Talk:Mercedes-Benz W201

message: I'm removing the edits about the apparently "Much better" 2.5 liter engine (proof??) as well as the edit of the bhp from 202bhp to 204bhp. It's not 204bhp, it's 204PS = 202bhp. OK?
"The 190 was in the small 'Sales Executive' class in the UK and Europe and was rivalled but never equalled by the Audi 80, BMW 3 series and the Saab 900"   Er, how?  Quality, sales, figures, performance?--71.226.173.163 19:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone's created a specific page for the Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3-16, with unwikified content. Should it go, or should the 2.3 16 content be removed from this page??  Roddyp 09:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 190E 2.3 16

message: Anyone know how to create a table like that in many other cars - eg the BMW M3?  Would be nice to have. --Gavinio 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table? 

message: I don't think the second photo adds much to this article - anyone else think that the US-spec photo should be replaced by a nice photo of an EVOII or even just a standard cossie? --Gavinio 13:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Photos 

message: Hi there i was browsing through this page where i spotted this passage
"In roadgoing trim the 190E 2.3-16 produced 49 hp (36 kW) and 41 ft·lbf (55 N·m) of torque over the basic single overhead cam 2.3 engine on which it was based. The 2.3 L 16 valve engine made "185 hp (137 kW) at 6,200 rpm and 174 ft·lbf (235 N·m) at 4,500 rpm, the oversquare 95.50 x 80.25 mm bore and stroke dimensions ensuring that it revs easily up to the 7000 rpm redline"[4]. Acceleration from 0-100 km/h (62 mph) was 8.0 seconds, and the top speed was 230 km/h (143 mph)[4]."
I wonder if the first statement is correct,as in the "..the 190E 2.3-15 produced 49hp...".
I dont see any engines of the 190E having that miserable output,nor would it make sense for Mercedes to make a underpowered engine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.5 (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.3-16v engine 

message: In a number of respects this article reads like a company-sponsored blurb, or a fan magazine. Unsupported superlatives and gossip which second-guesses company objectives do not belong in an encyclopedia. 24.6.67.7 (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki is not a car enthusiast publication

message: This model was one of the first refined executive diesel cars, as opposed to earlier 'Taxi' Mercedes diesels. It represented a large step forward, shouldn't this be reflected in the article? Official Mercedes information here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/190d/index.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.238 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the diesel coverage?

message: http://www.mercedes190.co.uk
http://www.mercedes190oc.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus.hopkins (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  W201 internet user groups 

message: It would be nice to specify that this is a rear-wheel drive powered car, with a longitudinal engine. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rear-wheel drive 

message: terms like "super efficient" , "well known for lasting over 300,000" are unsubstantiated, and that's just 2 , the article is full of them. I will drop by in 1 week and if it isn't cleaned up I think I will roll up my sleeves and get busy with it (I'm too busy with work right now to fix this).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.254.104 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reads like an advert for Mercedes Benz engineering 

message: Why does this article have the Kaengsaeng 88 et al. listed as "also known as/also called?" The Kaengsaeng 88 at least was a rip-off (for lack of better words) of the 190E, so I don't think it's right to list it in that way. It'd be like listing unauthorized Chinese copies of modern BMWs and other vehicles on their wiki pages. 69.88.41.156 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AKA Kaensaeng 88 et al 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mercedes-Benz W201. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120804042228/http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1993-mercedes-benz-190-6.htm to http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1993-mercedes-benz-190-6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109071854/http://www.practicalclassics.co.uk/auctionlot/by-id/1962785854/ to http://www.practicalclassics.co.uk/auctionlot/by-id/1962785854/
*Added  tag to http://www.mercedes-seite.de/mercedes/pkw/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hi there, while I know that the Cosworth variants are definitely notable, they made up only a small percentage of total production, particularly in comparison to 2.0 litre 190, 190D or 190E variants. I note that the images seem to be now mostly of the Cosworth variant. I believe diesel models accounted for more than half a million of the overall 1.8 million W201s produced, yet there is more written about the EVO I of which only 502 were produced. I do think a little more content around the non-Cosworth variants, and more images of the non-Cosworth models, would make the article more encyclopedic and more representative of the overall story of the W201. 118.209.96.21 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on the Cosworth variants? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion