I"m looking at a 87 190D 2.5T and a 92 300D 2.5T - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

vstech · #1 02-16-2009, 11:12 AM

both from the same local seller... he's asking 2K for the 190 and 2.9K for the 300... gimme the low down on what to inspect on these cars, and tell me the best price they could be selling for... I'm thinking the 190 should be an awesome car to drive, but I'm eyeing the 300 for it's newness to me...

#2 02-16-2009, 11:26 AM

The 87 is quicker and lacks the computer hanging over engine performance.

vstech · #3 02-16-2009, 01:07 PM

yeah, that's what I was thinking... but the allure of the newer car... mmmmm is $2.9K a good price for it if it's in great shape?

JonL · #4 02-16-2009, 01:23 PM

Is the '92 really noticeably newer than the '87? 17 years vs. 22 years... they're both OLD, it's going to come down more to condition and maintenance IMO.

awsrock · #5 02-16-2009, 01:33 PM

Unless you need the extra space, I'd jump on the 87 if they were in similar condition. They are getting hard to come by!

babymog · #6 02-16-2009, 08:51 PM

I really liked my '87 190D 2.5Turbo, but it was small. It is faster and better handling than the 2.5T 300D. The original '87 head was prone to cracks, check for cracks via oil and coolant cross-contamination or any other indicator. The 201 body is also prone to rust in the rocker-panels, especially forward of the front and rearward of the rear jack-points

The '92 300D is certainly more car, and yes the interior and exterior is more modern as well as the interior being more plush (especially if it is leather = rare because the door panels have classy leather inserts, '92 has bags on the seatbacks instead of the nets that break/sag and drop most things you'd like to keep there, leather steering wheel and shifter, nicer radio, nice zebrano wood on the dash and doors, etc.)

I like the pep and rarity of the '87 190D 2.5 turbo, but the 124 is SO MUCH more car to me, I've had both and wouldn't go back.

sixto · #7 02-16-2009, 09:08 PM

An 87 300D has most of the pep of an 87 2.5T and most of the luxury of a 92 2.5

See the attachment in this post for gsxr's 87 300D buyer's guide. Most of the advice applies to both cars you're considering -

Common issues

Sixto
87 300D

engatwork · #8 02-16-2009, 09:11 PM

I'd be all over that W124 2.5turbo.

vstech · #9 02-17-2009, 08:56 AM

thanks guys! I'll post pics if I don't jump on either or if I get one, I'll post pics of the other... along with my purchase to brag of course...

zeke · #10 02-17-2009, 09:00 AM

Very interesting - I am also considering an 87 190Dt, and this has been very helpful.

What is the mpg I can expect on one of these?

babymog · #11 02-17-2009, 09:47 AM

My 190D 2.5 Turbo (being careful to not misuse the t) automatic regularly returned mid-30s MPG on the freeway cruise at 72ish. Running 60mph on 2-lane I have averaged 42.5mpg 2-way trips twice, I seldom drive that slow however.

This is on good summer diesel ULSD, Mobil syn fluids, Redline additive, all of the forbidden fruit, your mileage may vary.

VegStew · #12 02-17-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

The 87 is quicker and lacks the computer hanging over engine performance.

There is an easy fix for this if you have boost issues. See yet another of GSXRs' threads

vstech · #13 02-23-2009, 09:18 AM

OK, who wants the info on these two cars?
I'm going to pass on both of them, just don't have the money at the moment...
the 92 is in very nice shape, but not nearly as peppy as the 87. the 87 has a few minor road rash incedents on it's shell, but seems to really be the nicer of the two. the seller CLAIMS that MB put a new long block in approx 90K ago, and it starts instantly... when you put the shifter in N... P will not start. bad switch I suppose... anyway, no rust, very clean car, dash cracked to pieces. center console is maroon, the rest is gray. seats worn etc... no tears, just worn out springs and such. seat belt upper plastic is broken, tires freshly sprayed with armorall.... ugh.
both cars feel IDK... weak compared to the 123/126's I drive. I'm sure it's due to the smaller displacement of the 602, but I really expected a much faster car from my experience. once the turbo kicked in, it was very fast, but before that, it just felt like it was working pretty hard. oh, the ODO is out... seller claimed over a year... nearly 400K showing... so if the story about the long block is not true, I'd be worried. but it had no blowby, and minor smoke at startup, gone instantly once idle stablized. I started both cold, no glow, instant starters...

the 92 is in nearly pristine shape. the seats are SOOO firm and comfortable. also an instant starter, no smoke no rust no damage I could detect. nice tires nice 8 hole wheels, it looks like the wheels have hit their fair share of curbs, but nothing serious. typical gray hood clear fade. everything works well on the 92.
anybody need pics?

babymog · #14 02-23-2009, 09:28 AM

If the cars feel weak compared to the SD and 123, they're really weak! The 190D turbo is a 9.5second 0-55mph car, the 300D somewhat slower but still should be better than an SD.

vstech · #15 02-23-2009, 09:42 AM

oh, I'm sure they are faster than my 123/126's they just feel like they have to think a bit before flying... very fast cars, just not instantly fast... the lag is pronounced, unlike the .952 where it pulls, then flys, the 602 kinda just moves and waits for the power to come on from the turbo...