grober
MB Master
The 190E 2.3-16 was introduced at the FRANKFURT SHOW in 1983, but full production was not started till September 1984 due to difficulties with the special Cosworth cylinder head castings. 
Production of RHD versions was further delayed till Autumn 1985 while the complex tubular exhaust manifold necessary for rhd cars to avoid the steering box was redesigned. 
This complex bit of plumbing continued to give problems in early cars with failures quite common until a strengthened version was produced. To be honest there's little to choose between the earlier 2.3-16v and 2.5-16v cars in that the design changed very little except for the option of an automatic box in the later 2.5 cars. A well looked after early 2.3 is going to be as good a buy as a late 2.5-16v 
Production of RHD versions was further delayed till Autumn 1985 while the complex tubular exhaust manifold necessary for rhd cars to avoid the steering box was redesigned. This complex bit of plumbing continued to give problems in early cars with failures quite common until a strengthened version was produced. To be honest there's little to choose between the earlier 2.3-16v and 2.5-16v cars in that the design changed very little except for the option of an automatic box in the later 2.5 cars. A well looked after early 2.3 is going to be as good a buy as a late 2.5-16v The 2.3's have a simplex chain so are more prone to breaking than the 2.5's with the duplex chain.
But i certainly wouldn't say it was an issue as such. If the 2.3's are well serviced with regular oil changes etc then the chain can last the life of the car without problems. Most failures(simplex and duplex)are down to worn guides and tensioners. The main cause of this can also be put down to bad irregular maintenance.
The chains stretch over the years and the tensioner is meant to take up the slack. If the tensioner fails due to bad maintenance then that can and probably will lead to chain failure.
The best thing to do is check the chain, tensioner and guides. If all are OK then there isn't much to worry about.
In all my years of owning 190's and being involved in Mercedes forums such as this and over on the 190 forum i have only ever come across 1 case of a 190 timing chain snapping. And that was on a 2.5-16 with the duplex chain!
I'm not fully up on the reasons why but the engine had recently had head work done so i expect the chain had not been fitted correctly.
My 2.3-16 still has it's original chain at 167.000+ miles and is in perfectly good condition.
But i certainly wouldn't say it was an issue as such. If the 2.3's are well serviced with regular oil changes etc then the chain can last the life of the car without problems. Most failures(simplex and duplex)are down to worn guides and tensioners. The main cause of this can also be put down to bad irregular maintenance.
The chains stretch over the years and the tensioner is meant to take up the slack. If the tensioner fails due to bad maintenance then that can and probably will lead to chain failure.
The best thing to do is check the chain, tensioner and guides. If all are OK then there isn't much to worry about.
In all my years of owning 190's and being involved in Mercedes forums such as this and over on the 190 forum i have only ever come across 1 case of a 190 timing chain snapping. And that was on a 2.5-16 with the duplex chain!
I'm not fully up on the reasons why but the engine had recently had head work done so i expect the chain had not been fitted correctly.
My 2.3-16 still has it's original chain at 167.000+ miles and is in perfectly good condition.
The earliest 2.3-16s you'll likely find will be '86/C, although there were a tiny number produced on 'B' plates over here. Quite long order times for these cars it seemed, on my old 2.3-16 that was registered in January 1987, the original order sheet was from late 1985.
As Neil says, automatic transmission was an option for the 2.3-16, although the especially revvy/peaky nature of the 2.3 engine made for a less suitable match than the later 2.5-16, and hence the 2.3-16 Auto is a rare car - perhaps a special order even, but I have certainly seen a handful
Many 2.3-16s suffered chain issues over the years, I can recall several cars and people who have had such problems. The main issue was the tensioner design - MB later improved the tensioner to reduce the amount of slack on the chain upon start up (they have a one-way ratcheting design to maintain tension at rest). If the chain has been running worn for any length of time, chances are that the sprockets and guides will be knackered - you're looking at well over £1k in parts alone, and the entire timing case will need to be removed to gain access - not a pleasant job and ££££s of work at a specialist. Several people have replaced the simplex chain and sprockets for the stronger and more reliable duplex chain system at this stage - you wouldn't want to do that job twice.
A good many cars have been written off due to simplex chains snapping, the damage caused by such an incident can lead to a bill of several thousand ££££s - very important to check for wear and be aware of any unusual noises. IMHO, in view of the relatively low cost, I'd replace the simplex chain at around 60-100k miles, and definately replace the tensioner if of the earlier design.
Generally, I'd say you've got more chance in finding a well maintained and non-rusty 2.5 over a 2.3, due to age if nothing else! The later 2.5 cars have a bit more power and noticably better midrange, although the character of the earlier 2.3 is perhaps a little more 'raw'. 2.5-16 also gets slightly more standard equipment (ASD, rear headrests) as well as two other colour options - Almandine red and Astral silver.
At the end of the day though, these are all old cars now - anything from ~ 17-25+ years old. Originality, body condition and documentation/history would be more important than age/mileage itself. Most of these cars have suffered from abuse and poor maintenance by now, so you're in for a battle if you're keen to hunt a good one down. After my first 2.3-16 that I sold on, it took me nearly two years to find a suitable replacement
Great cars though - miss mine immensely at times, a fanstastic driving package with plenty of classic appeal in the making
IMHO, it's worth paying a lot more for a good one, if you can. £5-10k+ is where the really nice cars are, full MBSH/specialist history, lower miles, 3/4 owners etc - a better long term bet than a cheaper car which invariably will cost a lot more to run during your ownership. Parts and maintenance for these cars wasn't cheap 5-10 years ago - now they're getting on a bit, spares are getting harder to find and the typical cars are more tired/tatty - hence you can spend ££££s on bringing an average example up to scratch.
Been there, got the T-shirts
All IMHO and experience of course, and not intended to upset anyone
Will
As Neil says, automatic transmission was an option for the 2.3-16, although the especially revvy/peaky nature of the 2.3 engine made for a less suitable match than the later 2.5-16, and hence the 2.3-16 Auto is a rare car - perhaps a special order even, but I have certainly seen a handful
Many 2.3-16s suffered chain issues over the years, I can recall several cars and people who have had such problems. The main issue was the tensioner design - MB later improved the tensioner to reduce the amount of slack on the chain upon start up (they have a one-way ratcheting design to maintain tension at rest). If the chain has been running worn for any length of time, chances are that the sprockets and guides will be knackered - you're looking at well over £1k in parts alone, and the entire timing case will need to be removed to gain access - not a pleasant job and ££££s of work at a specialist. Several people have replaced the simplex chain and sprockets for the stronger and more reliable duplex chain system at this stage - you wouldn't want to do that job twice.
A good many cars have been written off due to simplex chains snapping, the damage caused by such an incident can lead to a bill of several thousand ££££s - very important to check for wear and be aware of any unusual noises. IMHO, in view of the relatively low cost, I'd replace the simplex chain at around 60-100k miles, and definately replace the tensioner if of the earlier design.
Generally, I'd say you've got more chance in finding a well maintained and non-rusty 2.5 over a 2.3, due to age if nothing else! The later 2.5 cars have a bit more power and noticably better midrange, although the character of the earlier 2.3 is perhaps a little more 'raw'. 2.5-16 also gets slightly more standard equipment (ASD, rear headrests) as well as two other colour options - Almandine red and Astral silver.
At the end of the day though, these are all old cars now - anything from ~ 17-25+ years old. Originality, body condition and documentation/history would be more important than age/mileage itself. Most of these cars have suffered from abuse and poor maintenance by now, so you're in for a battle if you're keen to hunt a good one down. After my first 2.3-16 that I sold on, it took me nearly two years to find a suitable replacement
Great cars though - miss mine immensely at times, a fanstastic driving package with plenty of classic appeal in the making
IMHO, it's worth paying a lot more for a good one, if you can. £5-10k+ is where the really nice cars are, full MBSH/specialist history, lower miles, 3/4 owners etc - a better long term bet than a cheaper car which invariably will cost a lot more to run during your ownership. Parts and maintenance for these cars wasn't cheap 5-10 years ago - now they're getting on a bit, spares are getting harder to find and the typical cars are more tired/tatty - hence you can spend ££££s on bringing an average example up to scratch.
Been there, got the T-shirts
All IMHO and experience of course, and not intended to upset anyone
Will
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
