(first posted 12/13/2017) If the average age of cars on the road is creeping upward, it’s difficult to notice in Upper Arlington, the wealthy Columbus, Ohio suburb where I unexpectedly found this Mercedes 190E. My pictures neither accurately represent the vast number of late model European SUVs which have replaced cars like this in the area nor do justice to its stunning condition. With only 50,000 miles on the odometer, it’s easy to imagine this 1984 or 1985 model belongs to one of the shrewd, well-heeled seniors slowly leaving the area and was quite possibly its owner’s final nice car purchase.
Many such people in the area have left behind beautifully preserved homes over the past decade, which are often gutted in favor of garish makeovers by the wealthy young families buying them, if not razed altogether to build new, oversized houses on their now valuable lots. In a similar fashion, the historical value of this functional, and now classic, Benz regularly goes unrecognized. Let’s not commit a similar sin in overlooking what an important car it was, both for the marque, and the industry as a whole.
Designated within Daimler-Benz as W201, six years were spent creating the 1982 190, using an egalitarian approach to engineering, ensuring that the same degree of detail and thorough development that distinguished Mercedes’ larger models went into their newest, least expensive offering. Making the most of this investment, the company applied the fresh technology that debuted in the “Baby Benz” to subsequent redesigns of more expensive models. This trickle-up approach prevented the car from becoming an expensive adventure in the vein of GM’s Y-body compacts (were GM wise enough to use that car’s aluminum engine blocks, independent rear suspension and unit bodies in their mid and full-sized models, Mercedes might have had a very different history).
What also makes this car important-besides the introduction of new technology which would ultimately receive fame in the company’s more expensive models is its styling. It defines its maker’s aesthetic sensibility as practiced under chief stylist Bruno Sacco and, indeed, is mentioned as his favorite achievement. Sacco succeeded Friedrich Geiger as head of design in the early seventies, but remained confined both by the brand’s evolutionary styling framework and by long gestational periods for upcoming models. So, while his name may have been attached to the W123 and W126, it was likely only with the W201 that his hand was free to pen the shape he truly wanted.
What he and his team created is by all accounts a successful design, looking at once athletic and modern without conceding any bit of poise or dignity. There is clear influence of the C111 gullwing concept car, with flat, planar surfaces, a distinct wedge shape and obvious attention to aerodynamics. This is most evident in the beveled, tapering edges of the short, tall decklid and in the frames of the flush side windows.
At the same time that it was very new looking when compared with the company’s previous efforts, it remained appropriate to the era and maintained its contemporary image years later. Management was suitably pleased as Sacco remained in charge of styling well into the ‘90s, with the attractive (and highly flawed) W210 being his last car. Only when Mercedes introduced the W221 (2006 S-class) did we see a genuine break from styling in Sacco’s idiom
Despite its success in design, however, the car failed to make a splash in the United States. While the same styling and engineering informed W124’s success in the American market, the W201 itself was a victim of both its marketing position and overall sophistication.
For starters, its dynamic excellence was too subtle to appreciate. Mercedes had always favored stability and control in high-speed and/or rough conditions over sheer agility or comfort. In the days before stability and traction control, successfully achieving this was a considerable accomplishment. With the aim of maintaining traditional Mercedes traits in a compact package, slow-ratio recirculating ball steering, fed through a gigantic wheel, remained along with disciplined damping. As with other models, a long wheelbase, soft bushings, generous suspension travel and amply padded, coil-sprung seats were used to take the edge off the ride. On sixteen valve models, the addition of hydropneumatic damping for the rear axle-previously only available on station wagons and high-end S-class models-helped remove whatever harshness remained in the chassis.
At the front end, MacPherson struts were adopted for the first time, allowing ample space for powertrain componentry and crumple zone deformation in the new, compact car. Additional wheel location was provided by generously sized lower wishbones directly mounted to the body using two large bushings. As was standard practice for the company, springs were mounted separately, inboard of the damper units, in the front suspension and also, for the first time, at the rear axle. This more expensive and uncommon approach aids in the packaging of components, allowing greater travel and, I suspect, reduces potential for bounce by affording greater leverage to the dampers, mounted several inches outboard of their associated springs.
Most significantly, the camber and toe changes theretofore associated with independent rear suspension didn’t affect the car. Instead of relying on commonly used semi-trailing arms, Mercedes debuted a radical multilink axle in which five control links mounted to a subframe located the rear wheels through bushings of varying stiffness. At any position within their considerable travel, varying degrees of load could be placed upon these links to locate the wheels such that they always remained perpendicular to the road surface, irrespective of forces acting upon the car. It was a revelation in its time and has become standard practice today.
Unfortunately, instead of applying the new five-link rear axle’s optimized geometry and resultant greater margin of safety to allow for sharpen turn-in and greater throttle adjustability, it was fully used to further enhance the brand’s characteristic unflappability. This meant that, for those who could appreciate Mercedes’ approach and afford Mercedes’ prices, the car was very secure and relaxing to pilot in all conditions. The ultimate result, however, was less than exciting for the casual enthusiast, who had his or her choice of more wieldy, overtly sporting cars among the competition.
If chassis design and exterior styling belonged to a machine light years ahead of other sedans, powertrains reflected early 1980s engineering. Original offerings in the US consisted of a 2.2 liter diesel with 72 horsepower in the 190D and a 2.3 liter four cylinder in the 190E, with a crossflow aluminum head. As it lacked a turbo, acceleration with the 2.2 diesel was glacial, with sixty mph coming up in about nineteen seconds with either transmission. The first-ever fully enclosed engine compartment earned the 190D the nickname “whispering diesel,” but it remained an offering for the diesel faithful or the exceptionally stingy, as the 2.3 was far from a gas guzzler and, offered considerably more performance from its 113 (eventually 130) horsepower. But, while torquey and durable, it was a gritty, uncharismatic unit, with a 5800 rpm redline. The recalcitrant manual transmission and downshift-averse, hydraulically controlled automatic did the engines no favors. As the market was overcoming fear of fuel shortages rival manufacturers offered competition that was often faster, if less efficient.
Mercedes kept juggling its powertrain offerings, betraying its panic over the car’s flagging success in the US market. A 90 horsepower, 2.5 liter five-cylinder replaced the 2.2 for 1986, accompanied in 1987 by a highly desirable turbocharged variant with 122 hp, which was inexplicably discontinued after only one year. The engine continued, sans turbo, before Mercedes dropped the 190D from its US lineup altogether in 1990. The dated 2.3-liter four, discontinued one year earlier, was reintroduced in 1991 in the interest of lowering the car’s starting price, having learned very little over its two-year sabbatical.
The excellent, Cosworth manufactured 2.3-16 valve arrived in 1986 but was significantly detuned in US form, and with 167 horses, not powerful enough to justify its considerable expense at 35,000 1986 dollars. It too was discontinued following the 1987 model year, during which the 158-hp 2.6 six from the 260E was shoehorned into the car, requiring a redesign of the radiator support. Though seemingly not part of the initial plan for the 190, it most effectively suited the car’s character, offering smoothness and a steady, even spread of power.
Whether the 2.6 was successful in aiding the 190’s reputation for indifferent performance is less certain. Mercedes kept updating the car until its eventual retirement; lowering the ride height and adding lower body cladding for 1989; adding ABS and a driver’s airbag for 1986 and, in 1992 and 1993, offering a rare and appealing Sportline option for the 2.6, with firmer suspension, 205mm wide tires, larger seat bolters and a faster steering ratio. But by the late 1980s, there was a host of compelling and more powerful options for less money. This constituted the most significant challenge the W201 faced in the US.
This shouldn’t be taken to mean the 190 didn’t offer its own unique host of virtues. On the contrary, Mercedes offered a combination of compactness and security no other manufacturer offered. No cars of the era, bar Audi’s quattros, were as stable in extreme conditions and even they were not as balanced. The BMW 3-series, while nimble and durable, was a rather unruly handler until it was replaced in 1992. The Acura Legend wasn’t in the same league was as far as dynamics were considered and it was generally bland. None of the competition was as solid or composed over rough pavement and none were nearly as safe in a crash. Indeed, if we ignore its powertrains, the 190 really was the car of the future, setting new standards in safety, handling, and overall refinement unmatched until the 1990s.
For American buyers, none of this changed the fact that promises put forth by the car’s athletic silhouette and high price remained unfulfilled. By giving buyers what they needed, not what they wanted, the 190’s attempt to capture younger, affluent American buyers missed the mark. It met the goal of bringing Benz virtues to a state of the art compact car, along with impeccable style, but in the US, where speeds were lower and gas was cheaper, it took the company’s larger and more powerful models for these traits to really shine.
The W201 was, on the other hand, a massive success in Europe, where the majority of the car’s 1.8 million sales were made, and it strongly influenced much of the car’s subsequent competition. Audi’s 1986 80 and 90 models aped the Mercedes’ tall, narrow architecture and intense focus on aerodynamics, high-speed stability and safety, becoming bland and bloated in the process. BMW’s class leading E36 3-series adopted a tall build, multilink rear axle and wedge shape, looking quite different than the coeval E34 and E32.
But while the competition was influenced by W201, Mercedes sought popularity with US buyers by cheapening the car’s successor, adopting virtually nothing in the way of advanced technology upon its introduction eleven years later. If the 190’s excellence versus its rivals was too subtle to register, it was simply absent in its replacement, the aptly named “C-class.”
I can’t speak to the success of Mercedes’ sell-out in terms of profit margins or sales volume, but for savvy observers, it is clear that the company has surrendered its position as an engineering juggernaut, beginning with its replacements for the W201 and very similar W124. Their current cars are more viable within their price classes but no longer advanced relative to the competition. The company also struggles to find a design language as successful as that introduced by this landmark car, with recent models being a pastiche of nostalgic and progressive stylistic elements. Sadly, it all brings to mind the overwrought McMansions now built next to the clean, functional homes in which this car and its owner most likely live.
Stylewise, I never could get past Mercedes’ holding on to that grille for so long. Even the British had given up on trying to graft a ’30s grille on a modern car in the ’70s, and theirs at least were justifiable as brand differentiation due to badge engineering.
I love the green cloth interior in the file picture, it’s officially spoiled me for any other W201 interior option…
Green cloth! Awesome!
Thanks for a great read- The 190 was definitely too subtle for many to appreciate. Every time I see one of these at the pick-a-part, I am amazed with how solid everything still feels.
My favorite is the US-Spec 1993 Limited 2.3 (green) and 2.6 (black) models, debadged with the 8-hole alloys:
This factory interior is a bit jarring for my personal taste, but interesting to see (2.6 limited edition)
Ah, I recalled the special limited edition Avantgarde line that was introduced in 1992 for W201. Avantgarde was considered a marketing experiment with bold and more adventuresome colour palette as to attract the younger buyers. I believe it was limited to German market.
Avantgarde had three special metallic paint colours not shared with other Mercedes-Benz models: 190E 2.3 Azzurro (blue), 190E 1.8 Rosso (red), and 190D 2.5 Verde (green). Only Rosso and Verde had stripes and pipings in matching exterior colour while Azzurro had four different colours (red for driver’s, yellow – front passenger’s, green – rear left, and blue – rear right). See the photos:
http://www.mercedes-fans.de/picture/picture=71782
http://www.mercedes-fans.de/picture/picture=71783
For W202, Avantgarde became Esprit model trim with bolder colour palette, including canary yellow metallic paint. It supplemented Classic (basic), Elegance (luxury), and Sport. Today, Avantgarde has more sporty and dynamic exterior with darker interior.
I have owned two of these… one 2.3 base, and one 2.6 Sportline… though my Sportline was Black with the tan Recaro interior. Much more tasteful.
Exterior was the same!
You can take your McMansion and G-class, and I’ll take my 190 and Mid-century ranch.
I loved the 190E in the ’80’s when I was in my teens (believe it or not), and there was quite a few in the NY/ metropolitan area back then. I really liked the AMG Hammer version, although I never saw one of those in person!
The AMG Hammer was based on a W124 chassis not the W201.
An excellent piece on an under-appreciated car. I will confess that I have been one of those guilty of ignoring this car for years. I recall when they came out. I was in my 20s, and was for a time into european sports sedans. This car was too expensive, too stodgy, and lacked the kind of performance that spoke to younger buyers. BMW mined that market with a perfect mix of performance and style. The 190 seemed aimed at the social climber who simply had to get behind that 3 pointed star, even if it was in a compact.
You have done a good job of selling me on the car’s virtues, a process started by PN some time back. I wish I had appreciated these more when both of us were younger.
A really poignant article and a highly accurate description of the problems concerning the brand. The W201, the W124, and the W140 was truly the last of its kind. Everything after that is simply a disappointment.
“By giving buyers what they needed, not what they wanted, the 190’s attempt to capture younger, affluent American buyers missed the mark.”
And there’s where Mercedes lost its way. Mercedes was always a brand for those “in the know”. People payed the premium, not because it was a prestigious car, but because it was the best engineered car in the world. The general thought was that it was worth it in the long run. You could see the quality in the mechanical bits, you could hear the quality opening and closing the door. There was a logic to where the money went, there was no disconnect between real and perceived quality. Mercedes razed eighty years of brand equity in a single flash when they lowered their standards in trying to give people what they thought the people wanted.
They were clearly at the crossroads in the late 80’s, and I often wonder what would’ve happened if they had stayed true to course. Obviously, they are still a going concern, so whatever they did obviously succeeded. And though I don’t have the figures in my head, I wouldn’t be surprised if they had quadroupled their sales since the 80’s. But what would’ve happened hadn’t they done what they did? What cars would they produce? How would they look? Would they have the same enormous line-up as now? Or a more concentrated smaller line-up? Would they still be on top of the game? Or the joke they are now?
I have said this before, but I was truly and utterly flabbergasted when I found myself behind a W210 E-Class in a redlight somewhere in the mid-90’s. The car was brand new, it was one of the first I ever saw. And the rear lights in the trunk wasn’t alligned to the rear lights on the body. Unalligned rear lights? On a Mercedes? I was actually stunned, because the thought was so unheard of.
I can’t tell you how many people were burned forever by the rusting money pits that were the W202 and W203 C-Classes, and the W210 E-Class. There are cars that rusted out in less than ten years. Even now, a used W201 or W124 in good order costs as much as a fifteen year old E-Class, though they are ten to fifteen years older still. You can’t give a W210 away if it has rust all over. They are practically worthless.
Agreed, on several counts. Perry has indeed done an excellent job of distilling the 190’s story.
What is perhaps ironic about the W210 is that I very much feared that DB had already gone down the road it soon would, at the time it came out. It was a really revolutionary car for them, and I assumed they were chasing the 3 Series with a decidedly cheaper car. Not so, it turned out.
To answer your question: The W126, W124 and W201 were the swan song of “The Mechanical Era”. There has been a paradigm shift, and we’ve been in a new era, the High Tech Era, since around then. Not only has it shifted buyer’s perceptions about what constitutes a desirable car, but high technology has allowed (almost) all manufacturers to increase the content and reliability of their cars to a point where sheer mechanical overkill isn’t worth the effort and additional expense.
That will probably never satisfy those of us who still have a foot (or two) in the Mechanical Era, but it is truly over. Hang on to those old Benzes!
“… but high technology has allowed (almost) all manufacturers to increase the content and reliability of their cars to a point where sheer mechanical overkill isn’t worth the effort and additional expense.”
I see your point, but I don’t agree. I think there’s still room at the top for mechanical overkill. There was an article before, here or at TTAC, about the evolution of trunk hinges. I remember the sheer technical tour de force of the Audi trunk hinges of the late 80’s. Now, all the makers have reverted to the simpler, cheaper, and bulkier goose-neck hinges that are practically everywhere. But what boggles my mind is finding goose-neck hinges on the latest S-Class. How much money could it cost to order some more technically profficient trunk hinges? We are talking about a car costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To me, it’s just a sign of the times, that not even on the most expensive of premium cars they feel they can afford such “luxury”. And as Mercedes has lost its way, I think it could actually find itself again, making highly technical but functional solutions. What’s really the difference between a C-Class and an S-Class anyway, but size and price? Give me The Mechanical Era back again, and I’ll give you a truly premium brand.
I agree with you and with Paul, we’ve seen a decline in the kind of design an engineer would really respect, in favor of the kind of “luxury” represented by touch-screen climate control and the ability to have the music on one’s smartphone play seamlessly through the Bluetooth-connected sound system in one’s car. This stuff is not automotive design per se, and 95% of consumers don’t care. (My wife and I are having this debate about her next car. The ability to have both her work and personal phones connected to the car’s Bluetooth at once is perhaps the defining issue in her evaluation. And the car guy in me dies a little when I hear this…)
My guess is that the owner of this car is an emeritus professor of engineering at Ohio State, and lives in one of those nice but dated mid-century ranch houses. I knew a lot of people just like that around Madison a few years back. 🙂
Let’s not forget something: the cars cost a lot less. Daimler sells loads of cars and makes loads of money doing it. They don’t sell on engineering, they sell on cachet. They do this by sending owners a monthly magazine, for example. Posters here probably don’t realise what Daimler’s biggest market outside Germany is. They cars fly out of the stores there to people who have never seen an old school Benz, or ever heard of one.
Tech toys won’t get you home.
My Dodge Challenger has proper hinges instead of the goosenecks. 🙂
Your comment on trunk hinges made me think… sadly, even the ’06-’12 Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln MKZ (among other cars I’m sure) has nicer hinges… with lift struts go figure… sad.
While we’ve seen a lot of technological “trickle down” to cheaper cars, I think such features play a different role on a comparatively inexpensive car.
On an inexpensive car, manufacturers add features based on about the same logic as studios hiring big name actors for feature films. In the film world, big actors are paid in direct proportion to how much the financiers think the actor’s name will be worth on opening weekend. In short, if it’s something that will get punters to put down their money, it gets included. If it’s something buyers aren’t likely to notice or care about until they’ve owned the car for a while, then it’s considered dispensable unless it facilitates some regulatory or engineering requirement. (For example, the reason few cars offer a choice between wind-up and electric windows at this point is that in most cases, each door arrangement has to be crash-tested separately; consolidating around electric windows simplifies the safety certification process.)
The question is whether in a world run by MBAs there is any place for what one might call “luxury in depth,” where you find the kind of obsessive attention to detail that used to separate, say, a Packard from a Pontiac.
Unfortunately, the amassed evidence all pretty much says no. The entire consumer business world is run by business majors who insist that salable ‘touch points’ and multichannel hype are far more important than quality of execution. As long as they’re making money, that probably won’t change.
(It frustrates me when people blame consumers for that. Consumers don’t design cars. Consumers are stuck with whatever manufacturers deign to sell them them at the time and in the price range the consumer happens to be able to afford, and if you don’t grasp how that differs from a genuinely consumer-driven marketplace, I can only assume you haven’t tried shopping for a camera in recent memory.)
Craftsmanship. That is the difference in what was, and what is. In our recent past, craftsmanship was what mattered, both in design and in manufacture. You can design the best thing, but when you cannot get staff to build it properly, it is garbage. Similarly, you can have a master technician build something, but if it is designed poorly, it is also garbage. True luxury items tended to be the rare mix of both design and manufacture, and DB was a true luxury marque back then, along with Rolls Royce and a few others. Some showed great design ability, others showed great building skills, but seldom both at once. Today, we see a sad compromise between the two, and the idea of luxury is more a marketing ploy than a true luxury experience. We see cars with corners cut to save pennies, rather than being built to the highest standards for even the unseen parts. Luxury is usually when the parts you never notice have been created with the same care as the parts you do see and touch.
I will say that I do agree with almost all of your comment, but I do think that consumers are, in the end, to blame. Yes, consumers are given crappy choices for a lot of things, but there is always the choice NOT to buy, and when that happens, manufacturers react and react swiftly. Nobody has to buy a crap car. Maybe they have to buy groceries, but not a car. They can change the market by making a conscious choice to NOT purchase, and demand what they really do want. Unfortunately, few will opt to not buy, so we are stuck with the choices presented, but in the end, we as consumers are also at fault.
“high technology has allowed (almost) all manufacturers to increase the content and reliability of their cars to a point where sheer mechanical overkill isn’t worth the effort and additional expense.” Quote
This may be true in the US , where most folk drive gasoline engined autos, but in Europe cars are less reliable than they used to be. The clever tech that makes modern diesels quiet, smooth, powerful, fuel efficient and low in Co2 is also potentially troublesome, and expensive to fix when it goes wrong. But at least it can be fixed. If the electrical system goes wrong, good luck !
In addition to these “supply side” issues (which you have nailed perfectly), are the “demand side” issues. I recall that by the late 80s, M-B prices in the U.S. had gone stratospheric. Lexus came out with a car that was well built, luxurious, a good performer, and at a much lower price. M-B had to do something, and it did (much to our chagrin).
But as much as we all love the attributes of the “old” M-B of the mechanical era, there are probably under 500 buyers a year for such a car who truly appreciate the intricate machine for what it is. All the rest are leasing status, or at least buying something to drive for 3 years until it is time to trade on something new. Nobody can make a business case for building the kind of car that is a legitimate 30 year car anymore. Because nobody in that buyer demographic keeps their cars for thirty years. And those who buy the 30 year old ones make M-B very little money.
Personally, I have always thought (perhaps wishfully) that a company that built such a car and could sustain the near-term losses would eventually come out ahead in resale and reputation. But perhaps not. M-B had it, and gave it away. As did Cadillac before them, and Chrysler even earlier. It is probably a lot harder (if not impossible) to get it back.
The fact that Mercedes-Benz and also VW/Audi products built between approximately 1995-05 often had great styling but were complete POS in terms of quality and durability makes me wonder if this will someday be regarded as the German Malaise era.
And Opel in the early nineties, the infamous “Lopez-effect”. Endless cost reductions and squeezing your suppliers like oranges.
I agree about the “Mechanical Era” , but I don’t agree about the “High Tech” era. Manufacturers were always putting High Tech ( of the time ) into their cars. No , we are currently in the “Wall Street” era , where you build everything to a price, and rely on reputation and marketing to do the rest.
+1
Although most comments use the past tense to describe the w201 190e, some of us are joyfully restoring these cars and using them as extremely reliable and fun daily drivers. Having restored two 2.3’s and two 2.6’s – I’m now working on the extremely rare 1993 2.6 Limited Edition Sportline, which featured the suspension, steering gear, steering wheel and leather Recaro 4 place interior found in the Cosworth 2.3-16.
The 190e 2.6 may be the best car ever made, at any price. It does everything better than you’d expect and even driving one 25+ years after introduction, it always provides subtle “wows” in handling, comfort, economy and quality.
Low mileage examples – those under 100k – are becoming extremely rare and prices are rising for excellent examples. If you want a really fantastc car for relatively little money, you can’t do better than the 190e 2.6.
Here the 190 was always considered to be a junior edition that shamed the parent. They were sub-compact tiny inside and repair-prone. And the repairs were outrageously expensive for what was really an economy car.
THe Acura Legend was a much better car that ran rings around the slow 190. Only recently has the “cheap class” Mercedes earned respect.
Honda Legend of this era is no better they had numerous issues new and most were only fixed under warranty to become good cars, A friends mother has a 90 Legend coupe it was crap new and spent huge amounts of time at the dealer sorting faults once fixed its been ok but it was a warranty nightmare new.
The Legend was a huge success here, the 190, an absolute failure. CR had the Legend among the best, the 190 not so. The Legend made the C&D 10 Best several times. The 190 was probably never considered.
Your “friend”is an anomaly.
btw, the uniwiper on a premium car was ridiculous.
Haha you make it sound like the 190’s uniwiper was like the old Scirocco, just one wiper in the middle instead of the normal two.
The 190’s wiper was a ridiculously expensive, over-engineered robotic wiper. It was so over-the-top and expensive that they don’t use it any more.
the single wiper with it’s articulating rotation was AMAZING at keeping the majority of the windshield clean. It is a feature that they should STILL have.
That great wiper also cleared almost 90% of the windshield, which the two wiper systems don’t…..I love them!
The early W201 had a regular single wiper arm with a small extra wiper attached to the arm to wipe the centre of the screen. The articulated arm came later. KJ in Oz
The Legend may have been better equipped and may have had an excellent V6, but try driving it-or any other ’80s Honda-on a bumpy curvy road, and you’ll see where Mercedes spent their money.
Check out prices for a used Legend v. 190. I did.
The used Legends are worth more than TWICE what a used 190 is worth of same year and mileage.
I would wager, Perry, you have never personally driven an Acura on a bumpy road. I went from Vernon to Kaslo on Hwy 6 last summer. Definitely bumpy and the car handled brilliantly. The 190 is about as much fun to drive as my sofa. Fairly nice cars but fun to drive? Again, I doubt you have driven one.
I’ve certainly driven both. I owned a ’91 Integra for a while, as well as an ’86 and ’96 Accord. I never drove a first-gen Legend, but I have ridden in one. I quite enjoy ’80s Hondas, but they have very limp shocks and no suspension travel. Say what you will about a W201, but that’s one thing which can’t be held against them.
Like I said, I love Hondas and drive a 2000 Civic today (a car which doesn’t have those problems, as it’s taller), but without some aftermarket suspension pieces, the older Hondas fall apart in bumpy corners. Their structures don’t feel so rigid, either, though that could be a function of the suspension damping.
On the flip side, there are cars like the W201, which outside its limits, drives a lot like other Mercedes cars of the era, including the W123. I’ve driven both and while their engines lack response and the first bit of steering lock may feel inert, next to the Hondas I mentioned, they have a nice heft to their controls and have suspensions which don’t bounce and crash. It’s a complete opposite approach to building a car, really.
I like both brands’ cars for different reasons, but I do think Mercedes cars can be fun. It’s enjoyable to drive a car aggressively and not get a ton of understeer, while applying a lot of lock to the steering, with an eerie lack of harshness coming back through the wheel combined with increasing resistance in proportion to load on the tires. For me, it’s quite novel, having grown up on Hondas.
I suspect your Acura is a newer TL, and the later Hondas with wishbones are different from the cars I was referencing. Starting with the 1991 Legend, they became quite solid and absorbent. I can’t imagine who influenced them!
But you have never driven a high-end Honda like a TL, RL or Accord V-6.
Enough said.
What he has done is driven the BASE model vs. the BASE model. The BASE MODEL Benz is better than the BASE MODEL acura/honda.
The 190e with multi-link rear axle – and using Bilstein HD shocks – is one of the best handling and riding cars you can buy. 25+ years later, there are no rattles, squeeks or shakes. They are built like a bank vault and have withstood the test of time with thousands still on the road….When was the last time you saw a mid 80’s Acura looking near new in 2014?
Excellent 190 history Perry! This has always been one of my favorite Mercedes. Excellent proportions, expensive-looking (unlike its following C-Classes), exceptionally engineered, and considerably bulletproof.
My favorite feature on this car has to be the horizontal taillights. For some reason they just really work on this car, setting it apart from its larger siblings, and giving it a sportier appearance by accentuating its width.
While Mercedes’ have certainly lost some of the magic that made ones from this era so great in order to become more mainstream, they’re still well-engineered, superbly built, great handling, and incredibly luxurious cars. True that MB is still reaching down further than ever, but the cars they’re selling now are much improved over the dark times 10-15 years ago.
Having driven late-model Mercedes and BMW competitors (C-Class/3 Series, GLK/X3, E-Class/5 Series), I can say that the Mercedes’ excel in all key areas, especially interior material quality.
Sorry, this should’ve been a reply to Davis post up above.
” And the repairs were outrageously expensive for what was really an economy car.”
But that’s the thing. It was never an “economy car”. It was a small but premium car. In Sweden, you could get a a pretty well equipped Saab 900 or Volvo 740 for the same money, those cars being the benchmarks in Sweden.
But yes, they were really cramped inside, as anyone who has ever been in the backseat of one can tell. And that’s the biggest gripe, that it was practically useless as a four seater. The front seat in its most rearward position actually touched the rear seat. If they could’ve made a better job with the packaging, I think it would’ve been a better seller.
But that was the trade off, a smaller premium car or a larger mundane family car for the same money.
I was never sure what to think of these cars, which came out when I was in high school. Elderly neighbors had a married niece that would check up on them, and they had this car. The couple was around 30 years old, very good looking, seemed to be going places in their careers – in a word, Yuppies. The car made them stand out a bit in the Midwest, which I suppose was the point.
Your write-up is wonderful, and I appreciate that aspects of this car are exceptionally well engineered, but I wonder if the Consumer Reports summary was “competent, high priced, cramped inside with an inadequate powertrain for passing maneuvers.”
Part of me wanted to be that Yuppie couple, but my Midwestern sense wondered if the joke was on them. You could go to your Olds dealer and get a perfectly serviceable, roomer, lower priced, better performing, easier to service A or G body that would seem to make a heck of a lot more sense. But, to a Yuppie, that would be too much like what your mom and dad would do, so it made more sense to pay a premium price for a car that had the performance of my sister’s 4 cyl Mustang II with automatic and air (total dog).
Getting service for some of those low volume one or two year only powertrains must have been an expensive nightmare.
A distant family relation was a modern Yuppie in the mid 2000’s and had some Mercedes model that was at least the spiritual successor to this car. After the warranty, it perpetually crapped out on her with very expensive problems, her career crapped out with the economy and her condo crapped out in foreclosure.
She is driving domestic brands now and seems much happier.
An excellent article on a car I have always respected but never liked.
My experience with these goes back to the mid-90s when my affluent fellow students in the UK would drive new E36 3-series or W202 C-classes. One day, a not-quite-so-affluent friend of mine came back gleaming with pride as he had just purchased a lightly used 190E with the Euro-spec 2 liter engine. As the car nut in residence, I was immediately invited to take a test drive and remember struggling to find polite words to mask my disappointment. The driving experience was utterly underwhelming for my 20-year old self: a lazy engine, a ponderous steering and an interior straight out of a taxicab. In short: an old man’s car.
Agreed about the driving experience: Mercedes managed the nigh-impossible: making a small car drive like a great big one. Great for instilling confidence on a stormy night on the freeway at speed, but ponderous and no fun otherwise.
This trait of making a car feel larger and heavier than it was was GM’s specialty as well, and they seem to have had the same result as did Mercedes in trying to get younger buyers into the fold.
A smaller, better, more expensive car was hard for many people to understand, especially Americans. Those who appreciated minimalist commercial and residential space, which was flushing at the time in places like NYC and London, certainly “got” the 190E. I always considered the car a huge success out here in California.
I don’t think quicker steering or more powerful engines would have helped the 190. It didn’t take long for the 2.6 to arrive and when it did the 190E was nothing less than a 7/8s sized 300E, a car lauded by just about everyone for the way it drove even though it was different than a BMW. Every car needing to drive like a BMW is another form of McMansionism for me.
Mercedes was asking people to accept a radically new look, radically smaller size, and a very high price. Remember the 190E was more expensive than the larger, just as new looking Volvo 700 series and Audi 100/5000.
I think the size did look too small for many and the rear seat was truly tiny. If either of those areas were different I think the car would have sold better. Price and size were the limiting factors, not design or performance.
Mercedes is taking a less risky approach with the CLA. I have to pause before recognizing it as the new front driver, it comes off as a CLS to many I am sure. While it took us a while to get used to the 190 it stayed fresh for a long time and had a long life. BMW sales didn’t really explode until the E36 and that was a crib of the 190.
I don’t see the CLA lasting as long. It will look dated in a couple of years.
I understand and appreciate the idea that not everything needs to drive like a BMW. I certainly agree, also. I even enjoy Mercedes’ slow, deliberate control inputs.
You’re correct in mentioning that size and price were the car’s biggest handicaps, BUT I feel that people would understand just how premium the W201 was if powertrains matched the superlative chassis. Even with less weight, the 190E 2.6 was somehow slower than the 300E. I don’t know how the company got so much out of 400 extra cc.
I, personally, would love to get a 2.5 turbodiesel and swap in a 5-speed and limited slip, or one of the rare 2.6 Sportlines with a 5-speed. I’m sure either would be impossible to find.
As for the CLA, it won’t just look dated in a few years, it will look tragic.
I’m 6’2″ and can sit very comfortably for hours in the back seat of the 190e; I had difficulty even getting into the back seat of the CLA250 – and once in, had 2″ less headroom than needed…..that car is unfortunate in that they sacrificed function for form by not carrying the door openings into the roofline – opting instead for the flimsier non-framed side glass.
The build quality of a 25 year old 190e is STILL superior to the CLA250.
Completely agree on the back seat being a major issue for North American customers. I’m only 5’6″ (168 cm) tall, and I remember riding in the back of a 190 taxi in Dusseldorf Germany. Very little legroom and very claustrophobic. Back seat ingress/egress was comically difficult when wearing bulky winter clothes and boots, and carrying a briefcase or laptop.
I had exactly the same back seat issue with the Mercury Mystique / Ford Contour twins, another Euro transplant that was not designed for NA, and failed miserably in this market.
A while back, I briefly considered buying an Acura TSX, but just getting into the back seat convinced me not to inflict this punishment on any future passengers.
“I always considered the car a huge success out here in California.”
I’m glad you wrote this. We get such a distorted view of things here in SoCal – I never realized the 190E was a failure until I read Perry’s most interesting article. The cars were all over the place here and you still see quite a few being driven. There is a very nice one in my neighborhood – a daily driver. The 190E really was the first affordable aspirational car in the sports luxury sedan class to create a sensation in SoCal, a class filled with many contenders today.
A great friend bought a new 85 190E 2.3 as his first Mercedes. I have fond memories of the car in part because it made my friend so damned happy to be able to buy a M-B and given that he died so young, with only one more car to come (a new 91 300E) I’m glad he enjoyed the car so much. The funny thing is that it replaced a real Brougham – a 1980 Buick Regal coupe with padded vinyl roof, pillowy velour interior, wire wheel covers and even a wire-wheeled toilet seat spare on the trunk (dealer-installed). The 190E was used for heavy commuting and delivered decent gas mileage and a safe and decent ride. I recall problems with the radiator and cooling system, and minor electrical and A/C issues that were resolved at considerable expense outside of the warranty period. But it was a high mileage car when turned in for the 300E and overall was a good car.
I think the cramped rear seat was a big deficit for the car but I have to believe the 190E was successful in bringing a lot of people into the M-B family as a I recall a lot people moving up from it to the 300E during the Reagan-Bush era.
I’ve always liked the crisp styling of the 190E but did not realize it represented this much engineering innovation – thanks for a great article.
BTW, the CLA is selling like proverbial hotcakes here in SoCal – I am seeing them everywhere. I was at UCLA yesterday and saw two different students coming out of a garage in CLAs. It is easy to see why as the car looks more like its big brother than did the Baby Benz of the 80’s. If the photo comes through, here is one parked next to my G37. I wish the CLA’s engineering/content was better than what is being reported.
I’ll try once more to attach the photo.
Yes indeed. The 190 made a new Mercedes attainable for more people. In LA, it was especially popular among women and single professionals. Surely a good chunk of those sales were incremental to Mercedes meaning even if they sold fewer than expected the sales would be profitable. Keeping the engine a 2.6 instead of the externally similar 3.0L size was no doubt to minimize cannibalization with the more pricey, and therefore profitable, 300E. The 300 didn’t cost much more to make than the 190.
As you said many of of those new 190 buyers would later move up the line as their lifestyle and income changed. Were it not there many of those people would have been lost to BMW forever.
The 190 was a financial, design and engineering home run for the company. Much more risky than the CLA which is priced lower (inflation adjusted) and takes relatively fewer risks design-wise.
I’m seeing CLAs everywhere too and the car seems to be doing the same thing for Mercedes that the 190 did, though the 190 was a much better car and likely picked up buyers that the CLA could not have. The CLA says I’m in a Mercedes, the 190 said I’m in a 190. It was the CAR to have and reminded me of a German Seville in a lot of ways.
I was told it was mandatory to drive a Mercedes Benz in California…but California is always ahead of the rest of this country.
Maybe it’s all about the name- (U)CLA.
Wow, Perry, that was an excellent article, thank you for the research (or knowledge) and for sharing. Having had a W124 I have no doubt the 190 was just as solid and well-made. I always preferred the W124’s styling with the exception of the last two years’ Sportline editions which finally looked “right” (to me).
Anyway, great in-depth article, much appreciated!
Thanks! As far as styling, I prefer the W201 to the W124, which looks a mite too tall for my tastes. What most people say, though, is that the W201 isn’t as well made as the W124, and I certainly prefer the latter’s interior. The 201 also didn’t get the 124’s double firewall.
My favorites, though, are the W126 in short wheelbase form or the W124 with the 2.5 turbo.
Most of what I wrote was related to what I’d learned about the cars over the years and my experiences with friends’ Mercedes of the era. Ensuring I got the details correct, though, necessitated a bit of research. I looked at a lot of front suspension diagrams! The only good looking one I found, I posted, though it’s a 124’s 4Matic’s, hence the driveshafts and oddly shaped springs.
Chassis design, styling and ergonomics are my favorite aspects of cars, which would explain my love of the W201.
These were 35k in Aussie when new and gutless into the bargain one of my bosses had one bought damaged and repaired it was a very expensive rebuild a drivers seat was 3.5k alone but they did it and the wrecks value was increased and eventually sold. In NZ these cars are common and cheap depreciation has ravaged values especially as hundreds of Merc arrived used from Asia but they have proved to be junk unless carefully maintained these cars do not last very long.
I wanted to mention the quality issue, as I heard so much about it, but I didn’t have enough real information to make the case. I also can’t quite wrap my head around how much lesser the quality could have been, versus the W124. The engineering is virtually the same.
A lot of 180/190E owners who traded in on C-Class cars were extremely disappointed about the drop in quality in Oz.
I don’t know what this says about the actual 180/190E, but its successor did a lot of damage to M-Bs reputation….
The W201 is a reduction in quality from the W124 (92 190e manual Sportline full kit unicorn and 93 300e).
Still very well built, but the differences are there for sure. So far, the only things I’ve noticed are insulation (check out the trunk differences), door “cards” as they call them, things of a MOSTLY cosmetic nature, but after 25 years they start to add up.
I’ve realized GM is like an old dog around here, never ever miss an opportunity for a kick or a dig, “Hey lets refer to cars designed 25 years before these cars came out”, gotta throw a GM dig in there for our readership, you know, to let em know were not slipping or anything.
Also only on ONE of the front engine GM compacts had and independent rear suspension, the Pontiac Temepst, as Miss Mona Lisa Vito will gladly point out to us in My Cousin Vinny.
BTW, these things, were small, overpriced, cramped and extremely dull. Oh, and nosebleed to fix anything once they were a few years old. Pass. If it isn’t an SL or and S-Class, everything else is just a German taxicab. In the US these were only bought by the most desperate label whore/snobs that were trying to impress people they didn’t even know trying to show off money they didn’t even have.
I thought of that when I wrote this, too, but I felt that it really makes sense in this context. The senior compacts’ investment could’ve been recouped if the advanced technology were spread across model ranges, and if a crystal ball had been available, the value in applying the technology to more expensive models would’ve been more apparent.
FWIW, I genuinely enjoy the big, soft GM cars of the ’80s featured in DS articles.
As for the W201, there wasn’t anything wrong with them that more power couldn’t have fixed. It was meant to be a small car, firstly and it wasn’t Mercedes’ fault that their car was purchased by unsavvy, desperate suburbanites.
The 16-valve Cosworths certainly had power, although I would argue that they were also sort of out of character for these cars — boy racer frenetic when what you really wanted was effortless passing response to match the general solemnity. (The price on the 16V cars was also quite high for what they were.)
The US Version of the 1986/87 190e 2.3-16v and the 1987-1993 190e 2.6 have identical horsepower and the same 0-60. The Cosworths were slightly detuned for the North America (168hp).
The handling, springs, steering ratio were incredible on the 16v – and they later reappeared in the final year in 700 of the 1993 190e 2.6 Limited Edition Sportlines….along with the four-place Recaro interior.
I often wonder what would have happened if Mercedes had gone all-out and just dropped the 3.0 into these little suckers.
They certainly should have tried. I think the 2.6 and 3.0 have identical external dimensions.
Brabus has gone all-out: The Brabus 190E 3.6S, that’s a 3,590 cc 6 cylinder. And it’s for sale, fully restored.
http://www.brabus.com/en/cars4sale.php?id=12707&kategorie=3
The 190 is the only Mercedes I would ever consider owning, and it was probably out of production by the time I started to like it. I’ve only ever driven the 2.6 version, many years ago, and then only gently so it is the spec and style and build quality that appeals.
The used 1988 190E 2.3 I bought in ‘95 was the best car I ever owned. It cost as much as all my previous cars combined. It was my first car with automatic transmission, power windows, power steering, power brakes, power sunroof, central vacuum locking, air conditioning, AM-FM radio-cassette, power antenna, airbag, and fog lights. The car was elegant, serene, comfortable, quiet, handled great, felt solid and safe, and was fast enough for me not to interrupt my streak of a speeding ticket every 3 years. I liked the whoosh-thunk sound of the submarine-technology pneumatic door locks. When I’d say, “Let’s take my car, it’s nicer than yours,” nobody ever argued with me. I racked up at least hundred thousand miles on it and liked it so much I canceled all my subscriptions to car magazines. I only sold it when my job evaporated in a down economy.
Great piece. It is true that w124 is not disturbed at all if faced with winds, ice, rain and/or snow. A very uneven surface is damped to hardly noticeable movement. Also the quality of construction and parts is impressive. Those doors keep on closing like a vault even after 2x years. Same goes for w201. These cars are made to last and last they do. They do need maintenance but if you need them you can get most parts at the dealer everywhere here in (N)Europe and prices are not bad, ok even. I think the hardest fix is attaching the speedometer cable, you need long fingers for that one since it is pretty short. Most other jobs are pretty much doable. Yes the CLA will look tragic in a couple of years.
Hi Perry
Great piece and well researched – there’s a lot of work in there
I’ve often thought that if had to buy one car to see me out, a tidy 190, perhaps with a 2.3 litre engine would be perfect. and significantly preferable to Passat that might be 2 yerars newer
We still have many around in Europe. No, it wasn’t huge inside and there was no estate version but little else wrong with it
The 190e to this day is the smallest Mercedes sedan ever produced, yet like Dr. Who’s Tardis – it’s bigger on the inside 🙂
” This trickle-up approach prevented the car from becoming an expensive adventure in the vein of GM’s Y-body compacts (were GM wise enough to use that car’s aluminum engine blocks, independent rear suspension and unit bodies in their mid and full-sized models, Mercedes might have had a very different history).”
I don’t know. My parents bought a (’62?) Buick Special wagon from my grandparents. In 1969, the aluminum blocked cracked while the car was sitting in the driveway one August night. My dad said he had a hard time finding mechanics willing to work on it (before the block cracked), they were worried they’d break something.
Trickle up from the Y’s might have meant that the “First Chevy of the ’80s” would have spiritually arrived in 1965. I shudder to think.
I don’t know why everybody says W201s are dull.
I’ve owned a 190 E for 2 years now and it doesn’t seem so dull to me.
It’s got a fuel injected 2-liters, a 5 speed manual and, if I’m not mistaken, no thingamajig against pollution (in France, catalytic converters only became mandatory in 1993). So it rates a strong 122 hp which is not that bad for a 1984 2 liters 8-valve inline four.
The gearbox is tuned so as you’re always in the right power range (well, except for the 5th gear which is basically an overdrive, in order to achieve 30 mpg on the highway).
Brakes are strong, handling is marvellous and, as a consequence, you can drive a 190 E very fast.
I drove it on mountain roads in Corsica and, on my way from the ferry boat, I almost missed the road junction to my town, because I hadn’t realized I was climbing so fast (on a road with U-shaped curves and a very steep grade).
Moreover, it’s got 227.000 km on the odometer and is still in great shape : no rust, no rattles, no cricket-singing dashboard (which is a very strong sign of built quality when you are used to Peugeot’s 205, Renault’s Super 5, and Citroën’s AX).
I love american cars (I used to own a 1980 Malibu and I am about to replace my 190 E with a 1979 350 ci Caprice and drive it on a daily basis in Paris even if gas prices are 4 times higher in France than in the States) but I must admit that, from an objective point of view, the 190 E is probably one of the best car I ever had.
“Brakes are strong, handling is marvellous and, as a consequence, you can drive a 190 E very fast.”
“I don’t know why everybody says W201s are dull.”
Exactly. The 190 is one of those cars folks have a very strong opinion about even if they haven’t spent much time in one. I am the same way about Ford Pintos.
These cars, like the W124s, were silky and unflappable. Put those two characteristics together and you get a pretty big “wow”. A different wow than a BMW but a wow none the less. Wow = fun to drive for me.
190s were durable and reliable. Our local independent Mercedes mechanic (from Poland originally) tells me Mercedes cars after the 190 and 300E were made differently and are much harder to keep on the road.
Acuras and other Japanese cars did not last as long so there are fewer of them available in the marketplace. The ones that did survive were babied and of course go for good money. That’s why you can find used 190s for less money than used Legends, there are more of them.
Volvo 740s are similar. Tons available for a thousand bucks. It’s not the $1,000 price that’s telling it’s the tons available 30 years after they were built. I would argue that a low-mileage, all-original 190 or 740 would fetch at least as much money as a similar Legend.
Mercedes of this era here were mostly bought as “a car for life”, that is owners expected to be able to drive them regularly for 20+ years with reasonable maintenance. Expensive cars, but good value considering their longevity.
The Honda and such tended to be leased or provided as company cars- changed over every 3 or so years, who cares about them after that ?
So the Merc ends up in the hands of someone who appreciates and maintains it, while the Legend goes through three or four owners and ends up at Dodgy Brothers Pre-Loved Vehicle Emporium!
These 190s seem to appeal to upmarket boy racers here many can be seen lowered on huge rims clattering along like lots of other sub $1000 cheapies, old BMWs seem to suffer the same fate young drivers who like to lower their cars to improve the mediocre handing available from the factory. Yep Honda Legends cost more but break down just as often in their later lives and cost huge bux to get running again.
I’ve known people who owned these, although I’ve never driven one myself, and they seem to sum up a lot of the essential dilemmas of the ‘classic’ Benz.
On the plus side, the structural integrity is pretty astounding — they’re built like tanks and even 20-year-old examples are very stout unless they’ve had shoddy collision repairs. The wood veneer peels and can eventually look pretty bad, but the seats and the MB-TEX upholstery wear like iron. The damping and body control is also impressive, perhaps more so because the body is so stiff. You feel bumps more than in an old-school Cadillac or Lincoln, but the car just doesn’t care; you don’t often have the issue you have on softly suspended/damped cars where a ridge uses up all the suspension travel and makes the car wallow as it clangs on the bump stop.
The flip side is that it’s pretty cozy inside. I’ve been in rear seats more cramped than the W201’s, but they were all 2+2 coupes, not sedans with an inflation-adjusted price of more than $50K. The W201 was smaller than a W124, but it wasn’t dinky, either, so its packaging efficiency left a lot to be desired. Also, structural integrity and torsional rigidity notwithstanding, the W201s with which I’m familiar didn’t break any less often than other cars and were wince-inducingly expensive to fix when they did, even at independent specialist shops.
As a result, my feelings about these cars are sort of ambiguous — I find them compelling and off-putting in similar measure.
+1
Own a great one – maintain it as it deserves – and you’ll never be without one, regardless how many other cars you own. The 190e 2.6 may be the best car ever made.
I’ve got very fond memories of driving my stepfather’s 1991 190D. It was slow as hell (automatic transmission), but very comfortable, reliable and everything else you would expect from a small scale Mercedes. Like totally unusable once there was a single snow flake in sight (plus admittedly, I’m probably not the world’s best driver). I was distraught when I learned that he sold it off to a dealer, since some repairs to the fuel lines became necessary. I would have taken it off his hands in an instant. Apparently, the dealer he sold it to decided against selling it off abroad somewhere and instead went for restoring it and keeping it himself, since it was in such a good condition. I still haven’t owned a car so far in my life, but this would certainly have been a great first ride.
About 12 years ago one of my coworkers offered to sell me his 190E 2.3 auto. I don’t remember the model year but I think it was a late 80s or early 90s. I made arrangements to have the car inspected by an indie MB mechanic. That day my coworker drove the 190 to work for me to test drive and have it inspected by my indie MB mechanic. The indie shop was 20 miles from the office so I had a chance to drive it a total of 40 miles that day. The car was smooth and had no trouble keeping up with the 70+mph traffic. It was nice and effortless. My mechanic did a very thorough inspection and told me not to buy it because the valve guides were worn. He said that this was common with the 2.3L engine if not well maintained. There were some other things he brought up but I don’t remember. I heeded my mechanics advice and passed on the 190.
The W124 has been brought many times in the comments as being one of the last of an era for MB. I always thought that the W124 had been cheapened compared to its predecessor the W123. Maybe this not the place for it but a write up comparing the W124 to the W123 would be very interesting. Hint hint.
Perry thank you for a very well written and researched article.
And don’t forget that this car took Mercedes into a new part of the market, against the BMW 3 series and Audi 80 and low end 100 for the first time. May be it was also a big factor in the decline and ultimate failure of the larger cars from the mainstream non premium manufacturers in Europe also.
I grew up in Clintonville in the 60/70s and Upper Arlington was then at it’s zenith as the “ritzy” neighborhood in the Columbus area – when I would drive through there on my way to my part-time fast-food job in Hilliard you’d mostly see Cadillacs and Buick 225s/Olds 98s……..
I graduated OSU and left for the service in late 70s and noticed the influx of MBs replacing the Detroit iron as the ride of choice for the doctors/lawyers/execs/professors…….
Back to topic, very nicely researched article.
My longer-term knowledge of the area (and Ohio State’s big campus, not far away) seems to parallel Lincolnman’s. In the 1960s-70s one paid a bit of a premium to live there (vis-a-vis a similar property in a less haughty Columbus suburb), but a recent drive-through of U.A. astounded me with the mega-renovations and even teardowns going on.
That said, I know little about the Mercedes world, and the fine article taught me plenty. Thanks, Perry!
One side-bar in the 190E story is the 180E launched in Australia in response to the luxury car tax that was one of the government’s money-raising measures in the recession of the time. They stripped most of the equipment to get it under $45.5k – you got cloth seats, manual windows, no cd player, some pretty nasty hubcaps and the 1.8L engine, even a manual transmission was standard, but at least it still had air con and central locking.
I found a mini-roadtest and yes it was slow – 0-100km/h in 16.2 seconds or 4 sec plus behind the Audi/BMW/Saab/Volvo competition – but apart from the missing toys it was still good Mercedes with the words superb (build quality), outstanding (ride and handling) and first class (ergonomics) used. They mentioned there had been running changes to improve rear seat room from the original cars too.
Dare I say it – LS swap?
A great article Perry. Your ’66 Newport post was excellent too!
I have always liked these, probably due to my parents going on vacation with friends to Wisconsin (they went to House on the Rock, I remember the postcard they sent with the world’s largest carousel) when I was six or seven (my aunt stayed with me and my brother and sister) and bringing me a bright red 1/24 scale 190E by Bburago. I loved that little toy, and still have it today. Image from ebay.co.uk–I have no idea which box my 190E is in, but it is still in very nice shape!
I remember we got a 190e 2.3 as a loaner from the dealer. My brother and I wrung it out pretty good. Yes, it didn’t have a lot of power but it was super smooth and really felt like a baby Benz. I wouldn’t be against having one today as a daily driver.
On a side note, my dad had the 190e 2.3-16 cosworth for a few years. I’m not a power fiend but that car really did need a few more ponies in the top end. It was like a honda vtec in that you really had to rev it out to get anywhere. And the dog leg first gear is really really cool until you have to live with it in traffic.
Great article, and loved reading the commentary. As an owner of a ’93 190e Limited Edition (ie, has the larger wheels, trick interior and Sportline suspension), I can say the car is one of the best and most structurally sound cars I’ve ever owned. It’s an outstanding highway car – handles autobahn level speeds with an ease that belies its small dimensions. Notably, it corners faster that most modern days cars. Truly outstanding Mercedes engineering.
Congrats for owning the rarest and best 190e 2.6 made……beautiful!
As the proud owner of a 1991 190E, I find it interesting that a couple of posters who’ve never owned a 190E claim they’re repair prone and don’t last long. They have no experience so they have no idea. Based on my own personal experience, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The 190E is part of the last generation of cars that MB built with the over engineered, legendary quality that had made MB so world famous. These are well built cars that last many hundreds of thousands of miles with proper maintenance. No car can last without proper maintenance. I’ve also read numerous articles that document the 190E being used around the world as taxis. These cars have hundreds of thousands of miles on them and are still going strong.
While I think this this particular article about the 190E is very good, I must disagree with the claim that the 190E was a failure in the U.S. The U.S. market is the 2nd largest behind Germany for MB. I doubt MB would’ve created the C class line if they didn’t think it would be a success in the U.S. market. MB itself feels the 190E was a success. Mercedes Benz Classic magazine always does feature articles for important production anniversaries, a buyers guide and the classic section at the Daimler web site publishes articles on production anniversaries and articles about the building of the 190E on a regular basis such as an article last week. Have the C class successors carried on the same high standards of the 190E? I would say a resounding “no”. This is why I still have and take such good care of my car. I don’t think MB will ever make anything to that quality level again, What sold the 190E and made the establishment of the C class line possible was the fact t.hat the 190E was very much a baby S class (W126). As the years go on, the value of 190Es will rise because of their over engineering, legendary MB quality and lack of unreliable electronics
I do agree that starting with the W202, W210, W140 generation, MB clearly lost it’s way, absolutely. I think MB is only now beginning to find it’s way again. I do think that the new W222 S class is a technological tour de force and the pictures of the new W205 C class have it looking very much like a baby S class with S class technology. It looks like MB might finally be going back to the W201/W126 combination. We’ll see.
I do understand why MB took the route that they have in recent years. It was either sell more cars or wind up like Jaguar or Volvo, owned by someone else. For me, that would’ve been sacrilege for the inventor of the automobile.
You bring up a good point, sir- nothing, but nothing will run forever without some maintanance, and I get really tired of people who won’t maintain their cars and then blame the manufacturers when they break.
I used to own a ’93 W201 2.6 Sportline. It was, without a doubt, one of the most uncomfortable cars this 6’5″ driver has ever sat in. A huge, unadjustable steering wheel and seats mounted way too high and way too close to the doors made it almost impossible to find a comfortable seating position. I found myself invariably leaning to the center of the car to give my shoulders room. I bought it because I knew the former owner and it was a bargain, but sold it after three months when I was given a decent offer.
I now have a ’93 E36 (a 320I, an interesting Canadian- and European- market 2.0L 6-cylinder), and even though it is essentially a base model, it is vastly more comfortable and pleasant than my old W201.
I doesn’t matter how groundbreaking a new car is, or how whizbang the tech is under the skin, if you are designing a car for the masses, as it were, and anyone larger than average size in your major market just doesn’t fit, then you really need to go back to the drawing board.
I’ve never heard anyone complain about lack of interior comfort in a 190e…maybe you didn’t have the electric adjustable seats?
I like the idea of the baby Benz, but I can’t stand sitting on MB-Tex, and have never seen one with leather, and these things are small inside. I had a 93 300E (W124) that my preteen kids hated because the back seat was too small…I can’t fathom squeezing them into the back of a 190E. I have seen several where the vinyl on the interior door panels pulls loose from the underlying structure and bubbles out, especially with the maroon interior. Can’t do anything but buy new door panels.
If I could have just one MB it would be either a 450SEL (W116) or 420SEL (W126)…big, relatively simple, compared to newer big-body cars, old-school MB engineering.
Since the w201 door panels are no longer made, you have to search salvage yards OR you can repair the vinyl that has separated using a heat gun/hair dryer to make the vinyl stretch and then secure with 3M adhesive spray or JB Weld epoxy.
As far as MB-Tex goes – whatever it is made of seems indestructible. Most of the 2014 Mercedes up to the E Class still have it and leather is rare.
I have a 1988 Japanese import 2 litre 190E. I am 183 cm tall or 6 feet tall. I don’t have an issue with the interior room. Car drives great, is remarkably silent and handles well.
For a car that ‘fell’ into my ownership, this one is very good.
I was told by a specialist in M-B to hold onto it. Anything after it was no good apparently. Not bad for a motor car nudging 30 years old.
Thanks for a great article. I’ve owned a ’92 190E 2.6 for about 7 years now. I had a company car so this was a spare/father in law car. I’ve always loved the car-quick, parts prices relatively inexpensive (compared to the Alfa’s I’ve owned along with this car) and it’s such a smooth driving car!
I bought it originally for my elderly father in law, it was his last car. He’d always wanted a Mercedes, and for the last 2 years of his life he enjoyed this car immensely (and got several rather impressive speeding tickets from local police as well-at 85 years of age he couldn’t keep his foot out of it.He was thrilled at how fast and smooth it was!)
It sat after he passed; neither my wife or I had much inclination to drive “his” car….I’d crank and drive it occasionally; keep the fluids changed etc.
I’ve just recently started driving it full time again. I just got it checked over for regular road use again-it needed an idler arm bushing set, 2 tires, oil change, coolant flush and a good cleaning and that’s it. My MB mechanic said the only thing it needs to be perfect is to drive it more regularly.
It’s a solid car-I love the fact it’s probably the most massively overengineered small car in history. It is a car I can put my wife in and be sure that she will be completely safe in-I have a W 123 as well; both cars are icons to what true engineering is.
Great rundown on the 190 Series- I learned a few things. A few things I do remember, though, coming from someone who shopped this model new, and didn’t come home with one. One day my pregnant wife asked if we could drive downtown and look and look at cars. OK, I thought, knowing she wanted something with an Automatic Transmission. On the way, she suggested we stop at Rasmussen and see what Mercedes had to offer. I thought I was safe- she’ll look at a 300E, which we obviously couldn’t afford, and we’ll move on. Wrong! She beelined for a 190. It was obviously well made, drove and rode nicely enough, but… the price! Vinyl Interior, no power seats or sunroof, a 4 cyl, and they wanted how much??? The real deal breaker was the interior. It was tiny, especially the rear seat- marginally less room than her Subaru Wagon (or so it seemed). Keep in mind my car was was a ’87 Olds 98 Regency, so this room difference was even more pronounced in my mind.
On the way out, my wife suggested we run up the hill and pay a visit to Janie Fisher at the Volvo store. Compared to the 190, the Volvo GL Wagon we looked at was positively value packed. Leather, room to spare, solid construction. Yes, the Swedish Brick was doggy, but no moreso than the Mercedes, and the wife didn’t care. We went home with a White 240GL wagon… for many thousands less than the Mercedes. That, I think, was the main issue many buyers had with the 190. It was over engineered and over built, but the room and comfort it offered was in no was commensurate to the asking price. Would we have made the same decision today, knowing everything we do now? Absolutely.
Good story. Side note – the front suspension picture is a W124 with 4Matic which wasn’t available on the W201. KJ in Oz
CC effect again, this time in cyberspace. My insurer runs a online club for car buffs ( and Camry lovers). A recent article covers the 190.
https://www.shannons.com.au/club/news/mercedes-benz-190e-small-car-standard-for-the-world/
When new,” my reaction was $30,000 Australian, and I don’t get alloys or rack & pinion?”
Pass.
My Marine buddy and former CO had this car. Fallen angel booted out of naval flight school and I a former F18 mechanic turned Mustang Marine (former enlisted promoted to officer). Both out of service, called me one evening citing a off road road run in with a vertical rebar. Small chunk ripped out of the oil pan and quoted repair at fifteen hundred dollars. Told him I could fix it for a Hamilton. In disbelief asked how I was going to do it, in reply I introduced him to the wonderful world of expoxy aka JB weld. Finished the repair then three piece suited a job interview launching me into a new career.
Great piece on a great car. My dad bought a 93 190D 2.0 (72hp, not available in the US) in 2003 with 180k miles on it. Its reliabilty was legendary. It was so slow, that in Germany where we live, you’d have to floor it a lot, making the durability of the 2 liter diesel all the more impressive.
It was frugal too, on flat autobahns in the north of Germany it would get 35mpg at a steady 100 mph, its top speed (downhill, i once made it to 110…)
On a trip to scotland with a friend from the states who wanted to see Europe, we averaged 51 mpg, thanks to speed limits. Take that, Prii 🙂
What I didn’t realize at the time, not knowing much about cars back then, was how great the ride was. In fact, i have yet to come across a car that matches the way the 190 was planted on the road AND was as smooth across any kind of bump.
In summary, a great, if somewhat curious car. It must have been one of the last German cars that was built with the 4 speed manual that we had, i 1993.
My dad sold it in 07, with 220k miles, due to some minor issues we could have fixed for cheap. He felt he was ready for a low mileage 2000 3-series whose suspension ripped apart shortly after.
He still regrets giving up on the Baby Benz.
It’s funny, you mention that rear suspension as a paragon of stability. I have heard several people talk about it as feeling very loose, especially in the wet. I have heard it so many times that in my mental file on the 190, it is registered as a design flaw for the car.
Interesting point, Mads!
I think my view derives from the fact that 72hp is hardly enough to brake the rear-end loose, let alone lift-off oversteer.
Fun fact i forgot to mention:
Our car had ” 190D 2.5 Turbo” written on the trunk lid. I remember moments of anxiety when on autobahn inclines I could barely get the car to do 50 miles an hour and other motorists would flash their high beams at me to move out of the way. They assumed I had the big turbo engine and would deliberately block them.
This was the first MB I noticed and instantly loved as a young Volvo fan. It had a modern, perfunctory style. It read, to me, as just enough to be better without excess. Growing up in affluent Marin County (though I certainly wasn’t) the 190 became popular. The demographic who seemed most drawn to it were deeply old-money Tiburon women. They woudn’t have less than a Mercedes-Benz yet excess was clearly gauche and for the austentatious.
The design is still timeless to me. Sure some dorks slam it with giant wheels and paint them magenta- but the classic, one-owner models are clearly of a higher standard and very cool for it. The only thing that always tripped me out about MB was for their perception of “luxury” they were lacking- seat heaters: rare if available at all. Leather: Rarely (though those in the know understand the virtue of MB tex), Speed: mediocre accelleration- but only showoffs need pace like a racer. Long range high speed is for this car.
I had two of these….one pristine stripper 2.6 and one not so pristine but fully loaded 2.6.
Those were much coveted cars back in the early 80s.
By today´s standards interior space was beyoned pathetic. This was really a car for single persons.
Even for two averagly sized people sitting next to each other in the front was almost a nuisance.
And dont get be started on leg room on that ridiculous rear bench.
I recently sold what must have been the absolute best 1984 190D left in the world, and while it got great mileage, it was as slow off the line as an out-of-tune Citroen 2CV and if I squinted when looking at it, I’d mistake it for a Chrysler K car! Certainly not the car to warm an enthusiast’s heart the way a fintail or ponton will! But yes, it was a “better” car when considered solely as a transportation appliance.
Successful design lightyears ahead of its time? Compared to what, Moskvitch 2140?
This site is very fond of ignoring my commentary, so hopefully this time around that changes. The W210 is most certainly NOT the last Sacco-led design, so I don’t know where you got that erroneous idea. Maybe you made an honest typo?
The W210 design was mostly identified in 1991, which is 8 long YEARS before he retired. Are you telling us that he just sat in his office and did nothing for 8 years? W210 was locked in during the Spring of 1992, some 38 months before production cars rolled off the line on July 17, 1995. There were spy photos of that car by the summer of 1992.
Considering that many of us read this and likely take it as fact, I would really hope you were more responsible with what you write (as if factual).
The W211 and C208 were the last Sacco-led volume prod. designs, as well as the SLR McClaren (concept in 1998). I don’t think you seem to understand the reality that, Mercedes-Benz signs-off on final designs well ahead of the industry. I really shouldn’t have to explain this, when I have already provided it to Wikipedia and should be well understood by an automotive writer.
Every Mercedes-Benz new model introduction or redesign into the 2003 calendar year, has Bruno Sacco’s mark on it. Peter Pfeiffer’s design idiom started surfacing in 2004, with the R171 SLK and A169 A-Klasse, which were both designed following Sacco’s retirement and fully designed by 2001.
I think you probably made an honest typo, as W210 even came out well before he retired in March 1999. By that time, the W211 final styling was already being ironed out. From 1990 to 1999 he internally championed, ovoid and softer shapes, different from W124, W140 and W202, that were designed between 1981 and 1989.
We’re looking for a bio on Sacco. If you’re up to it (and it reads as if you are), let Paul know via the email on the contact page. I’ll give you a hand if necessary. cheers