Alfa Romeo 164 (164)
Car comparison
Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24VvsMercedes-Benz 190 (W201) · Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonMercedes-Benz 190 (W201) · Facelift 1988
E 2.5-16
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V
- Fastest top speed245 km/h152 mph
- Most powerful230 hp172 kW
- Highest torque284 Nm209 lb-ft
- Largest trunk505 L
- Best overall score59/100
- Best performance score52/100
- Best economy score82/100
- Best practicality score75/100
Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.5 s
- Lightest1,300 kg2,866 lb
- Best power-to-weight157 hp/t117 kW/t6.4 kg/hp
- Lowest city consumption12.9 L/100 km18.2 mpg US21.9 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption7.0 L/100 km33.6 mpg US40.4 mpg UK
Specification comparison
| Model | Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 230hp172kW | 204hp152kW |
| Torque | 284Nm209lb-ft | 240Nm177lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,510kg3,329lb | 1,300kg2,866lb |
| Gross weight | 1,935kg4,266lb | 1,800kg3,968lb |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 73.3s99% target: 243 km/h / 151 mph Calculated | 65.2s99% target: 233 km/h / 145 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 7.7s | 7.5s |
| 0-200 km/h | 26.0s Calculated | 26.5s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.3s Calculated | 7.2s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 9.4L/100 km25mpg US30.1mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption city | 13.4L/100 km17.6mpg US21.1mpg UK | 12.9L/100 km18.2mpg US21.9mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 7.5L/100 km31.4mpg US37.7mpg UK | 7L/100 km33.6mpg US40.4mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 15.5s Calculated | 15.3s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 152hp/t114kW/t69hp/1000 lb Calculated | 157hp/t117kW/t71hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 188Nm/t126lb-ft/ton Calculated | 185Nm/t124lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 745km463mi Calculated | - |
| Displacement | 2,959cc181cu in | 2,498cc152cu in |
| Length | 4,550mm179in | 4,430mm174in |
| Width | 1,760mm69in | 1,706mm67in |
| Height | 1,390mm55in | 1,361mm54in |
| Wheelbase | 2,660mm105in | 2,665mm105in |
| Front track | 1,515mm60in | 1,446mm57in |
| Rear track | 1,490mm59in | 1,431mm56in |
| Trunk volume | 505L | 410L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 70L | 70L |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V: Power / Torque
- Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 6,300 rpm | 5,000 rpm | 6,550 rpm |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 6,750 rpm | 5,000-5,500 rpm | 7,000 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.3 s | 7.2 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 7.7 s | 7.5 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 26.0 s | 26.5 s |
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 235 km/h 146 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.8 s | 2.8 s |
330 ft 101 m | 7.0 s | 7.0 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.4 s | 10.3 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.2 s | 13.0 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 15.5 s | 15.3 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 157 km/h 98 mph | 158 km/h 98 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 230 hp 172 kW |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 204 hp 152 kW |
Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V has 26 hp more than Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16.
The biggest power difference is between Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16 and Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V: 26 hp (19 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 284 Nm 209 lb-ft |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 1,510 kg 3,329 lb |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 1,300 kg 2,866 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 235 km/h 146 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 7.7 s |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 7.5 s |
Although Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V has more power, Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16 and Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V: 0.2 s.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 152 hp/t 114 kW/t 6.6 kg/hp |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 157 hp/t 117 kW/t 6.4 kg/hp |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | 230 hp 172 kW | 7.7 s | 245 km/h 152 mph |
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | 204 hp 152 kW | 7.5 s | 235 km/h 146 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | Alfa Romeo164 (164)3.0 i V6 24V | Mercedes-Benz190 (W201)Facelift 1988E 2.5-16 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 230 hp 172 kW | 204 hp 152 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 284 Nm 209 lb-ft | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 7.7 s | 7.5 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 245 km/h 152 mph | 235 km/h 146 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,510 kg 3,329 lb | 1,300 kg 2,866 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 745 km 463 mi | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 505 L 17.8 cu ft | 410 L 14.5 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 152 hp/t 114 kW/t 6.6 kg/hp | 157 hp/t 117 kW/t 6.4 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V |
|---|---|
| Consumption | 9.4 L/100 km25 mpg US30.1 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 16.45 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 26.47 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,410 L372 US gal310 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,468 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Alfa Romeo 164 (164) 3.0 i V6 24V
- Has 26 hp more
- Has 44 Nm more
- Has 10 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
- Has 95 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Heaviest
Mercedes-Benz 190 (W201) Facelift 1988 E 2.5-16
- Is 210 kg lighter
- Is 0.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 5 hp/t better power-to-weight
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























