inline and the V6, but the 320 v6 and the 500v8 use essentially the same technology which means they will be similar in efficiency... that is to say for a given amount specific amount of output power, i would expect them to require a similar amount of input power... a little more or less i wont argue...

next you have two virtually identical trucks with 5 speed transmissions and but with some minor changes in gearing, and this could drive the situation favorable to either g320 or g500, as it defines where the motor lies in it's efficiency curce for a given amount of output power as required to move the car down the road at a given speed.

Next, in the 25year Jubilee book you do have a reference to the G320 getting better mileage, but you also have a specific reference in it that says the g500 gets better mileage, so from mercedes you do not have a consistent picture you can trust, other than to say that the difference certainly cannot be much, accept for deisels which are a specifically more efficient platfom.

Next, i would optimistically expect to get no more than 12-13mpg at 90mph, where i can get 16-17 cruising at 55-60. So to say your getting 17-19 at 85-90 mph, to me would mean that your getting at the very least 22mpg on the highway at the speed limit. And that is simply un-believable to me. If you have long term compiled data to say that your running average is similar to Alan's, I'll believe you and happily boast the songs of the G320.

Right now, i think your 85-90mph data had a tail wind (+2mpg), were following a van (+2mpg), an the fuel pump didn't completely filled your tank when you calculated that tanks avarage (+2mpg). All of which definitely happen.

In the end, all i assert is that the V6 and V8 will not be significantly different, at least until compiled data (not single tank data) is available.