2021 MB Sprinter 2.0 gas or diesel
- Thread starter VECTOR
- Start date
I would go with gas sprinter van. you don't have to worry about AD Blue. Carrying it with you or getting bad fluid on road.
I was thinking the same; seems way less complicated going with gas even when considering the slight mpg advantage with the diesel.
Slight? I averaged 26 mpg yesterday driving the Sprinter family wagon from TN to FL with both front and rear AC on. Any gas sprinter owners with real numbers, not just made up stuff?
Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk
Sent from my moto g(7) using Tapatalk
You will get better fuel mileage out of a diesel. You will also get more miles usually out of it. The problem is when it comes to maintenance or repairs, you're going to be paying a lot more. For instance in my gas sprinter, a dealership tried to charge me $120 for an oil change. Because they thought it was diesel. Ended up getting it done for $52 because it was gas.
Thanks. I just purchased a '21 Sprinter 170" high roof Gas model. Time will tell, but I believe the best decision for me.
You did the correct thing. Today's gas engines operate, or last just as long as diesel engines. I have a freind who has a gasser sprinter and is averaging 16-18 mpg, which isn't bad. Factor in the lower vehicle sticker price, the less maintenance costs and the lower cost of gas, oil changes, etc, and you may agree. My Ford 5.4 had 575,000 miles on it before I changed the engine and transmission myself with a Ford reman.
Definitely feel good about the decision, and you've helped bolster that. My only wish is that the MB had an engine with the power/fun factor of the Ecoboost. But, it's a van first..... I can always pull out my C6 GS if I'm feeling the need for speed.
Last edited:
I’m not an expediter, own a bread distribution territory.
But I gave diesel a shot and it was a nightmare for emissions, but may vary by manufacturer.
I drive about 20k miles a year, so nowhere near as much as most of you. But 80% of that is highway (to get to my territory and back) and country roads. And even when around town it is not stop and go/congested.
I was getting 10 mpg with it and the comparable gas trucks (most use a GM 6.0) get 7mpg, both figures for loaded box truck.
So I was saving $1500-$2k a year in fuel.
Had a 2017 Mitsubishi Fuso diesel (3.0 turbo).
No issues with the drivetrain, but the issues with emissions started about the time the 50k mile emissions warranty end.
Last year had a PCV filter fail prematurely (which causes a need for extra code resets and programming - something else to charge for) and then the DEF tank needed replaced.
These emission errors generally cause a limp mode.
The dealership is always backlogged at least a week so have to get a rental truck when the truck isn’t drivable.
Spent $3k on emissions repairs and rentals.
Earlier this year a NOX sensor failed, $1000 repair, $200 tow and $600 rental.
Then recently had an EGR leak, $2500 repair estimate.
That was the last straw. Didn’t have them fix it as it was still driveable (no permanent limp mode).
So $7,300 of additional expenses related to the emissions system in less than two years.
Way more than all of my fuel savings.
And oil/fuel filter changes are $300 on the truck.
And these issues were from 50k to 85k miles. What’s it gonna do in the next 100-200k miles.
For that amount of money you could probably have a brand new gas engine installed on a gas truck.
Traded it in for a new gas cab over engine truck.
GM 6.0 engine.
Allison 1000 transmission (5 year unlimited mile warranty).
A lot more power than the 3.0 turbo diesel also.
I bought the diesel hoping to save money, but didn’t work out in my case.
I know for extremely heavy loads its mostly necessary and for lots of yearly of miles still can make up extra repair/maintenance costs with fuel savings and come out ahead.
But if someone’s situation is borderline between the two on the financial savings, I’d say gas is the way to go, until they can get these emissions systems more reliable.
But I gave diesel a shot and it was a nightmare for emissions, but may vary by manufacturer.
I drive about 20k miles a year, so nowhere near as much as most of you. But 80% of that is highway (to get to my territory and back) and country roads. And even when around town it is not stop and go/congested.
I was getting 10 mpg with it and the comparable gas trucks (most use a GM 6.0) get 7mpg, both figures for loaded box truck.
So I was saving $1500-$2k a year in fuel.
Had a 2017 Mitsubishi Fuso diesel (3.0 turbo).
No issues with the drivetrain, but the issues with emissions started about the time the 50k mile emissions warranty end.
Last year had a PCV filter fail prematurely (which causes a need for extra code resets and programming - something else to charge for) and then the DEF tank needed replaced.
These emission errors generally cause a limp mode.
The dealership is always backlogged at least a week so have to get a rental truck when the truck isn’t drivable.
Spent $3k on emissions repairs and rentals.
Earlier this year a NOX sensor failed, $1000 repair, $200 tow and $600 rental.
Then recently had an EGR leak, $2500 repair estimate.
That was the last straw. Didn’t have them fix it as it was still driveable (no permanent limp mode).
So $7,300 of additional expenses related to the emissions system in less than two years.
Way more than all of my fuel savings.
And oil/fuel filter changes are $300 on the truck.
And these issues were from 50k to 85k miles. What’s it gonna do in the next 100-200k miles.
For that amount of money you could probably have a brand new gas engine installed on a gas truck.
Traded it in for a new gas cab over engine truck.
GM 6.0 engine.
Allison 1000 transmission (5 year unlimited mile warranty).
A lot more power than the 3.0 turbo diesel also.
I bought the diesel hoping to save money, but didn’t work out in my case.
I know for extremely heavy loads its mostly necessary and for lots of yearly of miles still can make up extra repair/maintenance costs with fuel savings and come out ahead.
But if someone’s situation is borderline between the two on the financial savings, I’d say gas is the way to go, until they can get these emissions systems more reliable.
You are correct in your thinking, in my opinion. 3 years ago I changed both the engine and transmission in my E350 Ford with a reman Ford. They both come with a 3 year unlimited mileage warranty, which includes free loaner car during repair time, and a tow up to 35 miles to the nearest Ford dealer. They both came almost complete, ( the transmission did), both were full of fresh transmission fluid, and the engine was full of oil, filter, water pump, etc. I had to use my old intake, injectors, and exhaust manifolds. Couldn't be happier. Both cost me $5,000, and I replaced them both myself. Gone are the days of a gas engine lasting only 100,000 miles. A myth. The diesel engines themselves are not the problem, it's all the garbage they put on them, choking them, that is, in my opinion. The old inline 5cyl sprinter engines were probably the best ones to have. The r.v industry right now is having a ton of emissions related issues with both sprinter mini motorhomes as well as Cummins equipped coaches. For what a person may save in mpgs will be lost in downtime, headaches, higher cost of fuel and oil changes, etc. Plus the higher diesel option cost.
dealer tells me you can get a 170 wb but not a 170 ext wb in a gas engine
Yes, I never understood that.
So if you can only get the non-extended in gas then I would just buy the Promaster.
Better mileage and many more options for getting work done. Also because the Promaster uses an engine that almost half of Mopar cars use now, there's usually no problem with parts availability when needed.
Better mileage and many more options for getting work done. Also because the Promaster uses an engine that almost half of Mopar cars use now, there's usually no problem with parts availability when needed.
There was a post on a different group where a Promaster owner posted pictures of his complete engine and transmission assembly fall out to the ground with around 20,000 miles on his Promaster. I have those pictures, but once again, this website prohibits me from posting pictures...smh..but anyways, this is not an isolated incident, as many other Promaster owners have experienced the same issue. That alone would make me think twice about buying one to begin with. If only Nissan would of made a 12 ft or better cargo area NV instead of stop building them altogether. That van may not of been the best on MPG's, but it was a very well built van with very few issues. I'll take less MPG over lack of dependability any day.
No, this website doesn't prohibit you from posting pictures. This website is like a standard two car garage. Your photos are like your cube van with a trailer attached. You can't back that into your garage and close the garage door. Too big. Won't fit. You want to throw just any picture in here and still close the door. Some sites allow that and do the work of resizing and fitting them into the garage. This site expects us to do the work ourselves.
As for mpg, 100,000 miles per year at 18mpg saves over 1100 gallons of fuel compared to 100,000 miles at 15mpg. If we had photos and evidence of dozens of Promasters with powertrains fallen out on the ground I'd put it in a suspicious and leery category. One is just a really weird situation that many (most?) brands have of various kinds.
I looked at the NV when I was van shopping but it just didn't have an adequate load floor. It was nice and would have been a really comfortable and good driving van but it was just too short. I went with a G3500 extended. I gave up height to save upwards of $20k on purchase price. Yeah, I missed out on some loads but at 18.2mpg on gasoline and $19k extra in the bank I still came out ahead.
I downloaded a picture resizing app. Apparently either it or I am doing something wrong.
And yes, I mentioned in a roundabout way that the Nissan is too short. Too bad. 10 years ago when I had a extended E350 the amount of loads I missed was incredible, not to mention the added creature comfort of being able to stand up and walk around. That in itself is priceless.
First generation Pentastar 3.6's were prone to head problems due to poor lubrication.
They fixed that in 2014 I think it was. Also many of the drivers that migrated to the Promaster came from driving the regular Ford and
Chevy cargo vans and were pounding on them the same way they used to beat on the old vans and found out fast that they couldn't treat them the same way. Once the drivers/owners figured that out, they stopped destroying the cv axles and other suspension components.
Their transmissions are holding up well for the most part.
I don't have overall cost comparsion charts between the long and talls but if you can tolerate the sacrifice of a proper bunk area, my gut feeling tells me that provided you keep up on the maintenance (love those cheap diy oil changes), and don't beat on them like we did with the old slop boxes, I believe the Promaster will end up providing the lowest overall cost of ownership.
They fixed that in 2014 I think it was. Also many of the drivers that migrated to the Promaster came from driving the regular Ford and
Chevy cargo vans and were pounding on them the same way they used to beat on the old vans and found out fast that they couldn't treat them the same way. Once the drivers/owners figured that out, they stopped destroying the cv axles and other suspension components.
Their transmissions are holding up well for the most part.
I don't have overall cost comparsion charts between the long and talls but if you can tolerate the sacrifice of a proper bunk area, my gut feeling tells me that provided you keep up on the maintenance (love those cheap diy oil changes), and don't beat on them like we did with the old slop boxes, I believe the Promaster will end up providing the lowest overall cost of ownership.
Last edited: