Hey there.

I'm looking for a K&N air filter for my '91 model 190E (1800cc) I have
checked K&Ns website and they list a filter for a 190 (carburetted) but not
the 190E (injected) anyone know if it will fit? The dimensions looked pretty
similar as far as could recall.

Many Thanks in advance.

Dave

dave_t (AT) NOSPAMbtinternet (DOT) com

Where do you live?
The 190E carbed engine is 1900cc.
The 190E injected engine is 2300cc [in the USA].

"MisterD" <dave_t (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote

I'm in the UK.... the 190E over here was available in 1800cc, 2000cc, 2300cc
and 2600cc. The E denoted fuel injection over the standard 190 which was
carburetted and available in 1800cc and 2000cc.... different market I guess!
"Karl" <aufever (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> wrote

Here in the USA, we only got the 190E 2.3 and 190E 2.6. We also got the 190E 16v

Are you sure about it being a 1800? The whole idea about the 190 series was it came as a 1900 cc
engine.

"MisterD" <dave_t (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote

There was a fuel injected 1.8L version made during the end of the Mercedes
production run, but they were never sent to the U.S., mostly to the UK and
Australia.

MTI wrote:
1800cc was a company car tax break-point in UK, lots of 1.6-2.0l cars
grew 1.8 versions including the W201.

K&N filters are mostly a bad idea too


A

--
Tony Blair, a Minister of the Crown, acted as the agent of a foreign power:
He is a Traitor

On 2005-01-11 21:10:58 -0800, Alistair J Murray <news (AT) fluffy (DOT) f9.co.uk> said:

Why is that?

Marty

The "controversy" about K&N filters and Mercedes engines is that there have
been cases of the engine MAF sensors being contaminated and requried
replacement due to the filter's oil. Most, if not all, of these problems
can be traced back an owner or shop using too much of the filter oil on the
filter, under the theory that "more is better."

Which leads to the question of managed risk. There is always the potential
for excess oil on the filter if not carefully applied and is there a
justification for that risk given the performance gain, if any? Another way
to look at it is . . . would you rather wear new underwear every 6 months,
throwing away the old, and getting a new pair. . . or wear the same
underwear for 6 months, send it to be cleaned, with the hope that you did it
right, then wear it for another 6 months?

On 2005-01-12 09:44:01 -0800, "MTI" <mark (AT) mc-carter (DOT) com> said:

GIven those two options I would prefer to go without :~)