Possible Trade? 1987 Mercedes 190E 2.3 16V Cosworth

[reelizmpro]

To be fair, the vast majority of 16v 190E's were 2.5 liter, whereas almost all M3's were 2.3 liter. For all intents and purposes, the Benz can be considered a 2.5 liter car and the BMW is a 2.3 liter car (except for the Evo versions).

If you spent some time driving a 16v you'd stop trying to "prove" that the M3 is "better." It's like saying a Lancer Evo is better than a WRX STi. These cars are more alike than they are different. But each has it's relative strengths and weaknesses.

Just for the sake of discussion, here are some areas in which the 16v has a distinct advantage over the M3:

• The W201 has a far stiffer chassis than the E30 (and even the E36). You can always feel an E30 or E36 M3 flexing on the track, but that doesn't happen with the 190E.
• The suspension is more sophisticated (especially at the rear) and you don't need massive amounts of negative camber to make it work.
• The aerodynamics are vastly better. It compares favorably to a modern car.
• The engine is more robust. There are plenty of 16v's that have gone 200k without a rebuild.
• The head flows better and can rev to 9k reliably without any upgrades. Just swap in a trick cam and go.
• When the 190E lets go, it transitions smoothly into oversteer and is easy to drift without drama. The E30 tends to snap into oversteer, which makes it tricker to balance on the limit.

The only real weakness is that the street version is saddled with CIS/K-Jet and single flapper throttle. Convert to ITB's + EFI and you'll easily match the output of an S14.

In terms of driving dynamics, the 16v is closer to an E36 M3: better high-speed stability and acceleration than an E30. The E30 is easier to toss around in low-speed transitions, but the 190E has more grip in high-speed corners. The 190E also does a better job holding its line on bumpy tracks.

But these are small differences. Like I said, the two cars are more alike than different. It's stupid to try to argue that one is clearly better than the other. In street form, the 16v is definitely feels more plush than the M3, but if you set each car up the same, they'll be neck-and-neck.

No disrespect...
We live in the US where we only got the 2.3_16 so I'm confused by your statement. Doesn't excuse the fact that he's comparing a 2.5 to a 2.3. I believe history has proven which is better...it's a dead horse in my book.

As for advantages, it's stiffer but pays a 300lb penalty for it. Stiffer chassis or weight penalty....hmmmm (4 door guys always use that argument) guess it depends on which you prefer. I've also heard the aerodynamics argument...what's the difference in drag coefficients? Probably wasn't enough. Looked it up...0.32 2.3-16 vs 0.33 M3. Not quite noticable, let alone "vastly better." Engine's more robust? maybe because most MBZ owners don't drive it to the limit like they do the M3? Let's be honest. BTW, there are several high mile S14's out there. Not all of them are rebuilt because they blew up. The 2.3_16 does appear to focus on endurance though.

I respect the 2.3_16, I really do. I even invited those guys to SIG Fest west back in 2000 but even they admit...it's no E30 M3.
Your list just isn't compelling enough when you look at the downsides and they are big ones. Less HP, more weight, no DME or ITBs. Even less aftermarket support... The M3 is the better performer out of the box. This cannot be argued...can it? Did you not agree with the article I posted?

good specs here...

http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Mercedes/classic/190E.html

[Snitch]

REELIZMPRO,
Most M3 owners will drive their cars harder than most AMG or 16V owners would, and Mercedes has less aftermarket support but anything can be done to the car if you have the $$$ and yes the E30 M3 performs better out of the box but thats about all it does. So the slight difference in performance makes it a better car? What happened to the rest of the car? Not every one wants to drive like a maniac on the streets, or butcher their original cars with aftermarket parts, because the most value in either the E30 M3 or 190-16V is unmolested.

I have yet to drive a M3, but I owned a 2.3-16 for a while and it handled great. Even if the E30 M3 handles better, don't think its by much.

Is the E90 M3 better than a C63 AMG? BMW usually makes the sportier performance car while Mercedes makes a more luxurious one.


oh and cunninglinguist,

FYI Mercedes C-class is the most winning car for the past couple seasons.

[nando]

Stitch: you're treading on thin ice. Fine, you like the 190e. lots of other members do, too. But every post you've made has been a troll on how much superior the 190e is.

We don't like trolls.

[Emre]

Barry,

All I'm going to say is that you need to look outside the borders of the USA. There are, in fact, very many people who race 16v's in Europe. At the ADAC 24 Hrs at Nurburgring, for example, the 16v is still the car to beat in the 2.0L to 2.5L class. Just because they're not popular on race tracks in America, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of 16v's circuit racing, rallying, and hill-climbing all over the world.

As for the weight penalty, most 16v's are right at 2800 lbs ... which is not far off from an E30 M3. Once you strip them out, they weight the same. Again, you need to compare apples to apples. As I've said over and over, a similarly prepped 16v and M3 are very closely matched.

When I said the aero was better, that comes from experience...and I have extensive experience tracking M3's and 16v's. Suffice it to say there's more to aero than coefficient of drag. Drive them and compare the high-speed stability (and acceleration) for yourself.

The engine is stronger. Period. There's really no argument there. As much as I respect BMW Motorsport GmbH, the guys at Cosworth do know a thing or two about building monster 4-bangers. You can run the crap out of them without the need for any upgrades. Can you say the same for the S14? The engine is only crippled by the intake and engine management, both of which are easy to fix.

Anyway, this is dumb. Both cars are very cool. Spend some time behind the wheel of a nicely prepped 16v and it will change your mind.

[Snitch]

Nando, I am not trolling, just many members here are hating on the 190... Im not saying the E30 sucks either. People just aren't aware of what they are talking about. Half the post from the already existing members are troll posts.

Emre is the only one who actually posts with some sense.

[nando]

then why has every single post on this forum been about the 190?

[CrusherCurtis]

Why isn't the cosworth worth nearly as much an m3? Are there more cosworths here in America than m3's?

[Snitch]

then why has every single post on this forum been about the 190?

because I used the search bar and typed in 190E.

Crusher, because not many people know what they are or that they even existed. And more of the younger population is into BMW so they have more publicity in the younger age groups. The MBZ is a sleeping right now.

[reelizmpro]

I think we've gone about as far as we should with the differences. I know both mb and bmw owners wish they had both cars in their stable so thats a testament to both cars. Snitch...y did u sell ur car?

Crusher...the mb was like 7k more expensive than the m3 when new and I understand they didn't sell very many. I read that it was priced the same as the 500sl so it was a hard sell and of course there were better cars for the money. Performance Mercedes at the time was like an oxymoron and they didn't commit one way or the other. Then they discontinued making 2.3_16's in 88, whereas BMW M3 kept capitalizing.

[wholethingoff]

IMO, people tend to spend a lot of money for something that is flashy.eye catching, and branded. That M badge for the first successful road going race car that lead to a series of M cars is quite something to pay for.

Mercedes just doesn't have that. It isn't either easily spotted. Takes someone who is looking for one to notice it. The heritage was done for right there. No Cosworth Mercedes nowadays.

These aren't track cars anymore. They are collectibles.

[Emre]

Why isn't the cosworth worth nearly as much an m3? Are there more cosworths here in America than m3's?

Worldwide, more Cosworths were built than M3's: 25k vs. 17k

However, only around 3000 Cosworths came to America, and many of them were automatic. So, if you're looking for a 5-speed Cosworth in Blauschwartz, there are probably fewer than 1500 of those that ever made it to the USA.

Even though fewer M3's were made overall, more than half of the total production were sold in the US. And they were all 5-speed (obviously). So, there are many more to choose from. They're also more sought after, which is what keeps the value higher. Like the Peugeot 405 Mi16, the Cossie has been off the radar since the early '90s. Good news for us :twisted:

[Kershaw]

http://phoenix.craigslist.org/cph/cto/2953694445.html

wrong side of the country! rage rage rage rage.

it's even manual! 190e 2.3s are a much better value for the money, compared to an e30 m3.

[reelizmpro]

can't argue with that! That's a solid deal. I just might buy it for the hell of it. What's funny is you can hardly find an S14 engine or stripped M3 rolling shell for that price!

[Harry's E30]

the cosworth 190e does seem to be a better bang for your buck compared to the m3 I have only driven a normal 190e and compared to a normal e30 the e30 just feels so much more alive and enjoyable than the 190e

[Snitch]

I sold my car because I needed money, knock on wood.... Just to replace timing chain and cam gears was around 3k with out labor and I couldnt afford another bill like that. Loved the car, learned to drive stick on the dogleg gear box an had lots of fun with the lsd. Yes it would be nice to own both and have them side by side in the garage. I will say this, e30 is the only BMW I can actually appreciate.