Ok guys. Currently I own a 240D 4 speed. Although it is slow, I enjoy it's bulletproof reliability along with it's character. However, I have a unique opportunity.

A friend of mine has a 190E 2.3, I believe it is a 1990. It has 150,000 miles on it. I've driven it a few times, and it is a tight little car that seems to stick to the road pretty well, and is a lot of fun to drive. Well he is selling it. It is red, with tan interior, an automatic, and he wants 2500 dollars. Am I signing my death sentence by even thinking about a gasoline powered W201? How good are these cars?

With an automatic, the tranny is on borrowed time, but that's probably it for driveline issues. The M102 engine isn't a horsepower monster, but at 130hp it can move the car through traffic just fine. The engines are pretty tough.

Things to watch for:

AC/ACC operation. The PBU's can give trouble, and like all MB's of this era, repairs on the system can be fairly expensive.

Valve seals. Like the M103, these tend to wear before other top-end components.

Plastic Rad.

For $2500 you might just buy it and overlook small problems, drive it until it drops (maybe another 100-150K-miles or farther) and consider it super-cheap driving.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

A search for 190E and W201 will pretty much spell out the ups and downs of this chassis. With a very well designed chassis and suspension, this is about as sporty a sedan that MB has been able to put together for awhile. The lightest of the 4 doors, it is quite "tossable" but is not a straightline racer . . . without some work.

there are numerous 190 2.6 cars on the market that are very affordable, and the M103 is known for its bulletproof reliability. And it's being an inline-6, is very smooth in operation.

i would say go for the 2.6. If you are lucky enough to happen upon a manual transmission version, grab it.

In general I'd stay away from a 102 motor with that many miles on it.

Gilly

Well, the M 102 ain't that bad

The first model years the M 102 in the W 123 chassis had some proplems with the camshaft. They got that sorted out and the later model years and especially the engines for the W 201 and W 124 are pretty tough engines which can run forever.

I know the story of a taxicab in Bale/Switzerland with 590 tkm which engine never got touched besides routine maintenance.

The M 102 in the W 201 already has the hydrocaps valves, so you don't have to worry for valve clearance and the douple chain (the early M 102 at the W 123 should get a knew chain every 200 tkm)

When the car got good maintenance, you get a very relaible car. Check the camshaft, though.

There are some problems with the KE-Jetronik, just as the M 103 has...

And the M 102 is much better on fuel eficiency. The 2.3 is probably the most economical Mercedes Sedan ever sold in the US.

For that price, I would make the deal. The W 123 Diesel is not a bad car with a very classical apeal. The W 201 is in almost any means the better car (just the interior is a little bit small)

The tranny is just like any other Mercedes tranny of that time: It just works forever...

Kind regards
Eberhard

Eberhard, I know what you're saying about the 201. I didn't say it was a big piece of junk and that he should run away. I didn't say it was as bad as a 124 4MATIC. But in general, I'd be thinking twice about buying a 190 2.3 with 150,000 on it. I've seen these 2.3's turn themselves into scrap metal WAY before this mileage. The usual problem is the car is available cheaply, and people will buy it thinking that because it's a Mercedes, it will last forever, I'll never have to worry about it, maintain it, it's a perfect car, it will never fail me. Ha Ha. 50,000 miles later and maybe they've changed the oil 3 times and the car is total junk. It needs to be maintained MORE than the more senior cars, not LESS, but try convincing someone of that when they think they just bought a Rolls Royce.

I've also seen the spring perches rust off of them also, so if this car is rusty in the least I'd be cautious of that.

Gilly

well, I have a 1985 190 D 2.2, and although it's a diesel, chassis is the same. I agree with the previous posts, but 150,000 on a well maintained 190 is really nothing. HOWEVER- the original struts/shocks last about 170,000 miles, but are easy to replaced. Listen to a high-pitched noice from the heater blower fan- they are about $90 but it will take you about 3 hours to replace it.
BTW- I'll be selling my 190 soon and hope to get about $4,000 for it (new rad, AC-converted, aux fan, struts/shocks, heater blower fan, speakers, fan switch, exhaust, driver side window regulator, transmission actuator, shutoff valve- all replaced since 2000).

Hey- any takers??

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Well, we can agree on that

You are right: Maintenance is important and lots of the W 201 end up in the wrong hands (same here in Germany. Some people will spent a fortune on ridicouluos alloy wheels, but an oilchange??)

An engineer of Mercedes Benz told me, that the W 201 got the best rust protection of alltime Mercedes. They started in a new segment and wanted to have a bulletproof car. So that people don't say:"Look, it is a small Mercedes and it is a cheap Mercedes"

Remember: The first W 201 are 20-21 years old. And they start to rust at the wheel arches and at the rocker panel, when the original jack was used.

W 201 with a good maintenance record from the right driver is probably the cheapest way to drive a Mercedes. I would say even cheaper than a W 123 Diesel. They also have their issues...

Kind regards
Eberhard

I'd pass on the 190 gasoline. The only 190 I'd buy would be a 190D. I've heard many bad things about the 190E (especially the 2.3) from my mechanic, saying they are the worst cars he's ever seen made by MB. He said gasoline 190's (especially the 2.3) are at high risks of the engine blowing up (especially when the mileage is creeping upwards of 150K.)

I don't know much myself about the 190E's I just saying what I've been told about them. All I know is that if it isn't diesel, I don't want it.

Kyle, you should check out this 86 190D 2.5 Diesel 5spd on Ebay. It's the most beautiful example of the 190D's I've ever seen. Of course I would never buy anything off of Ebay unless I or someone I trust takes a look at it first.

Here's the link:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2434586411&category=6328

I wouldn't have much fear of buying a nice running and appearing 190E 2.6, it's alot more dependable than the 2.3.

Gilly

I found the 2.6 a little tough to work on thanks to the crowded engine bay, but the difference in the driving is worth every bit. It's only 30 ponies or so, but they are great. The 2.6 is also MUCH smoother.

When I bought my first 2.3, the C-Class hadn't come along yet, and the 2.6's were WAY more money. Today, there's little price difference used. I bought my 1987 first, and at that time a nice clean used 2.3 was about $12,000. A similar condition 2.6 was closing in on $20K. Too much difference.

If I stumble onto a super clean 87 2.3-16V it would be tough not to run to the bank. I still love the 16V's. Too bad they're rapidly becoming old used up cars.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

Why is that? Same type of fuel injection, same type of everything except the additional two cylinders which, as far as I know, tend to cause occasional problems with the head gasket?

I don't want to be responsible for Kyle buying a lemon, but hey, the M 102 is not such a bad engine. If the car which is offered is a good one, I would go for it instead of waiting for the Mr. Right (so to say) forever.

Kind regards
Eberhard
(Knight of the mistreated engine concept )

OK, OK, "because in my OPINION, the 103 is alot more dependable than the 102 engine.

I've seen alot more 102 engines seized or otherwise irrepairable broken than 103 engines.

I agree, as a matter of fact i was first to mention on this thread, that it may very well be due to the fact that a 201 is more likely to be mistreated.

Without knowing how the car was maintained in the past, a 201 could very well be a ticking time bomb, especially with the 102 motor.

Gilly

I love those threats

It might be, that the 2.6 is more reliable.

My point is: People, especially here in Germany, tell the worst tales about the reliability of the M 102. Most of it is based on the first MY with the weak camshaft which, in fact, caused many problems. But the M 102 matured over the years (and the M 103 and M 104 got a lot of profit of that) and after the problems got sorted out, became a very reliable and very fuel efficient workhorse.

I trace back some of the bad reputation to the following facts:

- the M 102 was the first all new gasoline engine after the M 121 for the Ponton

- weak camshaft caused bad reputation in the beginning

- it was the first engine with single chain. If the chain broke everybody said: See, cheap design... I know enough stories of OM 615, 617, 601 ff. with snapped chain..


Most of the Police cars got the M 102 and some of them really got high mileage without mayor problems. The M 102 was even put into the 514 ambulance...

Kind regards
Eberhard