Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

190E  2.3 vs. 2.6

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Paddington - 05 Jun 2005 03:03 GMT
Is there a noticeable difference between these two engines as far as power,
performance, smoothness, reliability, etc etc. . Is it worth holding out for
a 2.6 over the 2.3? Just curious...
CaptainW116 - 05 Jun 2005 04:32 GMT
2.6 is more silky but thats about it! No real noticable differences
besides this! Driving these
W201s' are a lot different than your Porsche 944,
as they are not high performance machines and
are not tuned as so,so just about anything you
test drive on this level will never measure up unless
you find a W201 EVO then you are up for a for a
ride that will make you salivate!Oh yeah!!!!!!!!!
Al Abbasi - 05 Jun 2005 06:08 GMT
2.6 is an in-line six and hence smoother. Its also more powerful. Both
should be cheap nowadays
> Is there a noticeable difference between these two engines as far as power,
> performance, smoothness, reliability, etc etc. . Is it worth holding out for
> a 2.6 over the 2.3? Just curious...
Peter W Peternouschek - 05 Jun 2005 06:08 GMT
The 2.6 is a little more difficult to work on. The six is longer and is
shoe-horned into the 201 chassis. For example replacement of the  belt
tensioner requires removal of the radiator.
Peter

> Is there a noticeable difference between these two engines as far as power,
> performance, smoothness, reliability, etc etc. . Is it worth holding out for
> a 2.6 over the 2.3? Just curious...
cp - 05 Jun 2005 07:24 GMT
> Is there a noticeable difference between these two engines as far as power,
> performance, smoothness, reliability, etc etc. . Is it worth holding out for
> a 2.6 over the 2.3? Just curious...

The w201 is a small car, a 2.3 is more than adequate enough for it. It's even quite good in a w124 with manual transmission. My
brother had a w124 5spd with a 2.6 and it would drive over 120mph up mountain highways here in BC. In a w201 it would be a rocket,
as a friend said who owned one. Keep your Porsche for the fast driving and get a sensible benz for your everyday commuting, better
to wait out for one in good condition. Better to pay upfront for something exceptional than attempting to fix up a beater.

cp
Lee - 05 Jun 2005 21:32 GMT
Why not go for the 190-2.5 16v. Lumpy idle but fast. Reliable if it's been
looked after. Should be good for over 140mph and power slides.
>> Is there a noticeable difference between these two engines as far as
>> power,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> cp
cp - 06 Jun 2005 05:40 GMT
> Why not go for the 190-2.5 16v. Lumpy idle but fast. Reliable if it's been looked after. Should be good for over 140mph and power
> slides.

The guy's got a Porsche :-)

I wouldn't mind one if I lived in Europe, there's quite a bit of them there.

http://tinyurl.com/c5tkm

Though 140mph is not fast enough for me, I've driven faster in diesels :-) . No use for a car like that in the US unless you live
near a raceway or are not afraid of being arrested :\

What was the last year of the 16v? My father or myself might go to Europe later in the summer, always brings some cars back, a 16v
would be more interesting than a diesel westfalia like last time :)

Is there an interested in these cars on this continent? Would an American be allowed to buy one from Europe? hmmm could make it an
ebay business...

cp
CaptainW116 - 06 Jun 2005 08:57 GMT
Damn,what kind of diesel do you drive,a Mercedes Benz C-111/III ?
140 mph plus in a diesel does not sound safe and
all that racket,sheeezzz!
Kevin Rhodes - 06 Jun 2005 18:25 GMT
>Damn,what kind of diesel do you drive,a Mercedes Benz C-111/III ?
>140 mph plus in a diesel does not sound safe and
>all that racket,sheeezzz!

Most any modern high end German diesel will go 140mph. Some are considerably
faster. I think the top-spec MB S-class, BMW 7 and Audi A8 diesels are all
limited to 155mph. Unlimited, maybe 160? The VW Pheaton with the 330hp V10
would probably go 175mph without the limiter.  Heck, even a top spec VW Golf
TDI will go 145mph or so. Of course, the only one of the above that is sold in
the US is the MB E320(?), that is still good for 140+, even in US spec.

I owned a US-spec 2002 VW Golf TDI, 90hp version. It would go an indicated
115mph all day long, and dead quiet too. Top spec in Europe in the same car is
now 185hp I believe.

Kevin Rhodes
Westbrook, Maine
CaptainW116 - 06 Jun 2005 19:24 GMT
Sorry,but I'm not that diesel savvy! Do modern diesels use the power
steering pump for the supply
of vacumm for power brakes still?This is what I mean as far as
unsafe.That would be a bad day indeed if power steering belt flew off
at such great
speeds and have to stop in a hurry.DOA!!!
Lee - 06 Jun 2005 21:42 GMT
I don't recall any Merc's that used the PAS pump for vacuum. They either
have a vacuum pump driven off the engine directly or they use the
Sensotronic Braking System. (I only go back as far as W123's)
> Sorry,but I'm not that diesel savvy! Do modern diesels use the power
> steering pump for the supply
> of vacumm for power brakes still?This is what I mean as far as
> unsafe.That would be a bad day indeed if power steering belt flew off
> at such great
> speeds and have to stop in a hurry.DOA!!!
cp - 07 Jun 2005 01:26 GMT
> Damn,what kind of diesel do you drive,a Mercedes Benz C-111/III ?
Heck no, but my 300D has the same engine! :-) (or similar)

> 140 mph plus in a diesel does not sound safe and

Modern diesels

>all that racket,sheeezzz!

:-))))

cp
cp - 07 Jun 2005 01:28 GMT
> Damn,what kind of diesel do you drive,a Mercedes Benz C-111/III ?

The last generation of 7 series BMWs had a diesel model which went almost 190mph.
cp
cp - 07 Jun 2005 01:37 GMT
There's even an AMG Diesel, here from Juergen's site

http://www.mbspy.com/w203c30.htm

Also, SLK diesel

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=2242

> Damn,what kind of diesel do you drive,a Mercedes Benz C-111/III ?
> 140 mph plus in a diesel does not sound safe and
> all that racket,sheeezzz!
phillip67 - 21 Nov 2005 01:55 GMT
could any one tell me how to take off the cylinder head on a 2.3 190E 1985
step by step instructions please i have took the head bolts out and it
still wont come off and the bolts to the alternator and thermostat housing
off thank you
OM - 07 Jun 2005 22:45 GMT
[snip]
> What was the last year of the 16v? My father or myself might go to Europe later in the summer, always brings some cars back, a 16v
> would be more interesting than a diesel westfalia like last time :)
>
> Is there an interested in these cars on this continent? Would an American be allowed to buy one from Europe? hmmm could make it an
> ebay business...

The short answer is yes but with conditions.

You are allowed to import the non-US compliant vehicles to the USA, BUT
you cannot drive or register the vehicle yet. The registered importers
ought to sort the paperwork on your behalf for ridiculous amount of
money. The compliance process is not cheap, especially for vehicles
never been imported to the USA, namely 190E 2,5-16 EVO.

1. If the vehicle is not on the NHTSA list of approved vehicles and
their variants, you must  petition for the approval to homologate your
non-US compliant vehicle to meet the DOT and EPA regulations.
2. If the vehicle is approved, you must enlist the registered importer
to release it from US Customs stranglehold, er, I mean, hold.
3. The registered importer must do all of compliance work in accordance
to the FMVSS108 for the build year: the list is quite long.
4. In addition, the registered importer must certify that the motor and
its ancillaries meet EPA pollution regulations for the build year.
5. You can always convert the vehicle back to its original ECE version
once US Customs cleared the paperwork and once the vehicle is registered
with the state DMV agency. Make sure the registered importer agreed to
retain all of original components and turn them over to you.

OR

You can wait five more years for the exempt on 1985 model as NHTSA
allows the vehicles 25-year-old or older to bypass the compulsory safety
regulations, BUT EPA will say, 'not so fast'. You must certify that the
vehicle meets the EPA regulation for the build year.

OR

You can push the Congress to repeal the silly laws that created NHTSA.
Congress is looking into the issue whether NHTSA is serving the public
safety or not. We need to demand that US become the signatory member of
ECE international automotive safety regulations. NHTSA has been a tragic
mistake since its creation in the late 1960s and has failed the public
many times over.

Oliver
cp - 08 Jun 2005 04:47 GMT
hmmmmm I'm saving this, thanks!

It's so much simpler in Canada; you can import any car as long as it is 15 years old.

cp

> [snip]
>> What was the last year of the 16v? My father or myself might go to Europe later in the summer, always brings some cars back, a
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Oliver
OM - 10 Jun 2005 21:13 GMT
One way to do is to register the vehicle in Canada and make the annual
visit to Canada to update the registration and numberplates. That is if
you are Canadian or have Canadian residence. However, some states
require you to register in their home state within 30 days. That might
be a problem, especially in Colorado where the police is on look-out.
I've never done this or heard of others venturing into that endeavour.
However, I've seen lot of non-US compliant vehicles with US state
numberplates, namely smart cars in California and Colorado. I had no
success in prying the utmost secret from the owners on how they were
able to obtain the American numberplates for their vehicles.

> hmmmmm I'm saving this, thanks!
>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>>
>>Oliver
Kevin Rhodes - 10 Jun 2005 21:39 GMT
>One way to do is to register the vehicle in Canada and make the annual
>visit to Canada to update the registration and numberplates. That is if
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>success in prying the utmost secret from the owners on how they were
>able to obtain the American numberplates for their vehicles.

One shortcut is that Maine (VT too, I think)  will accept a Canadian title to
register a car newer than 15 years, and does not require a title at all for a
car older than 15 years. Drive across the border, register in Maine, register
in your home state. Not that I would erver have done such a thing for any of
my Saab Club buddies, no sir, no way! :-)

Kevin Rhodes
Westbrook, ME
Cosworth - 08 Jun 2005 17:22 GMT
>> Why not go for the 190-2.5 16v. Lumpy idle but fast. Reliable if it's
>> been looked after. Should be good for over 140mph and power slides.
>
> The guy's got a Porsche :-)

So?  ;-)  A 944 is nice, but a 190E 2.3-16 will outperform it (or at least
hold its own), seat four (a little) more comfortably, look better (personal
opinion), hold its value better, and be a less common sight on the street.
Oh - and my idle is rock solid.

> What was the last year of the 16v? My father or myself might go to Europe
> later in the summer, always brings some cars back, a 16v would be more
> interesting than a diesel westfalia like last time :)

The 2.3-16 was inported to the US in '86 and '87.  In Europe, the
displacement was then raised to 2.5 liters and eventually the Evo and Evo II
were produced as homologation specials, in production runs of 502 cars each.
I believe '92 was the last year of production.  None of the 2.5 liter
16-valve cars were ever officially imported to the US.

> Is there an interested in these cars on this continent? Would an American
> be allowed to buy one from Europe? hmmm could make it an ebay business...

There is a thiving 16-valve community on the 'net.  EPA and DOT make it
extremely difficult to import any of the European spec 2.5-16s.  The 2.5-16
wasn't much faster than the 2.3-16, so it's really not worth the trouble.
If you got your hands on one of the Evos, that would be another story, but I
know of no one who has managed to get one federalized for street use.  There
are a couple of them in the states, but they are not street legal and are
only used on the track.

Bill Balmer
190E 2.3-16
first 16V in the US
featured in Car & Driver , March 1986
Paddington - 09 Jun 2005 01:52 GMT
"Cosworth" <billbalmer@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message \

> So?  ;-)  A 944 is nice, but a 190E 2.3-16 will outperform it (or at least
> hold its own)

How wrong you are, let me count the ways...the 2.3-16 pulled an anemic .78g
on the skid  pad (R&T) while the 944 pulled .91g. The 944 was the best
handling car you  could purchase ON THE PLANET in the 80's and to some
extent the early 90's.  In a straight line, you could only hope to beat an
old 8-valve N/A 944 because you would be embarrassed by an old S, S2 or
Turbo.

>hold its value better

I ran several tests...first comparing comparably equipped 1987 2.3-16 and a
1987 944S. According to nada.com the 1987 944S costs $3900 in poor condition
up to $6250 for excellent condition.  I gave the 2.3-16 the same features
such as  leather, sunroof and alloy wheels that came stock on the 944 and
the 2.3-16 is valued at $3400 in poor condition and only $5500 for
excellent. The average price for the 2.3-16 was only $4600, vs. $5250 for
the 944S.

Then the final real world test. I searched at Autotrader for the entire
scope of 1987 2.3-16...the average price...$3407, using the exact same
criteria, the 1987 944 average price was $7069.  Until the 968 got a
bit long in the tooth by 1995, you could not and cannot get more sports car
value for the money than a 944, period.

Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just fighting off baseless
comments.
cp - 09 Jun 2005 06:37 GMT
> How wrong you are, let me count the ways...the 2.3-16 pulled an anemic .78g
> on the skid  pad (R&T) while the 944 pulled .91g. The 944 was the best

I think he was talking about a non-turbo :)

How are the late 80's tubo 944, reliable and robust?

cp
cp - 09 Jun 2005 06:38 GMT
> Not trying to start a flame war or anything, just fighting off baseless
> comments.

Gotta love people that are religious about their cars!

cp
CaptainW116 - 09 Jun 2005 07:02 GMT
959 vs. 944Turbo?
cp - 09 Jun 2005 06:36 GMT
> The 2.3-16 was inported to the US in '86 and '87.  In Europe, the displacement was then raised to 2.5 liters and eventually the
> Evo and Evo II were produced as homologation specials, in production runs of 502 cars each. I believe '92 was the last year of
> production.  None of the 2.5 liter 16-valve cars were ever officially imported to the US.

hmmm lucky us here in Canada, we can get this car :-)

> There is a thiving 16-valve community on the 'net.  EPA and DOT make it extremely difficult to import any of the European spec
> 2.5-16s.  The 2.5-16 wasn't much faster than the 2.3-16, so it's really not worth the trouble. If you got your hands on one of the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> first 16V in the US
> featured in Car & Driver , March 1986

Wow! What's the max speed on those things? From experience the manufacturer max speed listings always seem to be lower :)

cp
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.