Hi,

I'm hoping to enter the world of 190E ownership but would like to get a car with a manual transmission. I'm mostly interested in the '91 to '93 model years.

Does anyone know how many of these were sold with manual transmissions in the United States?

 

I got a 91' 2.3 8v manual tranny. They are a bit uncommon though.

 

Thanks for your feedback. Have you ever driven an automatic equipped 190E? If so, how did it compare?

Also, if regular maintenance (fluid changes) is performed on the automatic in the 190E, will it be reasonably reliable?

 

From what I've heard the auto is only bearable on the 2.6 or the 16v models. They are notorious for hard shift problems and are a pain to service 100% correctly. So only go to a German shop that's been around a while for auto tranny work. I haven't done my clutch yet but it's pretty soft, no aches from driving in traffic like my old '91 mr2. Honestly, more stable and even more nimble then the mr2 was too. But the 190 isn't known for off the line acceleration , get past 3k rpm and it has some good get up and go right up the 7,000. (Don't take it that far on a neglected 190.. Bulletproof as they are, you can snap the timing chain or blow a head gasket on a high mileage engine) it really shines when you put your foot down on the freeway... Keep an eye on the speed, triple digits WILL sneak up on you.

 

In Australia most benz mechanics say they've never seen a 190E 2.6 manual before: ever. And actually most 190E's are the 2.0 euro engine, plus a smattering of 2.3 8v and a bare handful of 2.6, all in autos. We have several 180E W201 (downgraded base model sold in europe and asia), some of those might be manuals.

Mine is a 2.6 auto but I put a big lift cam in and free exhaust that was worth about ~25bhp in the upper range.

The thing with the W201's 722.4 auto is it's basically a lightened version of the 722.3 in the larger sedans, but the stock rating still handles anything roughly up to a worked over 3.0 litre M103 in the light W201 body no problem so you won't break it. Trans longevity is partly about vehicle weight and not just engine characteristic, eg. towing caravans around tends to go through them quicker, but a bare 190 is a real light car.

The main thing with the lightening of the 722 for the W201 tunnel is the 1st and reverse gears. 2nd to 4th gears are basically same thing as in the larger sedans, but 1st and reverse are very high ratio gears, ridiculously high ratio.
You basically rev the ring out of the engine doing 20km/h in reverse and 1st gear near redlines by 50.
But then 2nd gear doesn't start pulling best until past 70. So you get a flatspot in line acceleration right when you need it most when entering traffic from low speed and merging at 50-70km/h. It just doesn't have the right gear for that speed.

In the larger sedans the more relaxed 1st gear means a standing start gives good performance once you're off the line with a smooth transition in 1st-2nd delivering power when you come into 2nd.
In the 190 you wrap out 1st and then lose some power because your rpm is still too low in 2nd for a second or two before torque peaks again. 2nd-3rd or 3rd-4th are just fine, on the open highway it's a tremendously fast accelerating car at high speed through the upper gears, modern sports sedans with far bigger engines can have trouble keeping up.

What Mercedes did to offset this problem and jerky 1st-2nd shifts from such a gap in ratios, was install a valve system whereby the auto always starts off in 2nd gear unless you give a lot of throttle or manually select low gear. 1st is used "only for hard acceleration" as Mercedes puts it, or towing a heavy load up a hill from a stop. So the 722 4-speed autos are really a 3-speed auto with an extra towing gear for hill starts, you can think of them as a 3-speed with a lazy 1st and a sub-1st gear for occasional use.

So between a moonlaunch 1st gear with a mismatched 2nd ratio, and the automatic 2nd gear start for normal driving, most people don't like the auto.

But AMG did. The 3.2 AMG was mostly made with the 722.4 auto. And that's 255bhp by the way, again attesting to its strength. But that engine would have enough torque for a better 1st-2nd transition during hard acceleration.

My problem with the 722.4 is the lack of low rpm torque in the 2.6, with a 3.0 M103 change I'm sure it'd be a perfectly fine high performance gearbox.

But understandably, the consensus especially if keeping a 2.6 is a manual will give better average performance and driver enjoyment, because the auto is a slug and quirky until you're doing highway speeds when it finally acts normal.