friend looking for early 90's 300E or 190E, $12K-13K. What should they look for in 190E? What year? 16V? 6-cyl? etc. (wants an automatic). TIA, Mitch

The 1992-93 190E 2.6 is one of the best W201 chassis cars built. Quality of materials superior to todays cars!!

I have a 1993 2.6 and here's my exp (sounds like you might be interested in looking at one).

Great car - 80k miles, going strong AND you can get them for a song ($10-14k for really good examples). Mileage is not exceptional if you have a heavy foot (I avg between 19-22) and tank is small so you only have a max range of about 300 miles (that's into reserve). That's probably the biggest disappointment with this car - too much time at the pump. Powertrain is bulletproof. Quality is great (no squeaks or rattles yet, nothing broken yet). Car feels about as tight as can be considered comfortable for my 6'2" 195lb frame. I don't plan to get any bigger but if I did I would go to an E-class. 2.6 is a great highway car but a little sluggish around town. Power comes on at about 3k rpms to redline so you tend to whip it pretty good if you're in a hurry but the mechanics are like music and it'll happily spin all the way up to limiter. Clearly 1980's technology though - don't expect a "smart" tranny or for anything to adapt to your driving style. This is often what makes me wish for a newer MBZ, BMW or Audi. Thankfully it manual-shifts well and doing this hasn't hurt it in the slightest - yet. It's the kind of auto that you keep in 3 around town and reserve D for highway as it'll shift up into D at 45 if you let it and just about any throttle input at that speed will have it shifting back down - an annoying cycle. Steering is a little heavy and numb, which is nice at 80mph but not BMW-fun in the twisties. Platform is really solid and suspension set up well in a compromise that favors comfort. However, you can fling it into a corner and traction breaks away really evenly and controllably if you're balanced. Throttle-lift will bring tail out and you can find good balance easily but with a heavy foot or little power going in it's definately understeer. Braking late and getting on the power evenly is the call. Rubber helps. I went from stock setup to 205x60x15 and it's night-and-day. Would like more headlight power - that's an easy rememdy. Replaced parts thus far: brake pads, rotors (cheaper to replace than turn), flex discs (cheap), coolant-level sender (cheap), thermostat (cheap insurance going to metal variety v. plastic OEM), driver-window switch (free from my mechanic) and the usual consumables: a couple of bulbs, filters, fluids, O2 sensor, battery (6 years), etc. I change the tranny fluid a little more often than is specified just to keep it really clean and because I stress it, the oil at 3500 miles, the brake fluid, p/s and coolant every two years and have the diff checked. As cheap and reliable as a Honda (until it breaks but Hondas aren't that cheap to fix anymore). Only probs I've had is a slow p/s hose leak from weak clamp and the front timing chain cover seeps. That's common with these and a cheap fix (at my 90k service). I'll probably have the suspension rebuilt (along with all bushings up front and the multi-link in rear) at that time as well as it's starting to crash a little on potholes and feel a little less precise these days. I think you're also supposed to routinely do the water pump at about 100k miles. As I see it, the 90k service costs some money but then you're done for the second 100k. Every tech tells me to just do the maintenance and keep it clean and fed and the thing will last forever.

Don't know if they made a 2.3 in 92-93 but I've heard some things about them and have driven a few of the 1990-1991 vintage. With auto tranny it's like a 240D. Seriously. Soooooo slow and disappointing. Let's face it - this is a heavy little car. If you're thinking baby benz, think baby huey. I doubt you could get the 4-banger over 100mph without blowing it up so perhaps the better grocery-getter or daughters-first-car. I've heard they're fun with a manual. Techs tell me that the 2.3 runs *really* hot though which has led to some premature "baking" of under-hood electronics including wiring harness. Keep in mind - there's about nothing you can do to get better power out of a 2.6 without making a poor investment. The 4-cyls offer, from what I've heard, a lot of potential for hopping up at lower prices. I like the last-years models of the 190 2.6 - they got it all right mechanically speaking (no manual tranny tho). I'll keep this one as a daily commute-mobile until it dies. It's too inexpensive, solid, fun and comfortable not to.

Hey there,

If you can find one, I'd opt for the 2.3-16V over the 2.6. Only b/c of personal preferences. If you're more into performance, then the 2.3-16V takes the 2.6 no question. But if you want that solid 6 cylinder feel, the 2.6 is your better bet. I'd stay away from the 2.3-8V's only b/c they tend to troublesome in the maintenance area. But that is NOT including all the 8V's. Well, good luck.

Regards,

Clinton Davis
'86 190E 2.3-16V turbo

[This message has been edited by Clinton (edited 11-18-2000).]

I can say I honestly love my 93 190E 2.6. Its just about to roll 100k miles. Every service has been at the dealer and never had any major problems. Just replaced my shocks, struts, and wheels and tires, did a brake upgrade. The sweet thing about this car, is the gearing. You are moving at 30, let it drop in to second, and you feel the smoothness of the straight 6 pull it all the way. Its pure silky.

We have been the first owners of our car. And after putting the money in upgrades, I really don't want to see the care go. But then again, making room for a new entry isn't bad either

If you can find a nice late model 190E 2.6, I would jump on it. Not many come in the paper (91-93) And because the 2.6 are rare on the market for selling, and for some wierd reason only the dealers get there hands on them, they keep good retail value.

Good Luck.

------------------
Chirag (Charlie) Patel

- 99 Mercedes-Benz ML 430 V8 w/custom TVs, HI-Fi VCP, Tuner, played throughout BOSE speaker system
- 93 190E 2.6 (4-sale) w/ an amp, equalizer, and CD-changer, integrated w/ stock stereo and integrated cellular phone speaker system, 400E brake upgrade, 16" 8-hole replica wheels, KYB, and lowest pad height, K&N
- Fianlly, waiting list on the new 2001 C32 AMG.
- 4 Sale, 4 16x7 7-Spoke SLK Wheels and 2 16x7 and 2 16x8 7-Spoke SLK staggered setup wheels (look like the Evo II, except 7-spokes)
- 4 Sale, OEM 15" wheels from 93 190E. 4 have 205/55/15 and 1 has rarely used 185/65/15 full size spare.

The only thing that Clinton omits is that the newest 16v is already 13 years old.

Best one ever had to be the 190E 2.6 Sportline. Also, the 1993 Limited was my absolute favorite. That was black with black and red leather, sportline package, 7" 8-hole wheels with 205/55/15 tires. Awesome car...

drooool. just saw a 93 190 2.6 sportline the other day (benefit of a high-end used car lot close to home). soooo nice - even the hood badge had a swept-back look to it. nice steering wheel and back seats too (though only seats 4). gorgeous car. had 44k miles on it and the dealer was asking -get this - $29k. of course, this is the same dealer that prices their used 1998 porsches at 1998 new-car prices. you pretty much get used to mentally knocking about fifteen grand off the top immediately.