Hi, it's my first post, but this forum is very helpful! I'm considering to bought an old 1993 190E, I was thinking it was a 2.6, but it is a 2.3... What is the real difference between 2.3 & 2.6 ? Also how much miles a 4 cylinders can run rather than the 6 cylinders? I usually ride with a Chevrolet Malibu LS (V6 3.1L) and a Lincoln Town Car '94 (V8 4.6L) and I don't want to be disappointed of these 4 cylinders (will I have to?), the 190E have 130k miles but seems physically in perfect condition... I can't try it because it's an internet purchase! Thanks
If you are used to v6's and v8's then you will not like the 4 cyl 2.3. I own a 2.3 and I like it, but what i have noticed in the forums is that people who come from v6's and v8's generally don't like it. Which is a shame because its a great engine.
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)
I agree with Swedish Benz... if you are used to cheap engine parts for both the Lincoln (is it a 32 valve? Those are sweet engines) and the Chevy, the parts prices for the Benz might be disappointing. On the other hand, both 2.3 or 2.6 are hard as a rock! Does this example have a full service history? If not, walk away from it - there might be quite a bit of outstanding stuff that will surely cost serious cash. Or - if you get tired of the Town Car, do an engine swap with the Benz! It can be done.
__________________
“One who conquers himself is greater than another who conquers a thousand times a thousand on the battlefield.”
Hi, thanks for your replies! If the car already have 130k miles can I hope to drive it longer before beginning to have problems ? (by considering it was well maintained) I mean, is these engines (4 cylinders) are known to make around 2-250k miles or less ? Because I heard that 6 and 8 cylinders can do easily around 4-500k miles... Because if it's an end life car, I will wait an other bargain Thanks again!
What do you mean with "end life car"? I hope it does not mean actual life is over for this car. (English is not my best language...)
The life expectancy is not different between these models. Why should it be?
The M102 and M103 are very much alike, desigh wise.
If something, the M103 is more prone to head gasket problems and oil leakage, but the difference is small, I'd say. The newer M104 engine (not for 190E) is however a money eating monster. Head gaskets, engine harness and valve problems all over the place...
The only thing to consider regarding the M102, is to not buy a car with single row cam chain. Shift to duplex was in -88 on European cars, so go for the newer ones. But it is possible that also older cars have been rebuilt. Ask the owner!
What do you mean with "end life car"? I hope it does not mean actual life is over for this car. (English is not my best language...)
The life expectancy is not different between these models. Why should it be?
By "end life car" I wanted to say that usually 4 cylinders can do less mileage than 6 or 8, but I don't know if it's true for Mercedes-Benz (english is not my best language too... sorry if it can confuse
my other cars are built for much more speed than my 2.3- but i get in the car understanding that.
i drive the 190 2.3 as it was meant to be driven, as a tansportation vehicle. mine just looks damn sexy doing it. (ok, only to those of us who like 15 year old cars...)
but it is by all means the slowest car in my normal driving "rotation" and leaves a lot to be desired in means of the gas pedal.
however, that does not mean it isn't a fun car to drive.
it's very comfy, very easy to drive in traffic, and as mine is quite far from standard beater issued looking- it gets random looks from every which way.
it's not the nicest (and far from the newest) car i have- but i find myself driving it more than any of the others; and even to the clubs or bars where image is everything in socal.
it has an understated classic appeal to it, with a tad bit of snob left over from the tri-star hood ornament.
...now i should be offered a job in marketing at mbz classic in irvine
The 2.3 is a fantastic engine, and it's life span is about the same as it's six cylinder counterpart. The 2.6 is comparatively a rocket ship, and the 2.3 has been described as sluggish, but I find it to be nearly perfect. The car I am familiar with gets around thirty miles per gallon in town, and thirty five to forty on the freeway. Keep in mind that it is maintained religiously. It has enough power to get you a few speeding tickets, but keep in mind this car comes from a different mind set than that of your town car- the pleasure in driving such a car as a 190E 2.3 is derived not from drag racing, but from taking curvy roads. It is a car of compromise, hence the excellent fuel economy, but it is still a mercedes, and feels like one on the road- in your case, I would definently test drive one, and you may want to go with a 2.6, which is a real kick in the pants to drive. But as far as longevity- I have no idea what putrid seedy place you dug that idea about 4 cylinder longevity- My grandfather has a 2.3 with about four-hundred-thousand miles on it, and his mechanic says it has about a hundred thou still left in it- and also, do not forget that the 240D, a diesel, but a four cylinder nonetheless, is considered one of the longest lasting, reliable cars ever made.
1993 190E 2.3 vs. 2.8 
Because if it's an end life car, I will wait an other bargain 
Thanks again!
Linear Mode
