Benzworld.org - Mercedes Benz Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Swedish Benz · 07-05-2006, 06:48 AM

So, you are buying an unseen car? Perhaps not the wisest thing, especially since you have obviously never driven that model???
You really can't compare those two engines. The 2.3 is what the car is designed for, and matches it very well. Accessibility in engine compartment is good, and fuel economy OK. By today's standard it's noisy and vibrates a bit. The torque curve is very "middy" compared to the MB straight 6:es of that era = not much shifting needed. (grandpa's car...)
The M103 6 is shoehorned in, and installation does not put a smile on the mechanic's face. But it sure can put a smile on the driver's... Cultivated, nice sounding, flexible and reliable. Fuel economy is so so, but a pre -90 manual car with the tall final drive runs fairly economical, but a bit unresponsive. Short final drive from -90 and up (6 cyl + manuals only) turns the car to some BMW 325 wannabe, and fuel economy goes south.
BUT... on these models (6 cyl man short final), fuel consumption does not increase much when driven hard. But driving pleasure increases...

Engine life span is equal between them, I'd say. Acceleration from 0 is similar between them (and not quick), with the exception of the late manual 2.6 cars, which are on par with many modern cars. Unless you pick up one of those, you might as well go for the 2.3.
In a hurry? Get a 16-valve car.

/Alexander

07-05-2006, 06:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
Swedish Benz BenzWorld Member Date registered: Jun 2005 Posts: 131	So, you are buying an unseen car? Perhaps not the wisest thing, especially since you have obviously never driven that model??? You really can't compare those two engines. The 2.3 is what the car is designed for, and matches it very well. Accessibility in engine compartment is good, and fuel economy OK. By today's standard it's noisy and vibrates a bit. The torque curve is very "middy" compared to the MB straight 6:es of that era = not much shifting needed. (grandpa's car...) The M103 6 is shoehorned in, and installation does not put a smile on the mechanic's face. But it sure can put a smile on the driver's... Cultivated, nice sounding, flexible and reliable. Fuel economy is so so, but a pre -90 manual car with the tall final drive runs fairly economical, but a bit unresponsive. Short final drive from -90 and up (6 cyl + manuals only) turns the car to some BMW 325 wannabe, and fuel economy goes south. BUT... on these models (6 cyl man short final), fuel consumption does not increase much when driven hard. But driving pleasure increases... Engine life span is equal between them, I'd say. Acceleration from 0 is similar between them (and not quick), with the exception of the late manual 2.6 cars, which are on par with many modern cars. Unless you pick up one of those, you might as well go for the 2.3. In a hurry? Get a 16-valve car. /Alexander __________________ -91 190E 2.6 Sportline 5-speed (now sold) -92 300TE -24 valve (now sold) -95 Lexus LS 400 (all options except sunroof) -90 SAAB 900i -16 (just passed 100.000km) -06 brand new Renault Clio (with girlfriend)