Merc 190e
Author
Discussion

kurt535

Original Poster:

3,560 posts

146 months

Tuesday 23rd July 2019
quotequote all
Am going to see a 1992, 57k basic spec 190e 2.0 auto today. Its really lovely nick. Trouble is I do hanker after the 2.6.......and I know one for 4.5k.......is it twice the car though??

lowdrag

13,181 posts

242 months

Tuesday 23rd July 2019
quotequote all
I tried a 2 litre auto in the day and found that it wasn't powerful enough for what I wanted. Very sluggish. The 2.6 will be faster but have a much higher fuel consumption.

Dapster

9,402 posts

209 months

Tuesday 23rd July 2019
quotequote all
The 2.6 has 30% more power than the 2.0 and is much smoother, but as lowdrag says, it's as thirsty as hell. They obviously aren't sports cars but the lazy 6 does suit the rather more gentlemanly driving style of the 190.

A lot of 2.0 were bought at a price on company car lists but the 2.6 were often better kitted private purchases. This was when absolutely everything was an extra cost option on a Merc, so the basic ones would have manual windows and no radio. A well kitted 2.6 facelift in a dark metallic withe Sacco panels and the 15 hole alloys would be a nice young classic to smoke around in.

BGarside

1,568 posts

166 months

Tuesday 23rd July 2019
quotequote all
The M103 six is also pretty peaky, max. torque at 4600rpm vs. 3500 for the M102 four cylinder, so might not feel much quicker than the 2.0 unless you're revving it hard (when it will guzzle fuel).

My friend has a 260E W124 and gets high 20s mpg typically in a mixture of driving, not a whole lot less than the 190E 2.0 he had previously which usually managed around 31mpg. Both autos. He drives fairly gently though.

A manual car should be a fair bit more economical as the four speed autos had pretty low gearing - around 20mph/1000rpm in the 2.0 and 23mph/1000rpm in the 2.6.

Period tests had the 2.0 auto 190e doing around 120mph and 0-60 in 10.7 sec. The 2.6 auto did 130mph and 0-60 in 8.3 sec. It was an early pre-cat car though which had slightly more power/torque than the later ones.

Mr Tidy

31,221 posts

156 months

Wednesday 24th July 2019
quotequote all
I bought a 1989 Manual 2 litre 190e in 1997 and it was a great car.

Foolishly sold it in 2000 to replace it with an Auto C280 Sport that was probably the most disappointing car I've owned. frown

I probably should have looked for a 190e 2.6 (ideally a manual).

But if physical size isn't an issue it might be easier to find a 6 cylinder engine in a W124.

Then again to answer the OP's question, while a 2.6 might not be twice the car that a 2 litre is I would imagine it would still hold a higher value in the future so any premium paid would hopefully be retained.

sim16v

2,177 posts

230 months

Wednesday 24th July 2019
quotequote all
To really upset the purists, the 3.0L six from the W124 is an identical bolt in swap for the 2.6, and gives a good increase in performance...

kurt535

Original Poster:

3,560 posts

146 months

Wednesday 24th July 2019
quotequote all
ty all.

first 2.0 yesterday was totally pants. whole nearside needed respray repair. bloke offered it to me for 1.6k with 59k on the clock,

i also noted a lot of oil around the head gasket area. chappie said all the engines do that but im not so sure.....

onwards and upwards.

am considering a jap import...