Need Input - 190D 2.2 or 2.5?
 

I currently commute approximately 180 miles a day. I have a 78 300SD and a 91 350 SD. Both are good runners but don't get the best fuel mileage. My 78 300SD does approx 24mpg while the 91 350SD does approximately 22mpg on the highway.

the commute is primarily highway (90%) at speeds of 70 - 80 mph. While the vehicles take the running with no sweat it does cost a little.

I have been thinking about a 190D 2.2 for this purpose. I hear that they are great on fuel mileage and have decent torque for such a small engine.

Any thoughts. They're hard to find but it can be done. Anything to stay away from?

I have about 130K miles of 190D 2.5 experience - it was a fine car for me, I had very little trouble with it. It routinely got 40+ MPG and I'd recommend it highly for a your stated purpose.

I've driven the 2.2 version of this car and it is noticeably slower. It's not quite as bad as a 240D but it's close. The 2.5 seems to get similar mileage to the 2.2 but it has more power available for passing (90 HP vs 72HP if I remember correctly.

Both version are available with 5 speeds and this configuration would be better than an automatic for highway use. Of course manuals are harder to find than automatics.

Tim

2.5 Turbo!~
 

go with the 2.5 turbo !

Perfect candidate for SVO
 

You could radically cut your fuel costs by running an SVO/WVO system, or even by blending veggie oil. The MB diesel engines love the stuff, and once you get a good supply, it's not too big of a hassle for the massive cost savings you can realize.

SteveM

I feel the urge to post something since 190D threads are so rare... :)

I have a 190D-2.2 5-speed. On the past 5 tanks of fuel, I've gotten between 40.3 mpg and 41.5 mpg in mixed city/highway driving (at 65mph). At 70-75mph, the car gets around 38-39mpg. So, fuel economy is super-fabulous - you would cut your fuel costs in half if you bought one of these cars! With the manual transmission, acceleration is adequate (the automatic is noticeably slower), and on the highway, the car can maintain it's speed up moderate hills without downshifting.

However, if you need to drive 80+ on a regular basis, I don't think this is the right car to choose. It's tough to get the car over 90 (and it's probably not that good for the car). Maybe the 2.5 is better; I can't say because I've never driven one...

According to www.fueleconomy.gov, the 2.5 gets 2mpg lower fuel economy than the 2.2, and the automatic gets 4-5mpg less than the manual on the highway.

I just saw an '84 190D 2.2 for sale in Denver. The engine looked and sounded relatively good, the body was straight but the interior was beat.

My mechanic just bought an '84 190D 2.2 Gray with red interior with 122k for $2k from an estate sale. I wouldn't have a problem with sheepskin seat covers in the front, but the back seat needs to be in good condition.

Anyway, I just wanted to say, that I always thought that the 190 was (don't scream) a sub-standard Mercedes. I think as I age, I appreciate it more and more. The simplicity, ease & cost of maintenace and just the smell of an older diesel and old mb tex interior.

I'm looking forward to slowly driving one!

Anyway, I love the 2.5 Turbo in that car, however the mpg is too low for real heavy commuting.

I was looking for the 2.2 because I heard it was better mpg than the 2.5. I would be interested in some more real world experience with the too often overlooked model.

Thanks,
Richard

Have you considered a w124 300D 2.5Turbo? Mine gets between 29 and 36 mpgs. Comfortable, peppy, good commuter car. Or you could switch to VW (gasp!) and drive a 45-50 mpg TDI. Now THAT's a great commuter.

ive looked all over and ive never seen a 5 speed 190D. i like my 300D 2.5 and it does get great milage, but ive always wanted a 5 speed.

190D 2.2 5 spd
 

Grenko
I have an 84 190D 5spd 113k mi pristine cond----while its mpg is great it is in deed slow---I must keep an eye on my rear view mirror as I pull away from redlights as the cars behind are always close to rear ending me,once I am in 3rd gear I can move with the flow. Interstate driving at 70 is 3,000 rpm in 5th gear. All in all I love the car and it is a keeper but a 2.5 turbo would be a better choice----hard to find
joel

substandard?
dont drive over 80?

My 2.2 5 speed has been better than my 123 adn my 126. I still drive it 80 to 100 miles a day --- with 392kmi.

The autos are terribly slow, but the 5-speeds are fine for most commuters.

As for aging, the vehicle can age gracefully if reasonably cared for.

I love this. What's with the C temp reading on the dash? Do they build 'em better for the Canadian market? :rolleyes:

The early 190's had reading in degrees C. Only the later ones use degrees F.

My car is a US model, the 354th diesel made in the 190's build date 11/03. It was purchased in Chicago, and spent all but the last two years in Chicago.

I also have a 2004 Passat TDI 2.0 Wagon which I love. It is quite a peppy car and gets 40mpg on the highway. The 1.9 is more fuel efficient but the Passat is just a little bigger than the Jetta.

This is our 4th TDI and I have loved all of them. My wife primarily drives them because of their FWD. I myself, would rather drive a RWD Benz even if it is in the bad nasty weather.

If I spend that much time in the car, I want to spend it behind the Star. Also, the 190D 2.2 maintenance costs seem to be quite reasonable.

I appreciate all of your input.