Hey guys,

I don't know if I've mentioned this, but I literally go to school in the middle of nowhere (Hamilton, NY), and seeing Mercedes-Benz or other European marquees of classic vintages is ridiculously rare. My girlfriend and I were driving in my 560SEL on the way back from the closest shopping center (40 minutes away) and I saw a pretty good looking early 190E perched up on a hill. She was taking a snooze so I stop the car and go investigate, and it was in fact in pretty good condition, with only 101,000 ish miles on it, supposedly never driven in the winter (upstate New York has snow in April; it snowed last night here even ). Anyways, it was a 2.3, which according to performance values and reviews, isn't exactly a powerhouse like my 5.6, but I was wondering what kind of reliability could I expect out of this car? Also, what kind of gas mileage does it get? I'm currently getting 18 mpg out of my 560SEL, praise be to the gasoline Gods for that , so is it worth checking out? I wish it were a manual 2.6, because I would rock the heck out of that on campus.

Also, a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow (Gen I) in two tone white and blue is for sale as well, but I don't have any good photos of that one (not interested in English engineering).

Thanks for any and all input guys!

-Carlen


Interior is pretty good; shifter wood is beat, and dash is cracked, but seatskins look immaculate.

The only blemish I saw in the paint before my girlfriend started stirring was by the trunk star; underneath the car looked solid.

The wheels would need refinishing (not that I care, but she sure did) and obviously Euro lights (those things are actually fugly.), but obviously the car looks pretty well taken care of. I havent called yet and there was no price listed. What would sound fair?

__________________
_______________________________________________

1987 560SEL (210,000 miles)

Okay, I'm biased. A 190E 2.3L, at the present time, is only as good as the amount of maintenance and care that the previous owners have invested in it. The chassis, like the W124 of the same period, might have been the most "over engineered" builds by Mercedes, however there are so many rubber/metal links and dampers in the suspension that need to be monitored, refreshed or replaced, that it can be expensive if previous owners have deferred maintenance.

The four cylinder M102 isn't particularly frugal with gas; you will likely see a city/hwy average around 22 mpg. Not much rear seat space. Check for rust at the jackpoints and at the corners of the front and rear fenders. Vacuum leaks can cause rough running

On the upside, there are still lots of parts, they drive a bit more sporty than most MB sedans and they still look currrent. Also, they are fairly easy cars to DIY maintenance, since they are pre OBD, Canbus, and most microchips.

A 2.6L version is a better buy typically. The six is a very smooth engine with a very small disadvantage in MPG. The 2.6L six makes for a crowded engine bay in the 190E, so anywork at the front requires pulling out the radiator support and radiator. However, it makes for a much better highway cruiser.

I do most of the work on my 560SEL as well; I intend on if anything, to buy this as more of an in town cruiser as opposed to my highway cruiser. This car would be good for me to use in Upstate NY over the school year and let my brother use it when home in CT. My 560SEL leaves a lot to be desired on a campus where parking is not only limited, but the spaces aren't exactly large...

As for the suspension and rubber deal, I had a scare with my flex disc (sudden whirring noise and vibration from my shifter; I drove RIGHT to the indy I use and had everything gone over.

I am certain the 190 would give me a similar scare if I wasn't so up on maintenance.

__________________
_______________________________________________

1987 560SEL (210,000 miles)

I would agree with everything MTI just said.

I used to drive a lot, maybe 1000 miles a week, and with a 124 I could cover 600 miles a day and not feel tired. With the 190E I was feeling pretty beat up after about 400.

Mine also used a lot of oil. It finally just died and I gave it to the Salvation Army. I think the fuel distributor wore out and I was just too fed up with the car to replace it.

I did get about 24 mpg at 70 mph. I would get 36 mpg in the 300D.

There is also a high performance version of this car with a 24 valve head. Expect almost everything on it to be twice as expensive to replace as with a normal 190E.

I'm sure you meant the 16 valve 190E 2.3-16. There are a few 2.6L owners that have swapped in a M104 twincam, a fairly popular swap.

MTI...

I stand corrected. Thanks.

I was buying parts at the dealer one day and a fellow came to pick up something. I don't remember what it was but I was stunned at the price. He said it was because it was the 16 valve car and everything was more expensive.

Yes, while the 2.3-16 shares most of its parts with the run of the mill W201, there are parts that are no longer available or at extremely high prices. Being the only W201 with LSD and five speed manual trans, a bespoke bodykit, lots of engine specific parts, the SLS rear suspension . . . and wait for it . . . a VDO made LCD lap timer that tends to leak the fluid making it unuseable.

Of course I'd love to have the performance variant, be it the AMG or the Cosworth, but this would purely be for economy and convenience as opposed to replacing my 560 indefinitely; I love that one far too much to even consider that.

The lap timer sounds absolutely awesome despite it's shortcomings use wise...

__________________
_______________________________________________

1987 560SEL (210,000 miles)

Before you buy it or even drive it, stick your hand underneath the exhaust manifold by cyl 3 or 4 where the head meets the block. It you find oil, it needs a head gasket. I knocked half the asking price off the 93 2.3 when I bought it after this discovery. It ran just fine except for the oil leak. I did the headgasket myself and I've never looked back.
Its a great car especially for the day to day errands where you do mostly city driving. As previously mentioned the 2.6 is smoother and with the overdrive manual much quieter on the highway. There is no much between the 2 engine in terms of FE but the 2.3 has never done less than 22mpg for me even when it was still running KEjet.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

2.3 is underpowered. 2.6 is better, but still underpowered.

You might as well find a 300E. A well tuned one should get at least 18-19mpg city, and 25/26 highway...which is the same as the 2.3/2.6 190, but you actually get a real interior and ample power. All time best in my 300E was 26.8mpg highway (75mph). 2.3/2.6/3.0 all get about the same MPG in their respective chassis, so it just comes down to which you like best.

__________________
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z...-RESIZED-1.jpg
1991 300E - 212K and rising fast...

As far as utility goes, of course I'd prefer a W124 to a W201, but I feel that if I wanted the fit and finish I'd just stick with my W126 to be honest.

tjts1, I will definitely be checking that; I'd love to be able to get a 190E on the cheap to keep as a town commuter.

Gas mileage seems to just be terrible for this vintage in general; hell my mother's E430 gets 23 mpg (when I drive it, I economize to maximize mileage... It's like a game to me )!

The big problem for me is that access to these kinds of cars locally is significantly limited, and W124s I've run into for sale in CT are generally in pretty rough shape or getting to a pretty high mileage mark (not that I have anything wrong with that, I'd obviously prefer to reduce potential problems I run into).

I'm gonna call the owner tomorrow and see what kind of work has been done and what not.

__________________
_______________________________________________

1987 560SEL (210,000 miles)

The W124 does have more space in the back, having a larger envelope than the W201. The W124 trunk is not only larger, but doesn't have the "lift over" sill that the W201 has.

But, the W201 does have nice proportions, fits in parking spaces well, has a very nice turning radius,

Yeah the W124 is is just bigger W201. Almost every mechanical or electric item bolts on to either car. If you regularly carry people in the back go for the W124. If not theres no point in lugging around the extra 500 pounds and take the FE penalty. I drove a few W124s before deciding on the W201. I'm planning to eventually find a W124 wagon when we need to replace our Volvo wagon. I have a complete 5 speed waiting for a new home.
If you do this you'll see 25+ easily on a regular basis in the 2.3. The low CR engine be run on 87 octane without a problem.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

I drive alone mostly; sometimes I drive friends to parties or whatnot here, but otherwise I could subsist on a two-seater even. I basically am interested due to what it is-- a small Mercedes-Benz that I can drive around more easily than in my W126. Also interesting to hear it runs on Regular; definitely a plus with gasoline at 4.29 a gallon up here...

__________________
_______________________________________________

1987 560SEL (210,000 miles)

Find a 190D or a 300D 2.5

__________________
1982 300GD Carmine Red (DB3535) Cabriolet Parting Out
1990 300SEL Smoke Silver (Parting out)
1991 350SDL Blackberry Metallic (481)

"The thing is Bob, its not that I'm lazy...its that I just don't care."