1990 w124 190e 2.3
 

I'm looking for one.


This is a great forum and all, but it's quite hard to find info on a specific car. I need to know the model specific problems with the 2.3 I6 w124.



The car's amazing looking for the price, I just want to know if I'm looking at another problem car.

no such thing as a 124 190e

2.3-16 = W201 chassis (201.034)

The 2.3 is a 4 cyl, NOT an inline 6. The I-6 for the W201 chassis was the 2.6 litre (M103) engine.

i think you just have to make sure the suspension is ok with these cars.

It seems like a lot of them look good on the outside, but are beat internally.

As others have stated, the 190E is a 201 chassis. The 2.3 ltr engine is an inline 4.

Here are some of my rambling thoughts on the subject:
You won't see much in the way of problems with them -- it's a rock solid platform with limited "bells and whistles" (read: fewer things to break -- which is extremely important as you are talking about an 18 year old car). The 2.6 L-6 engine is also very strong. It has somewhat of a reputation for head gasket trouble and (if I remember correctly) an oil leak at the timing cover. These are not huge, insurmountable problems by any means -- but worth noting none the less.

The 201 doesn't have automatic climate control (also a good thing IMHO).
The A/C can be a problem spot (as it is in all MBs of this vintage) -- the evaporator gives out and is expensive to have replaced. Most of that cost is labor, so if you can do it yourself, it's quite affordable.

The 2.3 ltr equipped cars are no speed merchants. They are adequately powered, pleasant to drive and quite fuel efficient. I rarely see less than 25 mpg, I've been as high as 30 mpg on an all-highway trip. 23-27 mpg is a reasonable expectation in mixed driving.

I don't quite like the match between the transmission and engine -- at least in my car. The tranny is a little slow to react, and there's a "dead spot" at about 25 mph where it doesn't give you much pull, but it refuses to downshift (for instance, when merging into traffic). The 2.6 ltr would probably have enough torque to pull right through this, but the 2.3 just doesn't. I'm sure the 2.6 is much more responsive in all ranges.

One advantage of the 4 cylinder though is when it comes to service. My 2.3 has plenty of room to work under the hood. The 6 cylinder is really squeezed in there, front to back.

The consensous seems to be that the 201 feels much more nimble than the 124 -- and it should, it's quite a bit smaller. I would not call the 201 a sports car by any means, but when the suspension is in good condition, the handling certainly is sporty.

Now if you're talking about a 2.3 ltr/Cosworth 16 valve, that's a completely different animal. That is a true sports car that was designed for racing. But those are rare, so I assume you're asking about the "normal" 8 valve.

Just my 2 cents! After adjusting for inflation... still arguably worth that.

It's the w201 2.6L six cylinder.



It needs new front shocks. It looks like it's been garaged most of it's life - didnt these cars have a spring perch problem? What about harmonic balancers and the like?

It's got 150k on the clock. I have yet to look at the paperwork, but timing chain stretch should be checked, right?

190e 2.6
 

Our '89 had a spring perch problem: The top spring mounts rusted to the point that they bent up. I had them welded back. No subsequent problems.

150,000 miles is nothing. It may need new valve stem seals, if they have not been done.

A 1990 probaly still has R12 in the air conditioner. That is why it no longer works. If it has been converted to R 134A, bonus!

I don't think that timing chain stretch is a problem on these engines. Only the 3.8 litre v-8. However, it is a good idea to watch the cam chain tensioner and the guide rails.

The usual stuff will need repair eventually: antenna mast, window motors, blower switch, water circulating pump, cruise control amplifier, motor mounts, corroded fuses. It looks bad, but this is what I have done over about 5 years.

The transmission only lasted 225,000 miles.

If you do a search on 190e or w201, you will come up with all sorts of comments on longevity, and the things that can go wrong. But really it is a very reliable car.

Andrew
1989 190e 2.6

The M103 2.6L is a bit notorious for headgasket leaks, resulting in coolant/oil mix.

At 150K miles, I'll bet that more than just the struts need refreshing in that suspension.

A/C compressor leaks are also not uncommon with the Nippon Denso units. New, they can run up to $1K to replace.

As for the timing chain, chain stretch is not so much an issue as is a worn tensioner.

I think harmonic balancers are only an issue in V6/V8 engines. Inline engines are more naturally "balanced" and thus don't need a balancer. Perhaps a tech can comment more on this.

My 1984 190D had automatic climate control (i.e. there was a thermostat control).

Indeed... as does my '92. But it does not have the more complex and more troublesome system which includes automatic fan control.

jp

It don't need ac, and heat just enough to defrost the windows and keeps the fingers warm.

Suspension wise, what am I looking at? also - it seem to have a little vibration in the low end - and needs an alignment (pulls to the right a bit) I'm hopeing it dosnt need a flexdisk or two...


the heat did blow hot, and the ac is said to work. Acc seem to function fine (it has the normal acc vent controls and a different fan control.



Heater hoses were swollen, and will be replace if bought - I learned from my mistake!

Why would R-12 be the reason it doesn't work?

Bump, still looking at this car (well, actually - the girlfriend is)


R-12 is no longer legal to use - and most people don't like converting to 124a...



we're gonna offer $2k and see if he'll take it, the window says 3400 and it's been sitting for quite a bit.