Discussion
After years of owning boring small hatchbacks I'm thinking of dipping my toe in the waters of 'classic' car ownership with an '80s Merc 190E or possibly a W124.
Having driven a couple of 190s I liked the 2.0 automatic (manual box was horrible) and the dealer I visited has a good one on the way, but he is also now advertising a good, low-mileage 300E saloon. I have a few questions for the Merc experts here:
i) Is the handling of the E-class much more barge-like than the 190? It's a standard model not a Sportline (the 190s I drove were standard also). I'm coming from a Seat leon FR so don't want anything that rolls like a boat or turns like a supertanker...
ii) Would the economy of the 300E (auto) be much different from a 190E 2.0 auto?
iii) Is the e-class less reliable / less well-built than the 190? The 300E is a pre-facelift model made in 1992 and the 190 of similar age.
The compactness & mechanical simplicity (and DIY-friendliness) of a 190 appeals to me but I can't help being attracted to the straight-six motor in the 300 and the W124 has a nicer interior than the 190...
Any views?
Having driven a couple of 190s I liked the 2.0 automatic (manual box was horrible) and the dealer I visited has a good one on the way, but he is also now advertising a good, low-mileage 300E saloon. I have a few questions for the Merc experts here:
i) Is the handling of the E-class much more barge-like than the 190? It's a standard model not a Sportline (the 190s I drove were standard also). I'm coming from a Seat leon FR so don't want anything that rolls like a boat or turns like a supertanker...
ii) Would the economy of the 300E (auto) be much different from a 190E 2.0 auto?
iii) Is the e-class less reliable / less well-built than the 190? The 300E is a pre-facelift model made in 1992 and the 190 of similar age.
The compactness & mechanical simplicity (and DIY-friendliness) of a 190 appeals to me but I can't help being attracted to the straight-six motor in the 300 and the W124 has a nicer interior than the 190...
Any views?
My first Merc was a 300E, when I lived in the states- I was going to buy a 190 but the dealer had a 124 next to it and after driving both I chose the bigger car. I'm 6'2 and found the 190 just a little too compact. Both had straight six engines (2.6 and 3.0) but the 124 felt more of a luxury car rather than just city runabout.
All 124s apart from Sportline cars have quite a bit of body roll, but still feel planted- the only time I think the car feels it's size is going around roundabouts- but I throw my E300D estate around a fair bit on the country roads where I live and I'm usually hustling modern cars to get past. It's happiest on long motorway/ A-road cruising though.
They're both well-built, and share quite a lot of parts- 124s seem to suffer a bit more with rust though, and the pre/mid facelift cars are more solid than the last (93-on) ones.
On the flip side, the later engines are much better, both on fuel and performance- the multivalve engines are great, but can suffer head-gasket problems (as can all Merc petrol engines of this period) -the 300E's 12v M103 isn't known for it's economy- you'd definitely notice the difference between the 2.0 and 3.0!
All 124s apart from Sportline cars have quite a bit of body roll, but still feel planted- the only time I think the car feels it's size is going around roundabouts- but I throw my E300D estate around a fair bit on the country roads where I live and I'm usually hustling modern cars to get past. It's happiest on long motorway/ A-road cruising though.
They're both well-built, and share quite a lot of parts- 124s seem to suffer a bit more with rust though, and the pre/mid facelift cars are more solid than the last (93-on) ones.
On the flip side, the later engines are much better, both on fuel and performance- the multivalve engines are great, but can suffer head-gasket problems (as can all Merc petrol engines of this period) -the 300E's 12v M103 isn't known for it's economy- you'd definitely notice the difference between the 2.0 and 3.0!
Edited by chazola on Tuesday 17th September 09:53
chazola said:
My first Merc was a 300E, when I lived in the states- I was going to buy a 190 but the dealer had a 124 next to it and after driving both I chose the bigger car. I'm 6'2 and found the 190 just a little too compact. Both had straight six engines (2.6 and 3.0) but the 124 felt more of a luxury car rather than just city runabout.
All 124s apart from Sportline cars have quite a bit of body roll, but still feel planted- the only time I think the car feels it's size is going around roundabouts- but I throw my E300D estate around a fair bit on the country roads where I live and I'm usually hustling modern cars to get past. It's happiest on long motorway/ A-road cruising though.
They're both well-built, and share quite a lot of parts- 124s seem to suffer a bit more with rust though, and the pre/mid facelift cars are more solid than the last (93-on) ones.
On the flip side, the later engines are much better, both on fuel and performance- the multivalve engines are great, but can suffer head-gasket problems (as can all Merc petrol engines of this period) -the 300E's 12v M103 isn't known for it's economy- you'd definitely notice the difference between the 2.0 and 3.0!
Thanks for your experiences. Had heard the older sixes are heavy on fuel. The later W124 engines sound better for performance and economy, with a 5-speed auto, but as you say the quality seems to be inferior. Ideally I'd retrofit an older car with a newer engine and gearbox but can't really afford to pay someone to do that & can't do it myself!All 124s apart from Sportline cars have quite a bit of body roll, but still feel planted- the only time I think the car feels it's size is going around roundabouts- but I throw my E300D estate around a fair bit on the country roads where I live and I'm usually hustling modern cars to get past. It's happiest on long motorway/ A-road cruising though.
They're both well-built, and share quite a lot of parts- 124s seem to suffer a bit more with rust though, and the pre/mid facelift cars are more solid than the last (93-on) ones.
On the flip side, the later engines are much better, both on fuel and performance- the multivalve engines are great, but can suffer head-gasket problems (as can all Merc petrol engines of this period) -the 300E's 12v M103 isn't known for it's economy- you'd definitely notice the difference between the 2.0 and 3.0!
Edited by chazola on Tuesday 17th September 09:53
Maybe I'll have to stick to a 190E 2.0 instead. I can just fit in one despite being 6'5, with a smaller steering wheel.
I wouldn't discount a facelift 124 with the right history & condition, the build is only marginally worse, those who have 190s love them equally though so I'd say drive both. You'll just be on very friendly terms with your petrol station if you get the 300E 
See if you can have a drive of a facelift car with a multi valve engine too, they're much more responsive than the earlier cars.
See if you can have a drive of a facelift car with a multi valve engine too, they're much more responsive than the earlier cars.
My W124 was a cracker. It was a nice place to be and with the 2.8 engine it was a flyer, even with the auto box. Ultra reliable. A fair amount of room for the rear passengers, certainly more so than the 190.
The roll seems to be initial only. Once the first bit is over it seems to settle. A bit of initial understeer but difficult to judge because of the very light steering. No feedback whatsoever.
Downsides: In reverse order -
1/ the silly parking brake,
2/ high oil consumption, about 1 litre per 4000 or so miles (with 6000 mile services, that meant just the 1 between), but the biggest thing for me was
1/ fuel consumption.
Town was very high, probably in the low 20s, and it didn't move much regardless of how you drove it. On a run it wasn't too bad. However, had a long drive one time, into the wee smalls, and keeping the speed up on motorways to around 95 and pushing it when on other roads, I got a bit over 17mpg.
But what an engine! Turbines have a lot to learn from it with regards smoothness.
The roll seems to be initial only. Once the first bit is over it seems to settle. A bit of initial understeer but difficult to judge because of the very light steering. No feedback whatsoever.
Downsides: In reverse order -
1/ the silly parking brake,
2/ high oil consumption, about 1 litre per 4000 or so miles (with 6000 mile services, that meant just the 1 between), but the biggest thing for me was
1/ fuel consumption.
Town was very high, probably in the low 20s, and it didn't move much regardless of how you drove it. On a run it wasn't too bad. However, had a long drive one time, into the wee smalls, and keeping the speed up on motorways to around 95 and pushing it when on other roads, I got a bit over 17mpg.
But what an engine! Turbines have a lot to learn from it with regards smoothness.
Thanks for the personal experiences Derek.
It's a novelty for me to have an automatic barge after years of hard-riding hatchbacks so I might look at a W124 or two as well as the 190s. Maybe the smaller (2.8) multivalve six with a 5-speed auto wouldn't be too ridiculous on fuel, especially as I don't do around-town driving but mainly longer trips.
Just got to find one with the head gasket / wiring loom done...
It's a novelty for me to have an automatic barge after years of hard-riding hatchbacks so I might look at a W124 or two as well as the 190s. Maybe the smaller (2.8) multivalve six with a 5-speed auto wouldn't be too ridiculous on fuel, especially as I don't do around-town driving but mainly longer trips.
Just got to find one with the head gasket / wiring loom done...
BGarside said:
Thanks for the personal experiences Derek.
It's a novelty for me to have an automatic barge after years of hard-riding hatchbacks so I might look at a W124 or two as well as the 190s. Maybe the smaller (2.8) multivalve six with a 5-speed auto wouldn't be too ridiculous on fuel, especially as I don't do around-town driving but mainly longer trips.
Just got to find one with the head gasket / wiring loom done...
The 4-speed box is the more robust.It's a novelty for me to have an automatic barge after years of hard-riding hatchbacks so I might look at a W124 or two as well as the 190s. Maybe the smaller (2.8) multivalve six with a 5-speed auto wouldn't be too ridiculous on fuel, especially as I don't do around-town driving but mainly longer trips.
Just got to find one with the head gasket / wiring loom done...
After a owning a 2.0 190E, a 300E saloon and an E280 estate, the 3.0 W124 is my pick of the bunch. Might try a coupe next...
I actually prefer the styling of the pre-facelift cars and I gather they are better-built, it's just that the later multivalve engines seem to offer better economy and torque, whereas he earlier M103 motor seems a bit heavy on fuel for an only car.
The 4-speed auto also seems to be very low-geared in top and I do quite a lot of motorway driving.
The 4-speed auto also seems to be very low-geared in top and I do quite a lot of motorway driving.
I've had several of both.
They all cane fuel - the 190 slightly less - in town a big petrol 124 will drink like Oliver Reed.
On balance I prefer the 190's and they haven't yet got stupidly expensive. 190's rust a lot less as well. Though nothing drives quite as splendidly as a well sorted 6 cylinder petrol W124.
The 124's reputation has a lot to do with the high initial cost making repair economically viable for longer. Also - the huge cost of things like wiring looms and head gaskets/AC/rust etc. etc. means that people invest heavily in the cars - often irrationally. Thus, again, repair seems economically sensible when, really, such repairs are financial lunacy. I should know.
190's are cheap to run if you can find a good specialist. This is essential. Actually - find a specialist first, and ask them if they know of a good car for sale. Dealer prices on these cars are getting daft now.
The 190E 2.6 Sportline remains, IMHO, the best car Mercedes have produced so far. Prices reflect this but mild appreciation is certain if you look after it.
They all cane fuel - the 190 slightly less - in town a big petrol 124 will drink like Oliver Reed.
On balance I prefer the 190's and they haven't yet got stupidly expensive. 190's rust a lot less as well. Though nothing drives quite as splendidly as a well sorted 6 cylinder petrol W124.
The 124's reputation has a lot to do with the high initial cost making repair economically viable for longer. Also - the huge cost of things like wiring looms and head gaskets/AC/rust etc. etc. means that people invest heavily in the cars - often irrationally. Thus, again, repair seems economically sensible when, really, such repairs are financial lunacy. I should know.
190's are cheap to run if you can find a good specialist. This is essential. Actually - find a specialist first, and ask them if they know of a good car for sale. Dealer prices on these cars are getting daft now.
The 190E 2.6 Sportline remains, IMHO, the best car Mercedes have produced so far. Prices reflect this but mild appreciation is certain if you look after it.
If its fuel economy you're after, have a look at the w124 300D . If you go for the preface lift model they have a straightforward 12 valve Diesel engine capable of 35 to 40 mpg.
I have the estate model,the 300TD, but whilst these are hard to find in good order nowadays for the right money,the saloon versions are cheaper and tend to be in better condition with less miles.
Be warned though, these cars are very slow of the mark compared to the petrol versions and will not suit everyone,however once they get moving and up to speed there is nothing quite like them to drive and they do grow on you.
I have the estate model,the 300TD, but whilst these are hard to find in good order nowadays for the right money,the saloon versions are cheaper and tend to be in better condition with less miles.
Be warned though, these cars are very slow of the mark compared to the petrol versions and will not suit everyone,however once they get moving and up to speed there is nothing quite like them to drive and they do grow on you.
We've had a 1991 300CE 24 for just over a year and it's the best car I've ever. The 5 speed autos can be troublesome and expensive, we have the 4 speed and averaged 24 mpg on a trip to Southern France recently. The cabin is great place to be, the ride is amazing and it doesn't feel like a barge to drive.
MarshPhantom said:
We've had a 1991 300CE 24 for just over a year and it's the best car I've ever. The 5 speed autos can be troublesome and expensive, we have the 4 speed and averaged 24 mpg on a trip to Southern France recently. The cabin is great place to be, the ride is amazing and it doesn't feel like a barge to drive.
That does reinforce the message about rather poor fuel economy though! My C43 averages 24-25mpg on long trips like that and that's without paying any attention whatsoever to economic driving.For the OP, I would only consider the W124 if the extra space is actually needed (seating 5 or carrying lots of luggage) or if you can't find a nice enough W201 for your budget.
I'm a big fan of both cars.
From memory my manual 1.8 190E was around 30-35mpg on the motorway.Cheers everyone for your experiences. Good to hear different perspectives.
I like the W124 and particularly the 300CE, but it sounds like it'll be too much of a gas-guzzler for me.
Nice 190E 2.6 Sportline advertised on PH too, but £3.5k perhaps a bit rich for a 149k-mile example.
Don't need the space of a 124 so looks like I'll be looking for a 2-litre 190E. Not much choice up here in Aberdeenshire but a certain specialist in Keighley should be able to find me a good one.
Hope I can get used to the drop in power after my 1.9TDI (mapped)...
I like the W124 and particularly the 300CE, but it sounds like it'll be too much of a gas-guzzler for me.
Nice 190E 2.6 Sportline advertised on PH too, but £3.5k perhaps a bit rich for a 149k-mile example.
Don't need the space of a 124 so looks like I'll be looking for a 2-litre 190E. Not much choice up here in Aberdeenshire but a certain specialist in Keighley should be able to find me a good one.
Hope I can get used to the drop in power after my 1.9TDI (mapped)...
[quote=TwistingMyMelon]I really miss my W124 coupe, best car I ever owned, had to give it away for peanuts in the end, shame as it was a solid lovely spec'd car.
Will get another soon...
I echo all the comments here.
Just budget a decent amount of maintenance, which depending on model and condition can easily get near the value of the car. Mine was fine when I was doing 5K or under, as soon as I upped the mileage to 12-15K a year the maintenance bills rocketed. Whilst parts are in good supply, they tend to be "special order" with suppliers, meaning repairs such as new alternators took a few days, instead of one. Some garages love them, others suck their teeth and go "its an old car mate so the fault could be anything...." when things go wrong.
As long as you buy a decent one and accept the higher running costs they are bloody marvellous and such a "feel good" car
190s seem to be slowly creeping in price, I'm guessing as the numbers dwindle and people realise how well they last and handsome they look
W124 saloons, seem a very well priced, I've seen decent honest cars struggling to sell for a grand. They seem to have led an easier life than the estates and less barrried/bodged than the coupes, plus there seems little demand for them.
Seriously tempted by a saloon , so I can shove my dogs on the back seat..
The real bargains for me are the R129 sl's but that's a different topic & OP I hope it isn't Keighley Trade Centre(!!! Joke
Will get another soon...
I echo all the comments here.
Just budget a decent amount of maintenance, which depending on model and condition can easily get near the value of the car. Mine was fine when I was doing 5K or under, as soon as I upped the mileage to 12-15K a year the maintenance bills rocketed. Whilst parts are in good supply, they tend to be "special order" with suppliers, meaning repairs such as new alternators took a few days, instead of one. Some garages love them, others suck their teeth and go "its an old car mate so the fault could be anything...." when things go wrong.
As long as you buy a decent one and accept the higher running costs they are bloody marvellous and such a "feel good" car
190s seem to be slowly creeping in price, I'm guessing as the numbers dwindle and people realise how well they last and handsome they look
W124 saloons, seem a very well priced, I've seen decent honest cars struggling to sell for a grand. They seem to have led an easier life than the estates and less barrried/bodged than the coupes, plus there seems little demand for them.
Seriously tempted by a saloon , so I can shove my dogs on the back seat..
The real bargains for me are the R129 sl's but that's a different topic & OP I hope it isn't Keighley Trade Centre(!!! Joke
braddo said:
MarshPhantom said:
We've had a 1991 300CE 24 for just over a year and it's the best car I've ever. The 5 speed autos can be troublesome and expensive, we have the 4 speed and averaged 24 mpg on a trip to Southern France recently. The cabin is great place to be, the ride is amazing and it doesn't feel like a barge to drive.
That does reinforce the message about rather poor fuel economy though! My C43 averages 24-25mpg on long trips like that and that's without paying any attention whatsoever to economic driving.I've had a 190 (which is still in the family) and a few 124's. I wouldn't like to say which I prefer.
The 190 has a ridiculous turning circle, and the dimensions (especially narrow width) make it brilliant to slot around town. With decent tyres and relatively fresh suspension the handling/ride is a really nice compromise. What I don't like - the standard steering wheel is way too big and can make it a squeeze in the front if you've got long legs. Small boot, not much space in the back.
The W124 is more a full on barge. The interior is much nicer, spacious and solid. The 5 speed boxes are weak, loom problems are overblown (only affects last 2 years).
Personally I would forget about mileage and buy wholly on condition. I've driven these things with comical mileages (one over 600k), you don't want an old car which has been sitting around and TBH mileage is virtually impossible to verify on a 25yo car anyway!
The 190 has a ridiculous turning circle, and the dimensions (especially narrow width) make it brilliant to slot around town. With decent tyres and relatively fresh suspension the handling/ride is a really nice compromise. What I don't like - the standard steering wheel is way too big and can make it a squeeze in the front if you've got long legs. Small boot, not much space in the back.
The W124 is more a full on barge. The interior is much nicer, spacious and solid. The 5 speed boxes are weak, loom problems are overblown (only affects last 2 years).
Personally I would forget about mileage and buy wholly on condition. I've driven these things with comical mileages (one over 600k), you don't want an old car which has been sitting around and TBH mileage is virtually impossible to verify on a 25yo car anyway!
SuperHangOn said:
I've had a 190 (which is still in the family) and a few 124's. I wouldn't like to say which I prefer.
The 190 has a ridiculous turning circle, and the dimensions (especially narrow width) make it brilliant to slot around town. With decent tyres and relatively fresh suspension the handling/ride is a really nice compromise. What I don't like - the standard steering wheel is way too big and can make it a squeeze in the front if you've got long legs. Small boot, not much space in the back.
The W124 is more a full on barge. The interior is much nicer, spacious and solid. The 5 speed boxes are weak, loom problems are overblown (only affects last 2 years).
Personally I would forget about mileage and buy wholly on condition. I've driven these things with comical mileages (one over 600k), you don't want an old car which has been sitting around and TBH mileage is virtually impossible to verify on a 25yo car anyway!
The handy size of the 190 appeals to me, especially the narrowness for driving down streets with parked cars both sides. I usually travel alone or with 1 passenger tops so the extra space of a 124 isn't really needed.The 190 has a ridiculous turning circle, and the dimensions (especially narrow width) make it brilliant to slot around town. With decent tyres and relatively fresh suspension the handling/ride is a really nice compromise. What I don't like - the standard steering wheel is way too big and can make it a squeeze in the front if you've got long legs. Small boot, not much space in the back.
The W124 is more a full on barge. The interior is much nicer, spacious and solid. The 5 speed boxes are weak, loom problems are overblown (only affects last 2 years).
Personally I would forget about mileage and buy wholly on condition. I've driven these things with comical mileages (one over 600k), you don't want an old car which has been sitting around and TBH mileage is virtually impossible to verify on a 25yo car anyway!
The 190 seems to distill most of what the W124 offers, and a lot of 'Merc-ness', into a pint-sized package.
The head gasket and wiring loom issues have put me off the sixes a bit, not to mention the fuel 'economy'. I guess I'll stick with the 2 litre M102 lump, and maybe EFI-it if I decide to keep the car.
Got my eye on a 2.0 auto in smoke silver, 15-hole bottletop alloys and leather
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff