Mercedes E class 1995 fuel consumption
Mercedes E class from 1995 to 1999 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 11% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 11% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 12% higher. Starting from 1995 Mercedes E class average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was similar to average, at 1996 it was slightly above industry average, at 1997 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became similar to average. For more details, see the table below.
Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values
| Year | Gasoline cars | Diesel cars | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All carmakers | Mercedes E class | All carmakers | Mercedes E class | |
| 1995 | +5% | +3% | +2% | +4% |
| Show all years | ||||
| 1996 | +4% | +6% | +2% | +4% |
| 1997 | +3% | +4% | +3% | +5% |
| 1998 | +3% | insignificant | +4% | +8% |
| 1999 | +3% | insignificant | +5% | +12% |
See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mercedes E class.
1995 - 1999
Mercedes E class 1995 W210 sedan fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 22.4 MPG 10.5 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 21.6 MPG 10.9 l/100km |
| Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +3% |
| Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines | 31.6 MPG 7.4 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines | 30.6 MPG 7.7 l/100km |
| Average real diesel consumption difference * | +6% |
Mercedes E class 1995 specs
Mercedes E class 1995 owner reviewsMercedes E class service info and schedule
According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mercedes E class 1995 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.3 liters per 100 km or 5% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Mercedes E class with automatic transmission consumes around 0.4 litres per 100 km or 4% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.
Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Mercedes E class fuel economy is significantly above average. The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 3.0 diesel engine and automatic transmission (Mercedes E 300 1995 Diesel Automatic 136 HP).
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 200 1995 136 HP manual | 25.8 MPG 9.1 l/100km |
26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km-1% |
| Mercedes E 200 1995 Automatic 136 HP automatic | 24.5 MPG 9.6 l/100km |
23.1 MPG 10.2 l/100km+6% |
| 2.2 liter diesel engine | ||
| Mercedes E 220 1995 Diesel 95 HP manual | 33.1 MPG 7.1 l/100km |
32.7 MPG 7.2 l/100km+1% |
| Mercedes E 220 1995 Diesel Automatic 95 HP automatic | 30.5 MPG 7.7 l/100km |
30.9 MPG 7.6 l/100km-1% |
| Mercedes E 200 1998 CDI Automatic 102 HP automatic | 34.1 MPG 6.9 l/100km |
27.7 MPG 8.5 l/100km+23% |
| Mercedes E 220 1998 CDI Automatic 125 HP automatic | 34.1 MPG 6.9 l/100km |
30.9 MPG 7.6 l/100km+10% |
| 2.3 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 230 1995 150 HP manual | 25.6 MPG 9.2 l/100km |
25.8 MPG 9.1 l/100km-1% |
| Mercedes E 230 1995 Automatic 150 HP automatic | 24.2 MPG 9.7 l/100km |
24.2 MPG 9.7 l/100km0% |
| 2.4 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 240 1997 170 HP manual | 22.8 MPG 10.3 l/100km |
22.4 MPG 10.5 l/100km+2% |
| Mercedes E 240 1997 Automatic 170 HP automatic | 22.8 MPG 10.3 l/100km |
22.6 MPG 10.4 l/100km+1% |
| 2.5 liter diesel engine | ||
| Mercedes E 250 D 113 HP manual | 35.6 MPG 6.6 l/100km |
|
| Mercedes E 250 D Automatic 113 HP automatic | 29.0 MPG 8.1 l/100km |
|
| Mercedes E 250 Turbodiesel 150 HP manual | 26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km |
|
| 2.8 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 280 1995 193 HP manual | 22.6 MPG 10.4 l/100km |
22.4 MPG 10.5 l/100km+1% |
| Mercedes E 280 1995 Automatic 193 HP automatic | 23.5 MPG 10.0 l/100km |
20.5 MPG 11.5 l/100km+15% |
| Mercedes E 280 1997 204 HP manual | 22.2 MPG 10.6 l/100km |
|
| Mercedes E 280 1997 4Matic 204 HP 4x4 automatic | 21.4 MPG 11.0 l/100km |
21.8 MPG 10.8 l/100km-2% |
| Mercedes E 280 1997 Automatic 204 HP automatic | 23.1 MPG 10.2 l/100km |
21.6 MPG 10.9 l/100km+7% |
| 2.9 liter diesel engine | ||
| Mercedes E 290 1995 TD 129 HP manual | 34.6 MPG 6.8 l/100km |
34.1 MPG 6.9 l/100km+1% |
| Mercedes E 290 1997 TD 129 HP automatic | 32.2 MPG 7.3 l/100km |
31.8 MPG 7.4 l/100km+1% |
| 3.0 liter diesel engine | ||
| Mercedes E 300 1995 Diesel 136 HP manual | 31.8 MPG 7.4 l/100km |
30.9 MPG 7.6 l/100km+3% |
| Mercedes E 300 1995 Diesel Automatic 136 HP automatic | 31.4 MPG 7.5 l/100km |
28.7 MPG 8.2 l/100km+9% |
| Mercedes E 300 1997 TD 177 HP automatic | 29.8 MPG 7.9 l/100km |
26.4 MPG 8.9 l/100km+13% |
| 3.2 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 320 1995 220 HP automatic | 23.8 MPG 9.9 l/100km |
20.5 MPG 11.5 l/100km+16% |
| Mercedes E 320 1997 224 HP automatic | 22.8 MPG 10.3 l/100km |
23.1 MPG 10.2 l/100km-1% |
| Mercedes E 320 1997 4Matic 224 HP 4x4 automatic | 21.2 MPG 11.1 l/100km |
21.2 MPG 11.1 l/100km0% |
| 4.2 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 420 1995 279 HP automatic | 18.5 MPG 12.7 l/100km |
17.6 MPG 13.4 l/100km+6% |
| 4.3 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 430 1997 279 HP automatic | 21.2 MPG 11.1 l/100km |
19.9 MPG 11.8 l/100km+6% |
| 5.0 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 50 1996 AMG 347 HP automatic | 20.3 MPG 11.6 l/100km |
16.3 MPG 14.4 l/100km+24% |
| 5.4 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mercedes E 55 1997 AMG 354 HP automatic | 19.4 MPG 12.1 l/100km |
18.2 MPG 12.9 l/100km+7% |
* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.
User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.