Discussion
Seen a nice one of these for sale, Sportline automatic. Quite fancy it rather than a plodding M102...
Question is how bad on fuel are they? A period Autocar road test got something ridiculous like 21mpg, or qute a lot less than a contemporary BMW 735i auto.
Has anyone got one on here and are they total gas-guzzlers?
Cheers for any feedback.
Question is how bad on fuel are they? A period Autocar road test got something ridiculous like 21mpg, or qute a lot less than a contemporary BMW 735i auto.
Has anyone got one on here and are they total gas-guzzlers?
Cheers for any feedback.
r129sl said:
Depends on how you drive but I wouldn't bank on beating 25mpg very often. Maybe 27 "on a run".
Thanks. I keep up with traffic but don't speed (much).Not very good economy for the performance really. Funny to think when the 2.6 and 3.0 W124 came out in the '80s it was considered to have execllent fuel economy!
Perhaps I should look at later cars with EFI so I can convert to LPG....
I had one of these, ex demo, in 93. Had it for 3 years from 4000 to 75000 miles. From memory used to average about 26 but that's not the point. £34K new, I paid £25K and sold for £9K
It was the worst car I ever owned and the reason I've never had another MB to this day. Never made a 6000 mile service interval without a problem, air con, drive belts, suspension, main areas. Always pulled to the left, after repeated attempts to make it go straight.
Very low geared from memory, even for that time, not particularly a relaxing car to drive.
Brake pads lasted about 17/18K, new discs every second set of pads.
It was the worst car I ever owned and the reason I've never had another MB to this day. Never made a 6000 mile service interval without a problem, air con, drive belts, suspension, main areas. Always pulled to the left, after repeated attempts to make it go straight.
Very low geared from memory, even for that time, not particularly a relaxing car to drive.
Brake pads lasted about 17/18K, new discs every second set of pads.
A friend of mine has a 2 lt 190E auto which barely gets above gets above 25 in normal mixed driving. The low gearing feeling is very much a period thing as I've seen the comment before regarding any 4 speed auto from the 60's right through to the final w124(5 speed auto better but a bit more flacky). Check jacking points, boot for water,this could indicate rot hidden under the rear screen seals. Rear window motors fail due to frayed wire cable within the mechanism. Check here https://mercedessource.com/for some useful youtube clips and "how to" videos sadly he's in the US but he's running a pair of 190E's both 2.6 models which appeared in a few Youtube pieces recently.
r129sl said:
For the defence, my w124 turned through 275,000miles today and it doesn't use a drop of oil between 9,000mile intervals. Having driven 800miles in the last 24hours, I can confirm it runs straight, smooth and securely and is very happy at 95mph and 3,800rpm.
FYI R129SL, MTSV has a 300D saloon in preparation with 50k miles, pre-facelift, which might interest you. Then again, perhaps not, given that it's not an estate. Can't be many around with that sort of mileage!
W124Bob said:
A friend of mine has a 2 lt 190E auto which barely gets above gets above 25 in normal mixed driving. The low gearing feeling is very much a period thing as I've seen the comment before regarding any 4 speed auto from the 60's right through to the final w124(5 speed auto better but a bit more flacky). Check jacking points, boot for water,this could indicate rot hidden under the rear screen seals. Rear window motors fail due to frayed wire cable within the mechanism. Check here https://mercedessource.com/for some useful youtube clips and "how to" videos sadly he's in the US but he's running a pair of 190E's both 2.6 models which appeared in a few Youtube pieces recently.
Thaks for the advice. A friend of mine bought a 190E 2.0 auto last year which is why I've started looking at them. He's been getting about 30mpg combined and around 32mpg on a run, though I think that's at 70 or less.The 2.0 auto is geared around 20mph/1000rpm so runs at 3500rpm at 70mph. I gather the 2.6 is around 23mph/1000rpm so still low-geared by modern diesel standards but around 3000rpm is tolerable for 70mph cruising and the engine is quieter than the M102.
Kent's videos as Mercedessource on Youtube have been very interesting as I would plan to maintain the car myself as much as possible.
As for the bad experiences on here, I can only hope that if the car's survived 20+ years it's a good one & not a Friday afternoon special!
Gearing is all about torque: these cars (old and new) are geared so that at 75mph in top gear the engine is running at or about peak torque. This makes for good driving characteristics: when cruising the driver feels there is plenty in reserve (and indeed there is plenty in reserve). Of course, the engine is at its strongest between peak torque and peak power (power being the product of torque x engine speed).
A 1980s petrol engine has quite different torque characteristics to a 2010s turbo diesel. The former typically will generate peak torque at 3,500 to 4,500rpm; the latter at 1,500 to 2,500rpm. The former will run to 6,000rpm and higher; the latter is all out at 3,800rpm. Accordingly they have to be geared differently.
A 190 E running a final drive which gave, say, 70mph at 2,000rpm (like a modern turbo diesel) would be both unpleasant (it would feel gutless and would run out of steam going up hills) and thirsty (because it would not be cruising at an efficient engine speed).
There is little in it for refinement between a 2014 4cylinder turbo diesel running at 70mph and 2,000rpm and a 1988 4cylinder petrol running at 70mph and 3,500rpm. The latter would be noisier than the former but that is more attributable to the huge improvements in body shell rigidity (which has a massive effect on noisiness in particular and NVH generally) and sound insulation than it is to the engine.
I have seen Mark Taylor has a low miles 300 D on the way. But it has to be smoke silver for me.
A 1980s petrol engine has quite different torque characteristics to a 2010s turbo diesel. The former typically will generate peak torque at 3,500 to 4,500rpm; the latter at 1,500 to 2,500rpm. The former will run to 6,000rpm and higher; the latter is all out at 3,800rpm. Accordingly they have to be geared differently.
A 190 E running a final drive which gave, say, 70mph at 2,000rpm (like a modern turbo diesel) would be both unpleasant (it would feel gutless and would run out of steam going up hills) and thirsty (because it would not be cruising at an efficient engine speed).
There is little in it for refinement between a 2014 4cylinder turbo diesel running at 70mph and 2,000rpm and a 1988 4cylinder petrol running at 70mph and 3,500rpm. The latter would be noisier than the former but that is more attributable to the huge improvements in body shell rigidity (which has a massive effect on noisiness in particular and NVH generally) and sound insulation than it is to the engine.
I have seen Mark Taylor has a low miles 300 D on the way. But it has to be smoke silver for me.
r129sl said:
For the defence, my w124 turned through 275,000miles today and it doesn't use a drop of oil between 9,000mile intervals. Having driven 800miles in the last 24hours, I can confirm it runs straight, smooth and securely and is very happy at 95mph and 3,800rpm.
With all due the w124 wasn't the 190, which don't have 9000 service intervals. Most informed thought about the 2.6 straight 6 was that it needed oil changes every 4000 miles and indeed, in some markets MB recommended 6000km. No doubt there are some good ones still about but there won't be many.
r129sl said:
Gearing is all about torque: these cars (old and new) are geared so that at 75mph in top gear the engine is running at or about peak torque. This makes for good driving characteristics: when cruising the driver feels there is plenty in reserve (and indeed there is plenty in reserve). Of course, the engine is at its strongest between peak torque and peak power (power being the product of torque x engine speed).
A 1980s petrol engine has quite different torque characteristics to a 2010s turbo diesel. The former typically will generate peak torque at 3,500 to 4,500rpm; the latter at 1,500 to 2,500rpm. The former will run to 6,000rpm and higher; the latter is all out at 3,800rpm. Accordingly they have to be geared differently.
A 190 E running a final drive which gave, say, 70mph at 2,000rpm (like a modern turbo diesel) would be both unpleasant (it would feel gutless and would run out of steam going up hills) and thirsty (because it would not be cruising at an efficient engine speed).
There is little in it for refinement between a 2014 4cylinder turbo diesel running at 70mph and 2,000rpm and a 1988 4cylinder petrol running at 70mph and 3,500rpm. The latter would be noisier than the former but that is more attributable to the huge improvements in body shell rigidity (which has a massive effect on noisiness in particular and NVH generally) and sound insulation than it is to the engine.
I have seen Mark Taylor has a low miles 300 D on the way. But it has to be smoke silver for me.
I take your point. Peak torque for the M102 is apparently at 3500rpm so at 70mph cruise. Peak torque in my diesel Seat is around 2000 rpm and it cruises at 70mph in 6th at that engine speed. A 1980s petrol engine has quite different torque characteristics to a 2010s turbo diesel. The former typically will generate peak torque at 3,500 to 4,500rpm; the latter at 1,500 to 2,500rpm. The former will run to 6,000rpm and higher; the latter is all out at 3,800rpm. Accordingly they have to be geared differently.
A 190 E running a final drive which gave, say, 70mph at 2,000rpm (like a modern turbo diesel) would be both unpleasant (it would feel gutless and would run out of steam going up hills) and thirsty (because it would not be cruising at an efficient engine speed).
There is little in it for refinement between a 2014 4cylinder turbo diesel running at 70mph and 2,000rpm and a 1988 4cylinder petrol running at 70mph and 3,500rpm. The latter would be noisier than the former but that is more attributable to the huge improvements in body shell rigidity (which has a massive effect on noisiness in particular and NVH generally) and sound insulation than it is to the engine.
I have seen Mark Taylor has a low miles 300 D on the way. But it has to be smoke silver for me.
It always confused me though that the manual 'box in the 190E 2.0 is way overgeared in 5th, pulling around 27mph/1000rpm according to period road tests. I can only assume it was geared for the autobahns as peak torque at 3500rpm equates to around 95mph, in which case it's odd that the automatics were geared for peak torque at 70mph, British motorway speeds, in top.
Can we perhaps assume the automatics did not sell in great numbers in Germany?
As for oil change intervals, the M103 straight six apparently will outlast the M102 4-cylinder in terms of the mileages it will achieve, but are the two engines not of very similar internal design so that, if shorter oil change intervals are required, this would apply to both engines?
k me - my CLK 55 will do better than that
I have a W124 230e. Great car but the fuel consumption does let them down quite badly compared to more modern machinery. 32mpg requires a very gentle sub 65mph cruise! It normally returns 26/27mpg over a tank which makes it quite expensive to run with today's fuel prices.
That said, the build quality will be equal to a modern £100,000 car. The ride is also exceptional. Think 80's Citroen levels of comfort and detachment from bump. I'm not sure what modern car would ride this well? New S Class or C6?
That said, the build quality will be equal to a modern £100,000 car. The ride is also exceptional. Think 80's Citroen levels of comfort and detachment from bump. I'm not sure what modern car would ride this well? New S Class or C6?
Yes manual transmission was very much the normal thing take take a look on here http://www.mobile.de/ at least half 190's will have manual boxes and lower specs plus dozens of snail paced 190D's some very clean!
MJK 24 said:
I have a W124 230e. Great car but the fuel consumption does let them down quite badly compared to more modern machinery. 32mpg requires a very gentle sub 65mph cruise! It normally returns 26/27mpg over a tank which makes it quite expensive to run with today's fuel prices.
That said, the build quality will be equal to a modern £100,000 car. The ride is also exceptional. Think 80's Citroen levels of comfort and detachment from bump. I'm not sure what modern car would ride this well? New S Class or C6?
Not good mpg for the performance on offer! Seems like the older cars with KE-Jet injection are pretty poor on fuel. The autoboxes probably don't help either but, having driven a manual 190, I don't fancy a manual - it was like stirring bitumen with a long stick...That said, the build quality will be equal to a modern £100,000 car. The ride is also exceptional. Think 80's Citroen levels of comfort and detachment from bump. I'm not sure what modern car would ride this well? New S Class or C6?
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff