Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > Mercedes-Benz Tech Information and Support > Tech Help

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #6  
Old 01-10-2008, 05:10 PM
tvpierce's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Portland, ME
Posts: 612
As others have stated, the 190E is a 201 chassis. The 2.3 ltr engine is an inline 4.

Here are some of my rambling thoughts on the subject:
You won't see much in the way of problems with them -- it's a rock solid platform with limited "bells and whistles" (read: fewer things to break -- which is extremely important as you are talking about an 18 year old car). The 2.6 L-6 engine is also very strong. It has somewhat of a reputation for head gasket trouble and (if I remember correctly) an oil leak at the timing cover. These are not huge, insurmountable problems by any means -- but worth noting none the less.

The 201 doesn't have automatic climate control (also a good thing IMHO).
The A/C can be a problem spot (as it is in all MBs of this vintage) -- the evaporator gives out and is expensive to have replaced. Most of that cost is labor, so if you can do it yourself, it's quite affordable.

The 2.3 ltr equipped cars are no speed merchants. They are adequately powered, pleasant to drive and quite fuel efficient. I rarely see less than 25 mpg, I've been as high as 30 mpg on an all-highway trip. 23-27 mpg is a reasonable expectation in mixed driving.

I don't quite like the match between the transmission and engine -- at least in my car. The tranny is a little slow to react, and there's a "dead spot" at about 25 mph where it doesn't give you much pull, but it refuses to downshift (for instance, when merging into traffic). The 2.6 ltr would probably have enough torque to pull right through this, but the 2.3 just doesn't. I'm sure the 2.6 is much more responsive in all ranges.

One advantage of the 4 cylinder though is when it comes to service. My 2.3 has plenty of room to work under the hood. The 6 cylinder is really squeezed in there, front to back.

The consensous seems to be that the 201 feels much more nimble than the 124 -- and it should, it's quite a bit smaller. I would not call the 201 a sports car by any means, but when the suspension is in good condition, the handling certainly is sporty.

Now if you're talking about a 2.3 ltr/Cosworth 16 valve, that's a completely different animal. That is a true sports car that was designed for racing. But those are rare, so I assume you're asking about the "normal" 8 valve.

Just my 2 cents! After adjusting for inflation... still arguably worth that.
__________________
Jeff Pierce

Current Vehicles:
'92 Mercedes 190E/2.3 (247K miles/my daily driver)
'93 Volvo 940 Turbo Wagon (263K miles/a family truckster with spunk)
'99 Kawasaki Concours
Gravely 8120
Previous Vehicles:
'85 Jeep CJ-7 w/ Fisher plow (226K miles)'93 Volvo 940 Turbo Wagon
'53 Willys-Overland Pickup
'85 Honda 750F Interceptor
'93 Nissan Quest
'89 Toyota Camry Wagon
'89 Dodge Raider
'81 Honda CB 750F Super Sport
'88 Toyota Celica
'95 Toyota Tacoma
'74 Honda CB 550F
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page