190D VS 300D Question - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BSharp · #1 09-12-2007, 01:46 PM

How does a 1986 190D 2.5 N/A compare to a 1990-93 300D 2.5 Turbo (0-60). Comparable? I know the 2.5T has about 25 hp more but it is lugging around about 500 lb more. Automatic on both cars. Also, I see mpg figures for 190D 2.2 cars but what do people get with a 2.5 N/A car?

Thanks, Bud

123Guy · #2 09-12-2007, 01:59 PM

I'm not that familiar with the 90-93 diesels, but I can tell you that the biggest mistake we've made in 40 years of owning 14 Mercedes (mostly diesels and mostly purchased new) was in purchasing a new '87 190 2.5 - it was a car MB should never have built!! It had quality problems from day one - interior fit was pitiful - they had to replace door panels and even the dash board, the padding would slip rearward out of the seat bottoms and the driveline didn't do much better. When I discussed all this with the service advisor, he had nothing good to say aboutg the 190's. We were fortunate that my wife had not sold her 82 300SD (just stuck it in the garage) that she had been driving since new. We dumped the 190 and she went back to driving her 300SD and still drives it.
Today you can buy a 190D for less than a 10-year older 300D in top condition - there's a reason.

t walgamuth · #3 09-12-2007, 08:03 PM

I would think performance would be about the same. Mileage should be pretty similar too, imho.

I don't think the above bad experience with the 190 is all that common.

Tom W

TimFreeh · #4 09-12-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I don't think the above bad experience with the 190 is all that common. Tom W

Agreed.

I drove an 86 190D 5 speed for almost 150K miles in the early 90's and it was one of the best cars I've ever owned. I'd buy one again in a second.

I currently own a 2.5 turbo and I'd say it might be slightly faster than the 190D but its pretty much a wash. I live at sea level with no hills and my 190D would routinely deliver 40-43MPG.

The only real downside to the W201 chassis is that its pretty small, especially in the back seat. Make sure you can live with the dimensions of the interior.

benzforlife · #5 09-12-2007, 09:31 PM

let me say something, our 91 300d turbo, is like a damn snail...
It rides great though

t walgamuth · #6 09-12-2007, 10:25 PM

I had a 91 300d too. It accelerated slowly but would cruise very well at 85.

I have always wanted a 190d with a five speed...... One of these days.

Tom W

greasybenz · #7 09-13-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benzforlife

let me say something, our 91 300d turbo, is like a damn snail...
It rides great though

If your 91 300D was slower then your 300SD then there is some tuning in order. Otherwise they are pretty quick, not a 603 of course but still quick.

JamesDean · #8 09-13-2007, 02:20 AM

not to threadjack or anything but I have a 190E 2.6 and I've had nothing but pretty good experiences with it. nothing like described above. I cant say for the diesel variant of the 201 but the 2.6 is pretty solid. If I'm not mistaken Mercedes themselves admitted that the 201 was significantly over engineered. I think they spend something like 600 million on engineering alone.

I would imagine if you got a 190D in a 5spd variety it would be decently quick. I've heard that the 300D 5spd was pretty quick.

Deni · #9 09-13-2007, 09:35 AM

I have a '92 w201 2.5 turbo 5 spd. It is quite a nice small car. It's not a gasser but it's pretty fast for a 80's diesel. Got it up to around 123mph once, and it was quite civilized at that speed as well.

BSharp · #10 09-18-2007, 11:52 AM

Thanks for the replies, I really want a 190D 2.5T but they are scarce.