Most Dependable MB to replace totaled 190E?
 

Wifes 86 190E got side swiped last week, insurance man says its totaled. In the last year the entire suspension has been replaced, Stu Ritter rebuilt transmission and A/C overhaul, engine burns less than 1 quart between oil changes at 165K; planned on keeping it for another decade. In the search for a replacement, what are the best :cool: dependable MB choices for a replacement? Something smaller than an S class, but other than that, no real restrictions. Any ideas? Thanks Clip

Yikes! Is she okay? :(


How about another 190E?
:D

Naw, I am sure you want variety too!

The 300E I have is very nice and dependable... but if you want true reliability.. go diesel man!

But I imagine your wife may not like the loud sounds of a diesel..

Tell you what, my mom drives a 1999 E320, very nice and quiet....
had a few quirks at the beginning, but is very dependable now (knock on wood!)

The different steering setup of the W210 chasis gives almost no steering feel of the road, however, it provides a VERY luxurious ride!


Try to get her to test drive (I am sure you already know that, but I am stupid, sorry! :D )

If you want the smaller baby benz, I'd go with a C220 or C230, I'd tend to shy away from the C230 Kompressor though, it might be OK if you can get a deal on one, or for more power the C280 V6. For a larger car my choice would be a E320 with the V6, unless you want more power, I really like the E420 210 chassis, but a E430 wouldn't be too bad, really moving up in price for a V6 or V8 E Class, especially a 430. Overall winner for a small one is that you can't hardly go wrong with a 98 C230 (naturally aspirated).

Gilly

Just curious - why a 98 over a 97? 722.6 more sorted out? Or was 98 the first year of the 722.6? Or some other benefit of the 98?

97 was the first year of the 722.6

As suggested above, the W202 would make a good replacement.

Not just because I own one, but the W202 in 1996 and later models are among the most reliable Mercedes models. They are "simple" compared to newer ones and their bigger brothers. The M111 aspro four cylinder engine in 2.2L and 2.3L (96-98) are terrific engines giving great fuel economy, no head gasket problems and overall decent performance. A five speed auto C230 is about the same quickness as a 190E 2.6.

The 1996 C220's avoid the wiring harness issues and have the reliable four speed box. The 97's have the slightly bigger (and teeny bit more torque) 2.3L engine, but it is the first year of the 722.6.

The 98's had some exterior changes including a new front valance, side skirts and rear valance as well as a revised grille and "smoked" taillights. 98 also brought side-bags and different door panels as well as the SmartKey system. FSS was also introduced in 98. The 98's had the digital ACC system the same as the 96-97 cars.

In 99, the M111 changed to the "kompressor" engine and HP went up and refinement went down. The ACC was changed to manual AC and ESP was made standard. 2000 was the last year for the C230 W202 and it was pretty much the same as the 1999 model except for the "touchshift" trans.

The C280 is a slightly different story. The 96-97's had the M104 inline engine which has some head gasket issues. The 98-00 M112 V-6 has no such problems, but make sure the harmonic balancer has been updated. The C280 kept the digital ACC system.

Having owned both a W201 and W202, the W202 is a big step in driving dynamics. The suspension in the W202 is much "sportier" and the overall level of handling is much better. The AC/ACC system is much better (after 95 it uses the excellent variable-compressor system) and the fuel economy is WAY better. It's a bit bigger with a noticable increase in rear seat room. The trunk is much bigger and has a trunk cut-out for loading. I also prefer the back-lit gauges.

With 98- cars you get nice features like keyless that allows opening and closing of windows/sunroof from the key, four air-bags, auto up/down windows and other little things.

As to overall performance, the C220/C230 will run away from a 190E 2.3 and matches a 190E 2.6. The C280 is quicker than any 190E. The better aerodynamics means much, much better fuel economy.

Not much time to write now, but John pretty much mirrors my thoughts. I look at the 722.6 as an advantage, not a disadvantage, it's a good box that gets alot of negative press. The early transmissions DO fail also, they are not perfect, but damn good. So is the .6

Gilly

A vote for the '96 C220
 

My wife drives a 2000 Suburban when she needs to haul a bunch of kids, or do some other big truck chore. We also use it as the “family wagon” for long road trips. Overall it gets in service maybe 3 or 4 times a month. Fantastic road car! Don’t watch the pump while you fill it up. Just swipe your card, fill, and drive away……….

Her “other car” is a 96 C220. It’s the daily driver around the city and she loves it. It’s like a go-cart compared to the Chevy. Excellent MPG (consistently 26 all around town), very nimble, plenty of room for her and the 2 kids, and fun to drive. I got it a little less than 2 years ago with 65K on it. I’m up past 85K now, and I have not done anything to it other than keep the fluids changed, etc. Unless you count the wiper blade as a part, I have not bought any. Fantastic city car! Great on the highway also, but if you are traveling with 4, it’s a little cramped with all the stuff SWMBO and the kids want/need. You’d think we were making an assault on Everest and all we’re doing is driving over to Little Rock for the weekend…………….

I daily drive the 240D auto, but I’m on a different cosmic plane……….and I don't understand all the comments about "slow auto 240D". Maybe I just got a "fast one" ????????


FWIW

Clay

I have a 97 C230 that I bought in 1999 with 19000 miles on it. I now have 198000 miles and the car drives and looks like the day I bought it. Regular maintenance that I do my self and snythetic oil every 5000 miles. No problems and I have never been back to the dealer.

190E vs C-class.
 

I have an 92,000 mile '86 190E and my dad a 55,000 mile 93 C180.

They make good comparison, mine being a fully specced older car, his a zero spec (winding windows! :P) but newer car.

Unless you really like the old 190E - which I and many others do - the C is most likely a better bet. It feels more modern, with quicker steering and less roll as the main difference in dynamics. However the 4 cylinder engine's just as noisy and by the general quality you'd never be fooled into thinking you're in an S-class.


By contrast, the 190E, particularly a well specced one, feels more special, it still feels like it was built by people who understand what a Bentley or Rolls Royce is all about :). More like each part's been crafted in metal, where subjectively the W202 feels a bit more like it's a collection of mass produced cheap parts put together.


To summarize, I think the reason for choosing a 190E would be purely emotional. A lot of people - that I know or that I've never met before - comment on my 190E, admiring the old boy, and say how great a car they were :cool:. I cannot imagine that ever happening with a C-class.



Well good luck, and let us know what you get!

Russ


Edit: Sorry went off on one there, I see now you were looking for opinions on dependability, oops!
P.S. No offence meant to W202 owners, it's probably one of the best cars around in its price bracket, and maybe in 10 year's time will seem special like the beloved W126 et al.

The new C240 or C320 is a sharp little car. With a warrenty it is MB's problem if it breaks! :D Change the oil every 13k and drive it; new cars are very low maintaince. I see tons of C240's around here so they must be pretty reliable.

A great car with 4 cyl. economy & 6 cyl. power ?
Look no further than my signature. ;)

Having logged over 400,000km's in various 190E's (two 2.3's, one 16V and one 2.6) I find the 190E and W202 C-Class vary different in character. Some things on the 190E are very well done including the heavy upholstery and super-thick sheet metal. But, some things I really don't like. Even though I like compact sedans, the rear seat and trunk on the W201 are really small, and the W202 adds just enough room to make both spots much more user-friendly.

Some little touches on the W201 chassis I REALLY don't miss. The stupid little temp display that never works right and costs a fortune to fix is absent in the W202. The cryptic ACC controls are gone, as is the manual fan control. There is no real console storage and the glovebox is tiny. The C-Class glove-box is small too, but at least there are two good sized console storage bins. In the W201, the non-power headrests don't have a "locking" mechanism and eventually creep down. I had to re-set them all the time. It's a minor thing, but annoying. The W202 has rear head rests and all four lock in place once adjusted.

The W201's have a strut to hold up the hood and it wears out. The spring mechanism in the W202 seems much more robust.

On most 190E's, the door panel material delaminates. So far, I haven't seen too many serious gaffes on the interiors of the W202's, though the MB-Tex is thinner than on the previous cars. Bummer.

The speaker locations on the W201's are stupidly small and upgrading the sound system is difficult. The OE W202 system is much better, and much easier to upgrade if you wish.

In 1998, the W202's lost their STUPID UNRELIABLE mast antennas. The rear-window version works fine, and never needs fixing.

W202 cars are WAY better in the snow, if that's a concern. The 190E 2.6's are not great thanks to the weight of the six out front. The C230's are very good, surprisingly so. Mine is on snow tires and will run away from our all-season equipped AWD Forester.

One real operating difference is the fuel economy. Our C230 offers the same, and in many cases better, performance of the 190E 2.6, but drastically better fuel economy.

I will strongly agree with the comments by BlackMercedes concerning the '96 C220. I doubt that you could find a more reliable MB, and Consumer Reports confirms that fact. It is not the most robust Benz ever built by any means, but it more than equals a 2.3 190 in performance. And, with gas prices as they are, the 36-37 mpg highway figures (my actual experiences!) for this car are impressive indeed. The fit and finish are classic Benz (keep in mind this is one of the last before the damned buy-out of Chrysler), with the burl walnut on my particular example better than on my W140 S-class!

Thanks!
 

As usual, the quality of the responses are what keep me coming back! BTW I livesouth of Denver and wouldn't mind the Kompressor to level out the hills here (at about 6200 ft.) Some previous comment indicate some problems exist with this engine. Any real life experiences to indicate if the Kompressor is a bad, or at least, a comparitively bad design? Thanks for the input, keep them coming!!!! :bulb: