I have 2 options for fixing my 2.6 190e W201

1st option is a 3.0 from a 300E thats hard to start and didn't run the best but did run probably needs some injectors and other work I just don't know too much about the K-Jet systems. My second concern about the swap from 2.6 to 3.0 is will it pass smog still? California is pretty strict about things.

2nd option I have a 1995 C220 W202 with a M111 engine it runs great with 160k on it but it has all kinds of problems with the engine wiring harness falling apart but it can be fixed. What i'm more worried about is all the extra computer bs that has to be dealt with its my understanding that the computer is tied to the climate control and data is sent to the gauges via RS232. I would ideally like to just swap the whole engine and transmission. Does anyone have experience with this? I have done some research but not found much.
I would prefer the newer engine it would be much easier to maintain once its up and running has standard OBD2 and all that good stuff

__________________
1969 230 inline 6 dual carb 60,000 Miles 2nd Owner doesn't run right
1982 300 SD 455K - my reliable commuter car
1990 190E needs new crank shaft ran it out of oil
1996 C220 bad wiring harness

anarchy:

Was the 2.6 running properly before failure? If so, install the 3.0 with the injection and ignition systems from the 2.6. That engine exchange then becomes a plug and play.
All this is predicated on the 3.0 being in good mechanical condition.

yeah the 2.6 was running absolutely perfectly! It had just passed smog I didn't think the fuel systems would be cross compatible but it makes sense. I am just worried that with the increase in displacement would also see an increase in emissions.

__________________
1969 230 inline 6 dual carb 60,000 Miles 2nd Owner doesn't run right
1982 300 SD 455K - my reliable commuter car
1990 190E needs new crank shaft ran it out of oil
1996 C220 bad wiring harness

I went for the M111 and the transmission option because I reckon the lighter M111 engine will suit the W201 a bit better - I'm assuming the M111 transmission is a manual gearbox (this could be a poor now I come to think a bit more about it though).

Ideally a M111 with a supercharger would be best. You'd end up with a buzzy little W201 that would probably piss all over a Cosworth with out having to resort to the heavier M103 / M104 alternatives.

__________________
1992 W201 190E 1.8 171,000 km - Daily driver
1981 W123 300D ~ 100,000 miles / 160,000 km - project car stripped to the bone
1965 Land Rover Series 2a Station Wagon CIS recovery therapy!
1961 Volvo PV544 Bare metal rat rod-ish thing

I'm here to chat about cars and to help others - I'm not here "to always be right" like an internet warrior



Don't leave that there - I'll take it to bits!

I went for M111 engine only because if he is in the USA the M111 only came witn an automatic transmission and the transmission from the 2.6 will bolt in the M111 and like Stretch said You'd end up with a buzzy litlle W201

I went with the 3.0 only because there is more info and little to no computer system changes.

thanks for the input I really appreciate it! I'm going to just use the 3.0 it would be the simplest way to go about fixing it. I will also pull the M111 & transmission out of the c220 and save it for later because its going to be a ton of work to get it all working correctly all the extra wiring! yikes

The only thing I am worried about is it going to pass smog with that larger engine? its only .4L larger which isn't much and if everything is working correctly I assume it will run within the limits. it would be so disappointing to do all this work for nothing

__________________
1969 230 inline 6 dual carb 60,000 Miles 2nd Owner doesn't run right
1982 300 SD 455K - my reliable commuter car
1990 190E needs new crank shaft ran it out of oil
1996 C220 bad wiring harness

Have a look on the web site 190rev , I'm sure they subject has been covered before.

anarchy:

Re: Emissions

1) Is the donor car for the 3.0 engine a CA registered car? If so, the engine has already been subject to CA inspection, and, presumably has passed at some time.

2) The increase in displacement favors a reduction in NOx. For a given test load on the rollers, the throttle opening will be slightly smaller, the cylinder pressure and temperature slightly lower, and with slightly lower combustion temperature, the % of NOx reduced.

3) By retaining all the 2.6 injection and ignition components, the mixture preparation and spark timing are unchanged.

You know what they say, "there's no replacement for displacement!"

See if you can get the pass/fail numbers for both the 2.6L and the 3.0L.
I don't think that these numbers compare, too different.
The roller isn't required anymore, all CA testing can be performed either way. (I guess California found, that the new test gear was too long at the same place and needed to be replaced with newer gear, also to help to keep the money flow)
If it is an out of state, not sure about this, but technically, the vehicle could be registered, as an out of state origin.
On the M111, I don't know, it seems to be an awful lot of conversion, plus additional electronics!

__________________
Mostly, I don't know notin, I just know where to look.
I am looking back, to over 30 years in Electronics Design.
Electrons don't care if they move in a car, computer or relay!

95 W124 E320 M104.992 - Because, I love to repair, naaaah!
Over 221,000 Miles
Cheers,
Norbert

...doesn't exist. Emission cutpoints are a function of vehicle weight, and the data for all OE models is in a BAR database. A 300E has higher cutpoints, not because of the larger engine, but because of the higher weight. The BAR Web site has a page on how to compute cut points based on test weight, which is usally curb weight plus about 300 pounds. It's listed on the test report.

Technically installing a 3.0L engine in a 190E 2.6 is an automatic failure because it was never emsssion certified by the manufacturer, however, since the engines appear essentially identical, the test tech will likely never know.

Assuming the fuel and ignition systems, and emission equipment is is good working order, emissions will be about the same at the original 2.6, but the whole M103 engine family has been tagged by BAR as "high emitter profile", and there have been many discussions of "tricks" to get them through, particularly shorting the R16/1 resistor and plugging the vacuum advance.

Duke

the 3.0 engine is from an 88 300e registered in ca. the 190e is a 1992
I just want my car back so bad! its such a nice ride the interior is in mint condition everything works! it has nice AMG staggered rims. its a dream to drive I've owned it for a year now and only driven it a few weeks.

__________________
1969 230 inline 6 dual carb 60,000 Miles 2nd Owner doesn't run right
1982 300 SD 455K - my reliable commuter car
1990 190E needs new crank shaft ran it out of oil
1996 C220 bad wiring harness

... could be an issue: '88 M103s did not have EGR, but I believe all '92s do. Look at the emission decal on the top radiator support. It has codes for the installed emission control equipment.

Lack of a specified system or device is an automatic failure of the emission test, even if measured emissions are below the cut points.

Duke

In the absence of EGR how was control of NOx achieved?

For those M103s which do have EGR, is the source of the exhaust gas the exhaust manifold, or is there a drilling through the cylinder head that connects an exhaust port with the intake side of the head, where it can be valved?

If the source of the exhaust gas is the exhaust manifold, then it would seem that retaining all the externals of the 2.6 engine (manifolds, injection components, ignition components, etc.), would satisfy the visual requirements, given that one post above pointed out that the 2.6 and 3.0 engines are visually identical for the purposes at hand.