Well...... you might just count the cylinders..... last time I looked, a 2.2D has 4 of them..... the
2.5 has 5!
> I have a 1984 190D. The engine has been replaced and I do not know if
> it is a 2.2 like was originally in it or if it was upgraded to a 2.5.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Thanks,
> David
Pretty funny.
I can't come up with a witty enough response based on your obvious
observation from the information I provided...
I was told that the car doesn't have the original 2.2 and that it was
upgraded to a 2.5. Yes, I guess the 2.5 was a 5 cyclinder and the
engine in there is only an underpowered 4. Was there anything above a
2.2 that was still a 4 cyclinder that fit into a 1984 190D, like a 2.3
or 2.4? I don't remember either of those. Maybe it is just a 2.2 in
there...
Thanks
David
Karl - 27 Apr 2006 02:45 GMT
No larger engines in the 601 series.
Sorry. No witty answer this time:)
> Pretty funny.
> I can't come up with a witty enough response based on your obvious
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thanks
> David
Wan-ning Tan - 28 Apr 2006 05:17 GMT
In US market, the 4 cylinder diesel fitted in 190D (W201) is only 2.2.
There is a 2.3 gas engine. Later model years have a 2.5 diesel (5 cyl.,
don't remember with or w/o turbo), or 2.6 gas (6 cyl.)
The 2.2 diesel is the simplest (in control). Switching to any other
requires different wiring/cluster/vacuum. Also, I think the
transmission and possibly the rear axle need to match to maintain the
power/driving characteristic.
In my opinion, it is less work/money to find another 190 with the
engine/power you want. However, once I am used to the 2.2 (I have the
84 too), it does not bother me at all. It starts slow but does not go
that slow. Also, counting its 30+ mpg, what else can combine
luxury/reliability/economy together like 190D 2.2?
> Pretty funny.
> I can't come up with a witty enough response based on your obvious
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Thanks
> David