190E vs C220 reliability - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Tassie · #1 08-18-2010, 06:00 AM

In looking for a car for my daughter I've decided to look seriously at the 1990-93 190E models, and perhaps Volvo 740/940. I'm trying to avoid buying a Toyota but who knows where this search will end!

However, in looking at the 190's, they frequently seem to be fairly run down and good examples are hard to find. When I find a good example the prices are high and seem to compete very well with 1996'ish C220's. So my question is - should I consider the C220? It appears to me by reading this forum that the mid-run models (1996-97) are well sorted out but can have annoying and expensive electrical problems. I would like to set up my daughters car to run reliably but fear random and complex electrical issues that will be costly to diagnose and repair and potentially leave her stranded.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,
Paul

Spetz · #2 08-18-2010, 06:22 AM

I have an E220 Coupe, bought brand new by my dad in 94.
It has 62,000 miles on it and all the typical things that seem to be common faults have failed in this car.
The list is:
Sagging headliner
Seat belt extenders
Wiring harness.

Other than that, it's never skipped a beat, hasn't leaking anything, hasn't broken anything. We also had an E220 sedan that covered 150,000+ miles, and at the time the 220 Coupe only had maybe 20,000 miles, and the engine/gearbox was indistinguishable, not to mention you couldn't tell which car was older/newer.

I think a W202 C220 is a good choice, and out of the options you have the only one that won't be embarrassing to drive.
There is also the C200 which may come in a smoother shifting 5 speed gearbox, albeit supposedly less reliable.

Gilly · #3 08-18-2010, 07:42 AM

I'd go with the 202 chassis. My favorite as far as being just a rock solid car would be a C230, but not a Kompressor. Not that the Kompressor is that lousy, but they do have a few things that can go on due to the Kompressor (engine lights and like that). They only made the naturally aspirated C230 for 1 or 2 years though.
The 201 isn't that bad, but with a 201 or 202, the trick is to find one that was MAINTAINED. Too many bought them as a cheap way to have a Mercedes, and then never knew they had to be maintained better than what they were used to owning, or maybe couldn't even afford the maintenance?
Look for service records!
Gilly

pawoSD · #4 08-18-2010, 07:52 AM

Either one is good. tobybul here on the forum has a C220 with over 300k on it, with the original trans and engine.

I'd consider one if I needed a new commuter/daily driver

Gilly · #5 08-18-2010, 08:05 AM

Oh yeah, the reason I picked on the C230 in particular is that I think they do drive out a bit nicer (little better power) than the C220. They are both as reliable. I did have to replace ONE headgasket on a C220, but stands to reason that they are a bit older. I think it was a bit unusual to need to do a headgasket on a M111, others may correct me as i have been out of wrenching a number of years.
BTW I think the C230 might be just 1998. In 99 then I believe it got the Kompressor, again not that I would totally run from a Kompressor version.
Gilly

mbdoc · #6 08-18-2010, 08:19 AM

The biggest difference between the cars is technology!

The 190E has mechanical everything. Yes there are some "slight" electronic enhancements but do not require scanners to diagnosis.

The C220 has electronic fuel injection that requires a scanner to diagnosis.

A nice 1993 190E will last a long time, the 2.6 is much harder to work on than the 2.3.

The C220 can be a good car IF the wiring harness(s) have been replaced ($$$).

Tassie · #7 08-23-2010, 03:18 AM

Thanks for your responses.

I am looking at 2 190E's and a 1998 C230. All look very good and reasonably affordable. However, the key will be the review of the maintenance records. I'm willing to pay more for the right car. Still a bit leery with modern electronic controls but the C230 appeared fairly basic (which is very much OK with me).

Thanks,
Paul

tjts1 · #8 08-23-2010, 09:59 AM

The volvo 940 (non turbo) will be by far the easiest to get past emissions testing and lowest cost of ownership.

Tassie · #9 09-03-2010, 03:34 AM

Well, I've looked at the two 190's and was disappointed. Both seemed essentially worn out - tired paint, oil leaks, bit of corrosion on the jack points, and other signs of limited maintenance. AND asking a lot of money when the C220's are within $1500 and offer much better cosmetic condition, and much fewer miles. Maintenance records also seem rare for cars of this age. The real gems are being kept, sooo...I'm still looking.

I'm not sure if a Volvo of the same vintage would be any cheaper to maintain. But then again, I've never owned a Volvo...yet.

porkface · #10 09-03-2010, 09:42 AM

taasie-go here and research any volvo questions you might have-

http://www.brickboard.com/RWD/

like this board except volvos only. good luck, chuck.

tjts1 · #11 09-03-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tassie

I'm not sure if a Volvo of the same vintage would be any cheaper to maintain. But then again, I've never owned a Volvo...yet.

Having owned 2 190e, a Volvo 240, 740 and 960 and 850, I can tell you that the volvos will be substantially cheaper and easier to maintain. The bosch LH 2.4 and 3.1 fuel injection alone on the volvos is head and sholders above the CIS madness under the hood of a 190. Just get a naturally aspirated volvo and you'll never look back. I'm willing to put the extra money and work into the 190s because I think they are worth to me but in simple terms of cost per mile the volvos win every time.

Tassie · #12 09-08-2010, 11:53 PM

I have a 1989 300E and like the reliability, solidity, and to date relative economy of operation. I understand the 190E to be smaller versions of the W124 and also read that the 1990-93 versions were good cars. I like the smaller size for my daughter. I must admit that the C220's (1996 only) are looking pretty good because I have not yet been able to find a 190 in the condition that I want. Even the later (1999'ish) C230's are becoming cost competitive although I would be more suspicious of a cheaper C230.

At any rate, I have been looking at the 740/940 Volvos because of similar attributes. Cost of good models with up to date maintenance appear a little cheaper to buy but not much. I do like the seats in a Volvo! In fact, I'm looking at a 1994 940 in the next few days. I like the Volvo 850's but I've heard of (and my neighbour will also attest) of frequent electrical problems.

With your experience though, what problems are you having with the 190's that I should be aware of. My 300E has not been without problems over the past 8 years but I have been able to repair economically (water pump, belt tensioner, tune up parts, tires, etc) that I would expect of any car that is 20 years old or so.

Looking forward to your comments!

Thanks,
Paul

Jim B. · #13 09-09-2010, 02:38 AM

My wife's first car that I got her was a 1991 Volvo 740 and it was a fantastic car.

We found a great mechanic (Chuck Akzam, who owned "Exclusively Volvo" in San Francisco,) who kept it running geat for years.

At only 34 feet the turning radius is phenominal, making it a perfect choice for city driving and parking.

My wife decided in 2002 when it was having some problems, to donate it to the Make-A Wish foundation. I almost cried that foggy SF morning when the flatbed truck came for it.

Much later the auction buyer that won it called me with questions.

I definately would recommend this as a first car for anyone. The 112hp non turbo isn't very fast, and they HATE being driven over 80 mph, and the environmentally friendly plastics used in the interior can crumble and in the glue for the headliners can fail, but otherwise they are VERY safe, durable, well built and long lasting.

And they run great in snow!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZLSfBDyhs

But buy one with books and records, even if it costs a little more.

Tassie · #14 09-23-2010, 11:58 PM

Looked at several 190E's and have decided to not bother looking any more. All have been thoroughly worn out and not worth repairing to a level I would be comfortable with.

Have been looking for Volvo 740/940's as well but they seem thoroughly worn out, too.

I do see good examples of both driving around but I suspect that the owners know what they have and will not sell.

So, I'm looking at the Mercedes C220/C230 models and am pleased with what I see. Was serious on a 1996 C220 in apparent good shape and low miles but a PPI revealed over $3000 in repairs required (brakes, suspension, transmission). No wonder the owner didn't have records because he never did anything in which to get records. He did keep it clean. The PPI turned out to be a wise move and an important lesson!

Thinking of Volvo 850's as well but I've heard negative comments on the electrical reliability although sound vehicles mechanically.

Interesting comments from some sellers include:
It's clean, it's OK!
It's a Mercedes! It's a Volvo!
They last forever!
I paid cash, I didn't need receipts or records.
It looks good for the year.
Excellent condition (when you look at it in the dark).
What do you expect for a car that's x years old?
Nobody keeps records.

...and I'm still looking.

Cheers,
Paul

MTI · #15 09-24-2010, 12:41 AM

With the W201 and W202, keep this in mind. Being at the entry level model has some disadvantages when the car enters the resale market. With each successive buyer, the acquisition cost for the next buyer keeps going down, which has been shown to be a detriment to those buyers spending the requisite amounts to keep the car well maintained, compared to "original owners" who remember what they paid for the car.

Another thing to keep in mind. You're better off with the end years of the production compared to the early. So, for the W201 the 90-93 models benefit from all the annual production changes. In the W202, clearly the 98-00 models had less complaints than the earlier ones, particularly with the biodegradable wire harnesses.