RE: Mercedes 190E 2.3-16: Spotted

[oilit]

i quite like the old merc, but with rusty floors and gawd knows what going on at the back end and the retrim declared as needed I would say this is a £1000 car - possibly even shed territory esp as the MOT is near extinct on it. Just my 2c

[s m]

RA500 said:

Olive Groves said:

I had a 190e 2.6 sportline great car let down by 4 speed auto, swapped it for a 190e 2.5 16 great car let down by that awful manual box (dog leg 1st to 2nd)!

Exactly the same gearbox in the E30 M3, just a different linkage.

Nothing up with a dog leg box either, Ask Ferrari. It was made that way for track use so you only need to go across the gate once instead of twice as you don't tend to use first during a lap.

Just need the "slow steering" comment now
My friend has a 2.5 version - much better built than the Ford/BMW rivals it was pitched against
Lovely car to drive

[Hooli]

I've always liked these, proper old school fast Mercs are cool.

[daytona365]

It's nice, but isn't the 2.5 so much better and more reliable, especially in regard to the dreaded single row timing chain ?

[Nors]

Always had a soft spot for these. Test drove one once too. Love the looks. But,, engine was a bit agricultural and worst of all , the quality of the interior, even for the time, was low rent. The plastics on top of the dash was like a 60's Austin. The BMW's and Audi's of the same era were way better imho.

Still like them though!!

[rubystone]

W124 said:

A 190e 2.6 Sportline with an autobox is a better drive if you ask me.

If you want to cruise up the motorway, yes. But not if you want one of the best handling cars to go for a brisk drive down a country road or neutral round every bend at Brands. Do that in a 2.6 and you'll under steer off into the scenery.

No argument that the 2.6 is the pick of the 1.8/2.0/2.6 versions of the 190 range though.

[rubystone]

Nors said:

Always had a soft spot for these. Test drove one once too. Love the looks. But,, engine was a bit agricultural and worst of all , the quality of the interior, even for the time, was low rent. The plastics on top of the dash was like a 60's Austin. The BMW's and Audi's of the same era were way better imho.

Still like them though!!

Are you sure you drove a 190? The interiors were well built and durable. Plastics were good too. Fast forward to now and yes, door cards may be a little flabby and in the Cossies, if you don't find one with full leather, it's going to have wear on the cloth seats, but their build quality is way, way better than the E30s.

As someone said, these are 9/10s an E30 M3 for a ton less money. Unless you drive an E30 M3 like you stole it, only the handling makes it seem in any way special. Even this baggy car will drive pretty well. Main enemy on these is rust. Boot floor, rear lights and around the body kit.

[RoverP6B]

Kawasicki said:

The rear axle of the 190 is an inferior multi-link, it really needed semi-trailing arms.

Really? I had an E30 with semi-trailing arms (not an M3, alas - just a lowly 318i Touring) and it was possibly the most sideways car I've ever owned. First whiff of rain and I'd spend more time looking out of the side windows than the windscreen. Fun, but not exactly an effective way of winning races.

Olive Groves said:

I had a 190e 2.6 sportline great car let down by 4 speed auto, swapped it for a 190e 2.5 16 great car let down by that awful manual box (dog leg 1st to 2nd)!

Dog-leg might make little sense on the road, but take it on track... 1st is just a pitlane gear, you want 2nd/3rd and 4th/5th on the same rails.

For what it's worth, I love the W201 (and the W124), but, as great as the Cosworth and E30 M3 are, I'd really want a straight six up front, not a thrashy four...

[Kawasicki]

RoverP6B said:

Kawasicki said:

The rear axle of the 190 is an inferior multi-link, it really needed semi-trailing arms.

Really? I had an E30 with semi-trailing arms (not an M3, alas - just a lowly 318i Touring) and it was possibly the most sideways car I've ever owned. First whiff of rain and I'd spend more time looking out of the side windows than the windscreen. Fun, but not exactly an effective way of winning races.

I've also owned an e30 318i, it was hopeless in the wet, then I fitted decent tyres, it was then ridiculously easy to drive quickly in the wet, basically it understeered, but the understeer could be neutralised by throttle lifts. Wait long enough without correcting and you could induce oversteer.

I'm a real fan of semi trailing arm suspension, it's like having a second steering wheel just for the rear axle. You can have any balance you want (or need!).

[RoverP6B]

Kawasicki said:

I've also owned an e30 318i, it was hopeless in the wet, then I fitted decent tyres, it was then ridiculously easy to drive quickly in the wet, basically it understeered, but the understeer could be neutralised by throttle lifts. Wait long enough without correcting and you could induce oversteer.

I'm a real fan of semi trailing arm suspension, it's like having a second steering wheel just for the rear axle. You can have any balance you want (or need!).

I generally had decent tyres (for the time) on mine, which didn't even know the meaning of the word understeer. Very good turn-in (albeit spoiled somewhat by overly slow steering - the M3's faster rack should have been standard on all models), followed by a choice of oversteer, more oversteer, big lurid slide, spin or "oh st I've just crashed" (although I never did the last). Was yours a Touring? Differences of weight distribution between body styles could make a difference. However, on the basis of that car, I'm inclined to sympathise with those BMW nuts who refer to their cars having "semi flailing arm" rear ends!

[Pentoman]

Sold mine this year. Replaced it with a Vantage. So now I have a British car with a German engine, compared to the other way around.

It's only after selling it that I've realised how incredibly tough and durable it was compared with modern cars. The Vantage has been solid but my 5 year old daily driver not as good as the - now ancient - Merc.

As a drive it was very good. Clearly a road car, not a track car, and occasionally a little soft. But this slight softness made it a very useable everyday car, not just a weekend thing. Yet it still feels special, with a gruff, growling four cylinder 16 valve noise and a brilliant front-rear balance.

It's not as valuable as an M3 because they made more, and it didn't win the magazine tests or as many races. So it doesn't have the 'halo' of the BMW.

[Pickled]

2 doors too many, that's why it a fraction of the price of an M3, always will be, if they'd made a coupe version the price gap would be a lot closer.

[Dapster]

My father had a 2.5 Auto back in '89 - it was the demo car from Caffyns in Dorchester. Blue black, black leather with all the toys including airbag, aircon and ASR - all pretty space age back in the late 80's. It handled amazingly well (well, as much as I could tell with 1 year of driving experience, limited mainly to a 895cc VW Polo...) but it wasn't big enough for a growing family so he chopped it in a year or so later for a 300E-24v which was much more his style and in itself a great car. The 190 was superb though, and seemed much classier than the flashy M3 of the day. Auto suited the demeanour of the car as well.

I'd love one now and if I had the cash and space, would seek out pretty much this spec.

[s m]

Pickled said:

2 doors too many, that's why it a fraction of the price of an M3, always will be, if they'd made a coupe version the price gap would be a lot closer.

2-door version?


Hmmm?

[Pickled]

s m said:

2-door version?


Hmmm?

A mini SEC, I like that

[s m]

Pickled said:

2 doors too many, that's why it a fraction of the price of an M3, always will be, if they'd made a coupe version the price gap would be a lot closer.

The Evolution 2 models fetch comparable prices to E30 M3 Evolution Sports

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C501850



Some writers liked the normal versions

[Pickled]

s m said:

The Evolution 2 models fetch comparable prices to E30 M3 Evolution Sports

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C501850



Some writers liked the normal versions

Ok that is an exception rather than the rule I'll admit, but look how much even the shoddiest M3 fetches compared to a standard 2.3-16 or even a standard non evo 2.5-16.

Personally I'd take a nice 190 over an M3 (and I'm a die hard blue and white propellor fan) purely because its more practical, the steering wheel is on the correct side, most of the body panels are the same as the bog standard non cosworth models, and simply because it offers a similar experience for a fraction of the price - there I've said it so I better offer my first born to the gods in Munich in retribution.

[Dapster]

Regarding the Merc v BMW debate, I very much doubt that many contemporary purchase decisions were made with a rational all-options-considered approach. Most owners were either BMW people or Merc people - and most magazines feel obliged to report on a car as if every journey involves a flying lap of the 'Ring....

And if you haven deeper pockets....



http://suchen.mobile.de/auto-inserat/mercedes-benz...

[mickyveloce]

Dapster makes a valid point.

Journalists in the motoring press seem obsessed with 10/10ths feel, lap times and put day-to-day usability too far down the list.

The original M3 was track focused, and the motorsport genes make it a more costly proposition than the more comfort orientated 190E.

That having been said, I'd like both, but probably love the Mercedes a little more.

[Kawasicki]

[quote=mickyveloce]
The original M3 was track focused[quote]

I disagree. The original M3 was a refined/range topping road car, with overly slow steering.