190e MPG 1.8 Vs 2.0?

[DSM10000]

Update The 190 had a conventional handbrake!

 

[190]

On the 190e 2.0 there was a big difference in gearing between auto and manual. The auto was approx 20 mph/1000 rpm in top gear while the manual was 25 mph/1000 rpm.

I recorded every drop of fuel use in my auto and over 21 years the average was 33.24 mpg. On the motorway it would do low 40's mpg easily enough but around town that would drop as low as 27 mpg. My best tank full did 41.65 mpg and worst 27.46 mpg. Truth is it's not a great auto box. It's bullet proof reliable and smooth but there is no lock up of the torque converter and the ratios are in my opinion poorly chosen. It might be a 4 speed auto but it sets off in 2nd 99.999% of the time. 1st is so low it's only fit for hill starts while towing a caravan which means in practical terms it's a 3 speed auto with all that means for bigger ratio gaps and compromised mph/1000 rpm in top. In mpg terms I regret not buying a manual which I expect would have added 5 mpg and lower cruising revs. I did drive a manual 1.8 and while it wasn't the best quality gear change I think you would get used to it and the performance seemed as good as a 2.0 auto.

The 190 range was the only Mercedes that had a convention hand brake lever so hill starts were not a problem. I believe the following W202 C class models reverted to Mercedes usual foot operated parking brake which would be difficult in manual form.

 

[MichaelMB]

On the 190e 2.0 there was a big difference in gearing between auto and manual. The auto was approx 20 mph/1000 rpm in top gear while the manual was 25 mph/1000 rpm.

I recorded every drop of fuel use in my auto and over 21 years the average was 33.24 mpg. On the motorway it would do low 40's mpg easily enough but around town that would drop as low as 27 mpg. My best tank full did 41.65 mpg and worst 27.46 mpg. Truth is it's not a great auto box. It's bullet proof reliable and smooth but there is no lock up of the torque converter and the ratios are in my opinion poorly chosen. It might be a 4 speed auto but it sets off in 2nd 99.999% of the time. 1st is so low it's only fit for hill starts while towing a caravan which means in practical terms it's a 3 speed auto with all that means for bigger ratio gaps and compromised mph/1000 rpm in top. In mpg terms I regret not buying a manual which I expect would have added 5 mpg and lower cruising revs. I did drive a manual 1.8 and while it wasn't the best quality gear change I think you would get used to it and the performance seemed as good as a 2.0 auto.

The 190 range was the only Mercedes that had a convention hand brake lever so hill starts were not a problem. I believe the following W202 C class models reverted to Mercedes usual foot operated parking brake which would be difficult in manual form.

That's very helpful, thanks. So sounds like I should be less lazy about getting an auto. I will now be more open to the manual!

 

[ChipChop]

Have you considered a w210? Lovely roomy cabin. Most UK models have ac and no sunroof. Great range of 4/6/8 cylinder petrol & diesel engines. Just the rust to worry about.

 

[MichaelMB]

Have you considered a w210? Lovely roomy cabin. Most UK models have ac and no sunroof. Great range of 4/6/8 cylinder petrol & diesel engines. Just the rust to worry about.

Pretty sure it will be a 201. I want a smaller 4 door car and the 201 is more than big enough for our needs and has a great reputation for reasonable maintenance costs, but still having good quality

 

[MichaelMB]

I'm in the market for a 190e and have been targeting the 2.0 auto but a 1991 1.8 manual is in the frame as it meets all my other requirements.

Being manual I realise it will have better MPG than an auto but will the 1.8 have better MPG than the 2.0?

I am retired and no longer a speed merchant, so appreciate fuel economy over acceleration these days!

A 2.3 auto has also cropped up, but from what I can see online, they are a fair bit thirstier?

 

[DSM10000]

My preference is pretty much alway for an automatic

A 2.3 auto has also cropped up, but from what I can see online, they are a fair bit thirstier?

How many miles per year are you covering?

Would a few miles per gallon less make any significant difference if the 2.3 was better equipped and in better condition?

 

[MichaelMB]

My preference is pretty much alway for an automatic

How many miles per year are you covering?

Would a few miles per gallon less make any significant difference if the 2.3 was better equipped and in better condition?

Probably only about 6000 pa. Will look into the 2.3. it seems no better a vehicle and is much cheaper than the 1.8 who's owner now tells me she won't have her new car until February so is in no hurry to sell ....

 

[Bellow]

A 2.3 auto has also cropped up, but from what I can see online, they are a fair bit thirstier?

That'd be my choice. And knowing it existed I'd resent rowing a torqueless 1.8 along on a gearlever connected to a horrible gearbox.
I'd expect the engine be in better shape too, having an easier life.

 

[MichaelMB]

That'd be my choice. And knowing it existed I'd resent rowing a torqueless 1.8 along on a gearlever connected to a horrible gearbox.
I'd expect the engine be in better shape too, having an easier life.

I am odd, I don't too much mind paying top whack for a tidy, rust free example of just what I want but resent paying too much at the pumps or indeed road tax.... though VED is probably the same for 1.8 and 2.3, I had better look!

 

[Bellow]

I am odd, I don't too much mind paying top whack for a tidy, rust free example of just what I want but resent paying too much at the pumps or indeed road tax.... though VED is probably the same for 1.8 and 2.3, I had better look!

How it drives matters too. A Mercedes should be effortless - not a chore.

 

[MichaelMB]

How it drives matters too. A Mercedes should be effortless - not a chore.

Yes, part of the ethos. Have you experienced the smaller engined 190s as a chore? I drove a couple of father's diesel auto W123 estates and they were OK (and much praised) but I found the steering very vague around the centre position on both. Better than my 1965 Landrover had been, but not by much!

 

[Bellow]

Yes, part of the ethos. Have you experienced the smaller engined 190s as a chore? I drove a couple of father's diesel auto W123 estates and they were OK (and much praised) but I found the steering very vague around the centre position on both. Better than my 1965 Landrover had been, but not by much!

No, I've not driven any 190 though I did have W123 auto with the same (but carbed) engine as fitted to the 190 so I'm talking more in generalities. I used to drive vans with the same diesel engine as fitted in the W123 and it was hard work but in a lighter car it would fare better. If the car has the same gearbox then hard work - I was getting paid to endure it. The 190s I think have a different and better diesel engine.
Personally, if I was considering a 190 I'd be torn between the 260 or the 230 (I didn't think there was officially a 190 with a 2.3l ) both in auto. Just my preference - a torquier motor and auto transmission (Scotland is a hilly place). We all have different priorities though.

 

[Will]

Really is no point whatsoever worrying about fuel on a 30 plus year old car that will only cover 6k miles PA.

It’ll likely cost more in repairs and maintenance than you’d spend in petrol.

The 1.8 and 2.0 use the same cylinder head and same gasket. They’re both vulnerable. Later cars (inc the 1.8) seems more prone to this though. Not a huge problem if you catch it early although expensive if you’re paying for someone else’s time to do the work. If they’ve been left with a leaky gasket for too long the cylinder head will likely be scrap due to corrosion.

The 8-valve 2.3 190E was never sold in the UK, only ones available will be imports.

Air con is rare and unlikely to be working unless it’s had a major overhaul these days. Possibly more common to find on non-UK cars? Options were expensive on these relative to the value of the cars when new.

If you find a car that ticks your boxes you’d be best off buying it. Very few 190Es in genuinely good (ie rust free!) order these days.

 

[Will]

I’d buy a six cylinder 190E or W124 with auto box and in good condition and not worry about the fuel costs if looking for an 80s designed MB. The 4-cylinder cars are very slow today and if you’re genuinely doing 6k miles PA they will be unpleasant to drive nowadays, they were slow 20 years ago!

A 1.5L C200 is nicer to drive, more reliable, quicker, more comfortable, cheaper on fuel, cheaper on tax, safer, better specified, better availability of parts, lower maintenance costs etc - what is your criteria again?

 

[MichaelMB]

Really is no point whatsoever worrying about fuel on a 30 plus year old car that will only cover 6k miles PA.

It’ll likely cost more in repairs and maintenance than you’d spend in petrol.

The 1.8 and 2.0 use the same cylinder head and same gasket. They’re both vulnerable. Later cars (inc the 1.8) seems more prone to this though. Not a huge problem if you catch it early although expensive if you’re paying for someone else’s time to do the work. If they’ve been left with a leaky gasket for too long the cylinder head will likely be scrap due to corrosion.

The 8-valve 2.3 190E was never sold in the UK, only ones available will be imports.

Air con is rare and unlikely to be working unless it’s had a major overhaul these days. Possibly more common to find on non-UK cars? Options were expensive on these relative to the value of the cars when new.

If you find a car that ticks your boxes you’d be best off buying it. Very few 190Es in genuinely good (ie rust free!) order these days.

Thanks. I have been happy to change head gaskets on simple 70s cars. Did my Volvo 144 between breakfast and driving to work! Had a Bristol 401 and learned not to touch its head. 190s I don't yet know but might well give it a go.
Yes, do worry that the Jap import 2.3 auto could be tricky for engine parts. Hear clutches for manual 2.3 are hard to find. Good air con seems to be on imports. Good helpful advice, thanks

 

[Bellow]

Thanks to Will for clarifying the 230 position.

Thanks. I have been happy to change head gaskets on simple 70s cars. Did my Volvo 144 between breakfast and driving to work! Had a Bristol 401 and learned not to touch its head. 190s I don't yet know but might well give it a go.

I watched a mate do the job on his 2.0l 190. Pretty straightforward as I recall - but the cam timing is obviously disturbed and has to be retimed correctly - I doubt that it would phase you.

Yes, do worry that the Jap import 2.3 auto could be tricky for engine parts.

Same engine as W123 and 124?

 

[Will]

Thanks. I have been happy to change head gaskets on simple 70s cars. Did my Volvo 144 between breakfast and driving to work! Had a Bristol 401 and learned not to touch its head. 190s I don't yet know but might well give it a go.
Yes, do worry that the Jap import 2.3 auto could be tricky for engine parts. Hear clutches for manual 2.3 are hard to find. Good air con seems to be on imports. Good helpful advice, thanks

Engine parts for the import 2.3 will be fine, it’s the same basic engine (M102) as the others (1.8, 2.0) and was used/sold in other MBs in the UK regardless. Can’t see why the clutch would be hard to find? And they very rarely will need replacement.

Head gaskets are relatively simple to do but you would need to understand how to remove the chain tensioner, guide pins etc and you need to be scrupulous regarding the whole job to do it properly. I have done quite a few of these over the years but just think old cars like this would be a bit of a headache for daily use.

With the greatest of respect I think you’re over-analysing all of this, over-worrying It doesn’t sound like you’ll be using it that much and if you are/were then there are better suited cars as already mentioned!

 

[MichaelMB]

I’d buy a six cylinder 190E or W124 with auto box and in good condition and not worry about the fuel costs if looking for an 80s designed MB. The 4-cylinder cars are very slow today and if you’re genuinely doing 6k miles PA they will be unpleasant to drive nowadays, they were slow 20 years ago!

A 1.5L C200 is nicer to drive, more reliable, quicker, more comfortable, cheaper on fuel, cheaper on tax, safer, better specified, better availability of parts, lower maintenance costs etc - what is your criteria again?

I'm looking for a fairly short, good quality 4 door saloon. Over engineered and reasonable to maintain. Factory rather than dealer fit aircon. No sunroof. Prefer auto but not vital. Power steering. If 190 then EFI or diesel with duplex cam chain. No rust. Oriented towards fuel economy rather than speed. Colour suited to muddy rural life, definitely not black. I ask a lot but will get there!

 

[MichaelMB]

Engine parts for the import 2.3 will be fine, it’s the same basic engine (M102) as the others (1.8, 2.0) and was used/sold in other MBs in the UK regardless. Can’t see why the clutch would be hard to find? And they very rarely will need replacement.

Head gaskets are relatively simple to do but you would need to understand how to remove the chain tensioner, guide pins etc and you need to be scrupulous regarding the whole job to do it properly. I have done quite a few of these over the years but just think old cars like this would be a bit of a headache for daily use.

With the greatest of respect I think you’re over-analysing all of this, over-worrying It doesn’t sound like you’ll be using it that much and if you are/were then there are better suited cars as already mentioned!

I am over analysing, my partner assures me that I am autistic as well as a pita