89 190E w/ V6?
 

So I'm looking through the paper, and I spot an 89 190E, only 45K miles but it says it has a V6! I thought it was a misprint, so I called the guy, and he tells me "yeah, it's a 190...No it has a 6...yeah, they made them." Does this guy know what the hell he is talking about? Did they make W201's w/ M103's and maybe this guy just mislabeled it a V?

Just curious. Thanks for your time.

Yes, the 190E was available with a 2.6 litre L6. He is mistaken, of course, when he states that it's a "V6"... but it is a 6 cylinder none the less.

The attached file is a chart which gives the specs for each version of the 190E (diesel, turbo diesel, 4 cyl., 4 cyl/16 valve, 6 cyl.)

It's an interesting read.

Jeff Pierce

Good chart, but I think it has a few minor errors, and I'm assuming it's for US models.

The '84 190E was rated at 113 SAE net horsepower (84kW). I owned one and got it up to about 115/116 a couple of times. I don't recall the claimed top speed, but the cube root of the ratio of power to the later models and the 123 MPH would work out to 117 MPH. It had 8.0:1 CR and only required 87 PON fuel.

I seem to recall that the '85 2.3 was rated slightly higher but still only required regular fuel. At the point where the CR was raised to 9.0:1 (and the fuel requirement went to 91 PON), the SAE net power was quoted at 130 HP (97 kW).

The 2.6L six is rated at 158 HP (118 kW). In '87 the claimed top speed was 134 MPH, which probably applies to manual transmission verisons (which were not built for the US after initially being listed as available) , but was reduced to 129 in '88, which is probably for auto trans verisons, and I think this carried through to later years. My radar observed top speed is in my signature.

The '88 190 brochure also lists the "test track maximuim" speed for the 2.3 at 119 MPH, and, again, this is probably for the auto trans. The manual is probably slightly higher.

Duke

Is that top speed at redline?

Depends on the engine/trans/axle combination, but the top speeds listed by Mercedes are usually drag limited, not redline limited.

For example, my 2.6 will achieve low 130s at close to 6200 in fourth gear. The "redline" on the tach is 6200, but the fuel cutoff is not until 6550 or 6650, and the power curve does not feel like it rolls off much, if at all, above the rated peak at 5800.

Shifting to fifth at top speed drops the revs to about 5000, and it will not pull any higher, but it will hold about 5000 revs in fifth on level ground.

Duke

Yeah, I don't remember where I got that chart, and I certainly can't personally vouch for the accuracy of the information.

But at the very least, it's a good starting point as a reference.

Thanks for the correction Duke.

Jeff

So what do you guys think about the 190 w/ the 6? the guy wants about 3 grand for it, which seems real good for a car with 45K miles. Is this M103 very different from the 3.0 in my 300E?

I believe the 2.6 is just a de-stroked 3.0. Same engine (same reliability/issues), less hp and torque. Biggest difference you'll feel is probably the lower low-end torque output.

The 2.6 has a smaller bore. Stroke is the same as the 3.0. In fact the 2.6 and 3.0 have different block and head castings, with smaller ports and valves, but many internal parts are the same, and all the exterior dimensions are the same.

I wish the 2.6 DID just have a shorter stroke like a 327 Chevy versus a 350. Then it would be easier to increase the displacement to 3.0 by just changing the crankshaft and pistons.

Duke

I could never remember which dimension was changed; I just figured it was stroke b/c it was an easier change, and MB seemed to like to keep as many parts in common as possible.