Sprinter 2500 vs 3500
- Thread starter ecs_ocean
- Start date
comet_4298
Seasoned Expediter
I have a '07 2500 and average between 17 to 19 mpg and every now and then just bump 20mpg.
For the up and down mpg on the '07 and above......I think alot is to do with how many time the DPF regen's before the next fill-up.
For the up and down mpg on the '07 and above......I think alot is to do with how many time the DPF regen's before the next fill-up.
westmicher
Veteran Expediter
I don't see how there can be that much MPG difference, all other things being equal. Our 2006 3500 averages 23.5 @ 62 MPH. I know the 2007+ models get less across the board but i would thing about 1 MPG less would be more likely.
You be correct, 06 was the last year for the 5 cyl.
Your thoughts on the newer models OVM?
Speedwagen
Seasoned Expediter
OVM is right about the 04-06 being a better, more efficient mouse trap. The 2.7 liter 5 cylinder is a great engine.
I read elsewhere that most of the newer design 2007 US models
(2500) came standard with a 4.18 rear end axle ratio in lieu of a preferred 3.92 which also figures greatly in mileage. They since changed that error with the 2008 models, but if you're shopping for a newer model, be sure to check the rear end ratio.
I read elsewhere that most of the newer design 2007 US models
(2500) came standard with a 4.18 rear end axle ratio in lieu of a preferred 3.92 which also figures greatly in mileage. They since changed that error with the 2008 models, but if you're shopping for a newer model, be sure to check the rear end ratio.
Last edited:
They are sweet...and BIG...IF I were in the market for one, I think better to wait for 2012/13....for Mercedes to have parts in the pipeline...and assess how they held up over the last 2 years...As many of us sprinter guys have said MANY times a sprinter is NOT an entry level van....we now have contacts in the business...where to get this...this dealer is crap...owning a sprinter takes some thinking, to plan out the PM needed...they can be life changing experience...either for the good or they'll bust your balls...
I'd say so...so do most "knowledgeable" techs.
Too bad MB did not work on it a bit more to bring it into line....if it was possible.
westmicher
Veteran Expediter
Our 2006 3500 has the capability of containing 3 skids, which we get less than 10% of the time. Our door height is reduced to 58" high, which has been a problem twice in 8 months, although dispatch probably passed us over for a few loads we don't know about. Having said all that, we are going to have the wheel wells cut down next week, which will give us 64" of door height and 58" in width.
westmicher
Veteran Expediter
We will be cutting our raised deck from 12" high down to 6" high. And yes, we've checked the clearance extensively.
What I've heard from some of my 3500 contacts is that they would assume...for the amount of taller freight they've lost, they figure they probably made up for in wide loads a 2500 can't get in without putting in a couple empty skids to get over the wheel wells...
Whats the gvw of the 3500 I think last time I looked into it, it was over 10k. Maybe they have lowered it since 07 when I was looking at them. And I think height is more important than length. There are plenty of 1-2 skid loads that are 60-72 tall. I scoop them up at c-rate as my trailer door height is 75" tall.
Now don't forget about the extra weight we can carry in a 3500 too...
That would depend on the weight in the front area for ballast....