85' 190E 2.3L
I think I am the only one with this recurring issue. Can't understand why..what is causing it to fail in my car ONLY.

Total of "FIVE" have failed on me. When it fails, burning rubber smell & smoke will be coming out under the hood. The rubber piece breaks apart, I think it's due to heat.

They were all replaced at the dealer & they have no clue why either. Did they install it wrong somehow, causing a lot of friction & generating a lot of heat?

Please give me some comments why this is happening.

Attached Thumbnails

     

Found some used ones, but they didn't list the P/N..but indicate they will fit 84-93 2.3L models?

1) Are vibration dampers all the SAME for 84-93 2.3L models???


Did find one that listed the P/N 1020302403 & claims to fit 102 engines.

2) But mine has P/N 1020300074, so will above P/N be compatible???

Can anyone tell me what 190E model/year this P/N 1020302403 is for????
Many thanks!

Too much tension on the drive belt ?

__________________
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...c/GOWIDE-1.jpg
1971 280SL ROADSTER
1988 300CE TWIN TURBO WIDEBODY
1994 E320 CABRIOLET
1999 C43 AMG
2005 G55K AMG
2008 CLK63 AMG BLACK SERIES

Thanks for the response!

The one came on the car failed in 91 (6yrs) & was replaced. Than between 1991-2007...replaced three more times. Now the one that was replaced in 2007 failed yesterday (~3yrs/30342km). So a total four + the one came on the car..."FIVE".

During all those years, tensioners, absorbers, belts, etc. been replaced by the dealer, so I would think it's properly adjusted (sure hope so).

Please keep ideas coming, I sure want to find out the root cause. bc this part is dealer part only (no oem/aftermarket available) & it's $996.

Ouch!

http://www.trademotion.com/partlocator/index.cfm?action=searchCatalogOEM&siteid=214269

Item Number MSRP Core Price Price
1020300074 $875.00 $0.00 $787.50
Engine - Crankshaft & bearings - Vibration damper
Vibration damper, 190e 2.3 - 4 cyl, 2.3l, w/0 16 valves 1985 - 1993

http://genuinemercedesparts.rtrk.com/?scid=1191126&kw=704098&pub_cr_id=3381536415

Item Number MSRP Core Price Price
1020300074 $875.00 $0.00 $700.00
Engine - Crankshaft & bearings - Vibration damper
Vibration damper, 190e 2.3 - 4 cyl, 2.3l, w/0 16 valves 1985 - 1993

http://www.mercedespartscenter.com/partlocator/index.cfm?action=searchCatalogOEM&siteid=215720

Item Number MSRP Core Price Price
1020300074 $875.00 $0.00 $673.75
Engine - Crankshaft & bearings - Vibration damper
Vibration damper, 190e 2.3 - 4 cyl, 2.3l, w/0 16 valves 1985 - 1993

__________________

1993 190E 2.3
2001 SLK230
1971 LS5 (454) Corvette Convertible

OUCH is RIGHT & that's 4 times already.
WOW, thank you!

bc I get 15% off $996 ($846,60) & it's shipped from Germany (not old stock). The reason I mentioned "old stock vs new stock"...the 3 times they replaced it with the part they had in stock, it lasted 3-4 years. But the one time they shipped it from Germany & only charged me for the part at their cost & gave me free labour...this part lasted 9 years.

BUT the price is really attractive for me to take a gamble, hmmm...am I a gambling man.

Possible but not likely. Unlike the 112/113 harmonic balancer, the M102 belts are driven from the pulley which is bolted to the metal portion of the balancer which is bolted to the crankshaft. The pulley is not driven by the rubber portion of the balancer. I can't believe the balancer is that expensive. I have never heard of the M102/103 balancers needing replacement. Maybe your engine wasn't balanced properly from the factory causing undue wear on the harmonic balancer. Mark

Thanks Mark! That makes some sense.

It is expensive, bc this part is model/year/engine specific & car is 25yrs old. Just be glad I can still get it.

Pic I shown above is not quite right of my setup. This new pic I got faxed over to me from the dealer shows my setup.
Vibration absorber (#26) drives the pulley (#53) via the flange pulley damper (#35). If #35 breaks apart, the vibration absorber is free wheeling & the pulley (#53)/belt does NOT turn at all...all dash lights come on, no power steering & overheats if I keep driving (wp is not running).

my setup has #35 flange pulley damper (P/N 1020300074) & #26 vibration absorber (P/N 1020301203). It is #35 that breaks apart.

I just had a chat with someone, he said if that "rubber flange pulley damper" breaks apart every few years. Why not just bolt the pulley #53 directly to vibration absorber #26 with "metal spacer" in between & do away with #35 completely. This is what American cars do he saids.

What do you guys think???

Attached Thumbnails

 

It appears you have a superceded version which drives the belt pulley from the rubber balancer. That would help explain the rubber failure. This is similar in concept to the 112/113 engines where the pulley is bonded to rubber which is bonded to a flange which is connected to the crankshaft. Since the earlier versions failed with regularity it is considered a "wear or service item" by MB. Your problem is that the cost of the harmonic balancer is astronomical whereas the list price on the 112/113 balancer (part superceded due to problems 6 times by my count) is currently $84. My guess is in 15 years we will be paying $900 for the 112/113 balancer. Yikes! Mark

My euro indi mechanic sourced me this vibration damper, with NO rubber balancer & ALL metal. Will be installing it next week, should solve my problem.

Attached Thumbnails

   

How do you know when this goes bad?
Do you start feeling vibrations?

__________________
Smoke Silver 1994 E220 Coupe Automatic
0 kilometers 6 September 1994
100,635 kilometers - 6 September 2010

Install went smoothly, pretty basic..can't really screw it up.
Everything checked out fine & working as they should.

The problem is simply BAD design/engineering, as you can see in the pics, the "rubber flange pulley damper" just separated due to continue stress. Everytime you press the gas pedal, the rubber damper is stressed. Heat, played a BIG factor too, bc all five failed in the summer time.

You can see the replacement part I used is "ALL METAL" & the manufacture date is "11 86". So you can see, took them a bit over a year to take out the "rubber" from the design.

Attached Thumbnails

       

I would think that would have been a dealer recall or at least some type of warning from MB to the Dealers...

__________________
James A. Harris

Boy, I was almost in tears when I had to pay $550 for the one in my M103. I don't know how it took you until the 6th failure to figure that something wasn't right, especially at $900+ a pop. You're a patient man.