A friend of mine is looking for a 190D for a beater commuter car. What is the better the 84-85 2.2 or 87 2.5 Turdo Diesel. Any advice is appreciated. Also what are the mileage differences?

__________________
Martin Ingram
Colorado Springs
2005 320 CDI
2006.5 VW Jetta TDI
1991 560SEL (179000 Sold)
1972 280SEL 4.5 ('The Lead Sled' 320000 miles when sold.)
1972 220D (225000 when sold)

I have an '87 2.5 and am very pleased with it. It has good power and is fairly quiet. I have averaged 32.4 mpg in the 17500 mile I have driven it.

__________________
Michael LaFleur

'05 E320 CDI - 86,000 miles
'86 300SDL - 360,000 miles
'85 300SD - 150,000 miles (sold)
'89 190D - 120,000 miles (sold)
'85 300SD - 317,000 miles (sold)
'98 ML320 - 270,000 miles (sold)
'75 300D - 170,000 miles (sold)
'83 Harley Davidson FLTC (Broken again) :-(
'61 Plymouth Valiant - 60k mikes
2004 Papillon (Oliver)
2005 Tzitzu (Griffon)
2009 Welsh Corgi (Buba)

IMO, the 87 turbo diesel is a nicer car than the 84-85 2.2. I also like the 2.5 better than the 2.2 (1986-1989). Fuel economy is slightly better on the 2.2, but they're a bit gutless, especially with the auto transmission.

You'll probably get different opinions on this one.

When a car gets 15-20 years old, it's probably best to look for the one in best condition, since the condition can easily outweigh any inherent advantages of one model over another.

I agree the 87 2.5 TD is the 190D to get!

__________________
http://www.benzworld.org/forums/imag...e_steering.gif
1998 C43 ///AMG
1999 C230 Custom 5-Speed Manual

Howdy,

I drive a 190D 2.2 for a daily driver. I have the manual transmission and I couldn't see how the auto would keep up. Pretty slow without being able to row the gears.

I average about 40 with excursions close to 50 out on the highway.

Neat car, but I've driven 116, 108 (still have), and 123 cars. I don't think the 201 is quite the car that the earlier models were in terms of quality and construction.

Sholin

__________________
What else, '73 MB 280 SEL (Lt Blue)
Daily driver: '84 190D 2.2 5 spd.

I would go for a 5 spd, over an auto, unless you want to take the time to hunt down a 2.5T. Mine is a 2.2 with a stick, and it gets out of it's own way, quite well thank you, but I can't imagine it with a slushbox. I agree with the earlier post, just look for an example of the breed thats in good condition, that might be hard enough to find.

My personal order from best to worst is:

1987 190D 2.5T
1986 190D 2.5 5 speed
1984-5 190D 2.2 5 speed
auto 2.5's
auto 2.2's

body wise, the 89 2.5 diesel is the only one with the lower body panels - it is pretty rare, however (as it is the last year).

I left out any 87 or 88 five speeds, because while I think there were 87 five speeds, I do not think that there wer 88 five speeds.

THe 87's have more engine controls than the earlier models, and for this reason I perfer the 86D over the 87D.

just my $.02

__________________
Jovan

'84 (11/83) 190D 2.2 5-Speed; Silver/Blue; Motor No. 00354, 402k mi (340+kmi mine)

'89 Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe; Black/Black; 53kmi
'05 BMW 530i 6-Speed; 302kmi
'19 Range Rover; 30kmi

After riding in a 87 2.5T today, I would second Jovan's order. I was surprised at how easy it looked to access most of the engine on the 2.5T, in pictures it looks nasty, but in person it appears to have easier access then my 2.2. As much as I like the 87 2.5T and might trade up to one, I really don't like the extra stuff to maintain, it has a lot of stuff my 2.2 does not. Very nice when it works, a pain to have to fix. Just my 2.2 cents!

Mack, 190D 2.2, 265k mi (hard driving in town 29mpg, 38mpg Hwy.)

I drove the 84, 2.2L, 5-spd for 5 years. I got 35-41 mpg consistently, even when I had burned valve. However, I would have committed suicide within two weeks if I had to drive the auto tranny version. Auto tranny is very expensive to repair and not that long-lived. Keep that in mind. Mine was fast enough and I got her up to 90 mph on cross-country jaunts driving thru the south on I-10.