RE: Mercedes 190E 2.3-16: Spotted

RE: Mercedes 190E 2.3-16: Spotted

Thursday 23rd October 2014

Mercedes 190E 2.3-16: Spotted

Well why stop at just one Cosworth-fettled 80s saloon?



Homologation cars are cool. Homologation cars with a complicated and fraught story are even cooler. Think of the Citroen BX 4TC and Metro 6R4 arriving just as Group B ended as well as the BMW M1 saga that failed to see it compete in sportscar racing.

Don't forget where first is...
Don't forget where first is...
The 190E 2.3-16's story is less disastrous but still fascinating. That Mercedes wanted to rally a 190 seems odd but nowhere near as strange as the fact it would be replacing the R107 SL as Mercedes' rally car. See here, it really happened. Apparently Walter Rohrl was lined up to drive the 190E WRC. The multi-link rear suspension that was advanced on the road car was there as Mercedes wanted it for the rally car.

Then along came that Audi and a rear-wheel drive rally car didn't make that much sense. Lancia enjoyed one more WRC title with RWD but the writing was already on the wall in rallying and so Merc switched development to DTM.

Cosworth had already been involved with the 190 in its rally car development, developing a 320hp 16-valve version of the 2.3-litre eight-valve Mercedes four-cylinder engine. DTM regs dictated a roadgoing car must be built before racing and so the 190E 2.3-16 was born. Then BMW noticed the 190E's success in the DTM and started having a fiddle with the 3 Series...

Large part of the appeal under the bonnet
Large part of the appeal under the bonnet
The E30 M3 will always come up in discussion of the 2.3-16 and all subsequent fast 190s. It was the more successful race car and, going by a few reports, the marginally sharper car to drive. This video from the guys at Motor Trend is a really intriguing comparison between the two.

This 2.3-16 is not a flawless example. Best declare that first. The owner admits to a 'side-to-side vibration' at the rear when lifting off which will require some attention soon. But even considered as a project car it's less than £4K. This 'E30 M3 Tourer rolling shell' is £7K for some sense of perspective. The Mercedes has a large chunk of history, matching newish tyres and appears really nice from the pics. Of course this sort of thing is hard to gauge simply from an internet ad but there seem to be positives along with the few drawbacks.

How much for an M3? £23,995 sir, with 106,000 miles. Yes, the condition appears better and the BMW is at a dealer but that's £20,000 difference. And we know the Mercedes is far from a substandard alternative.

But it gets better still. With enough cash, that is. Like the Lancia Delta and the M3 the 190 evolved as a road car to meet requirements of the racer. We've driven the 190E 2.5-16 Evo 2 and there is one in the PH classifieds. For £78,995. At £75K less the plain old 2.3 really does look conspicuously affordable.


MERCEDES-BENZ 190E 2.3-16
Engine:
2,299cc four-cylinder
Transmission: five-speed dogleg manual, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 185@6,000rpm
Torque (lb ft): 173@4,500rpm
MPG: N/A
CO2: N/A
First registered: 1987
Recorded mileage: 138,000
Price new: £21,045
Yours for: £3,750

See the original here.



 

Author
Discussion

Turbobanana

Original Poster:

6,160 posts

200 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
"Some" wear on driver's seat...

Would still love it though: much more subtle than an M3.

graham22

3,293 posts

204 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Always amused me how these weren't known as a Merc Cosworth until after the Sierra had gained notoriety.

My Dad's boss had one in 1989 and they were still somewhat under the radar then.

Adenauer

18,564 posts

235 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
The Crack Fox said:
Ace cars. Video on Senna and the race of champions in Merc Cossies here, we had great fun doing this. YouTube link; http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UAYxWowv8Iw
I was sat at T4 and watched that race live, it was FANTASTIC thumbup

W124

1,497 posts

137 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
A 190e 2.6 Sportline with an autobox is a better drive if you ask me.

finenucars

16 posts

168 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Bought my 2.5 this year. Of course: no sunroof, no leather, but airco, in silver and obviously right hand shift... A hoot even by todays standards.

iloveboost

1,531 posts

161 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Why are these so much cheaper than an E30 M3? Did the make far more of them or is it something else?

s m

23,164 posts

202 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
graham22 said:
Always amused me how these weren't known as a Merc Cosworth until after the Sierra had gained notoriety.

My Dad's boss had one in 1989 and they were still somewhat under the radar then.
Mercedes and Vauxhall chose not to badge their cars with 'Cosworth'

canucklehead

416 posts

145 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
an iconic 80s q-car. that race in '84 made it legen-waitforit-dary.

went to a local coffee'n'cars here in Vancouver in the summer (organised by local Porker/Lotus/Lambo dealers Weissach - top blokes), and it turned out to be a cornucopia of 80s gear. loads of 911s obviously, but also a 190E 2.3-16 and a BMW M1. both looked superb.

then there was a rosso Countach, complete with the rear wing, ripped straight from millions of 80s' teenage boys bedroom walls. looked even better than the 2014 Aventador that turned up.

Baryonyx

17,990 posts

158 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
I'd much rather have one of these than the E30 M3, these are much cooler.

Moospeed

542 posts

264 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
iloveboost said:
Why are these so much cheaper than an E30 M3? Did the make far more of them or is it something else?
When I was shopping for an m3 the 190 just didn't appear on my radar. I was aware of them of course but just so dull in comparison. Back then the price difference wasn't so vast. M3s are great but massively overvalued these days, typically I sold mine near rock-bottom grrrr.

Josco010

143 posts

191 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Great cars, but no way near as sharp as the e30 m3 in everyway, think the reason they don't hold as much value was they were much more available and lets not forget the e30 m3 was designed first and foremost for racing and adapted for road use unlike the Merc. However the Evo's were much closer to the M3 in the sharp handling department. But if i had to choose, i will go for the earlier 2.3 due to the fact it is much raw and not the later 2.5 in dog leg manual, really nice cars though.

WojaWabbit

1,112 posts

217 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Pretty much every period road test and race series favoured the M3, but when today's prices are taken into account I'm not so sure you get value for money when it comes to actually running one.

Given their value, not many owners will push them to the limit, and that is where the differences are most apparent. If money was no object I'd take an E30 M3 over the 190E every day of the week, but I chose the Merc when it came to burning my own hard-earned. It was a fantastic car and I still miss it, often I regret selling it too!

Mine was a 2.5, manual with refurbished SLS, wheels, interior etc. and had a great spec including air con and full leather and was generally lovely for the few bags it cost me over the years. I'd have another in a minute.

I'd say it's eight or nine tenths of the M3 in outright ability and driving enjoyment, for less than a quarter of the price. Plus, there are a lot less on the road these days, so values will only go one way.


DM525i

76 posts

147 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Always liked the 190e, one of the last quality Mercs made in my opinion. Everything after that seemed to become very shabby in the space of a couple of years. Some of these still driving around look pretty decent. My sister had a 1.8 190e in beige when I was a kid, I knew then that it felt really solid even compared to my dad's mk2 VW Jetta.

Olive Groves

16 posts

130 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
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)!

David87

6,648 posts

211 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
My Dad had one of these 190Es when I was little. I liked it, but he got shot of it when the timing belt (or chain?) snapped when it was less than a year old. I think they look better now than ever. I recall his had dark wheels with a silver rim, but it was a 2.5-16 rather than the 2.3-16.

Djtemeka

1,802 posts

191 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
Sorry, hateful looking car. Just my opinion :/
Mind you, I don't like the look of the e30 m3 either.
I prefer the 325is look and the e34 m5.
Those cars look "right" smile

Djtemeka

1,802 posts

191 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
That Merc is like bagging the sister of the hot girl you like... Close but no cigar.

daytona365

1,773 posts

163 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
They always look as though they've been 'got at' by the max power kiddies.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
The rear axle of the 190 is an inferior multi-link, it really needed semi-trailing arms.

RA500

251 posts

195 months

Thursday 23rd October 2014
quotequote all
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.