190E Cosworth Manual or Auto?

[jaymanek]

Since you're limited by choice might you widen your search to include a 2.3?
There's one for sale on this forum.

Or there is this 2.5 which is also on the 190 forum.
1989 MERCEDES 190E 2.5-16 Cosworth in our family 19 yrs on eBay (end time 19-Jul-10 20:44:44 BST)

My 190 2.5-16 Cosworth for sale

Thanks Will, id seen that one and I emailed him but he wont take any real offers on the car and really I think its a little heavy for a car with that mileage and needing a new display. Also its too far to pop around to have a look!

jaymanek , would you like to try my manual 2.5-16V ? , I am in North London . My car is not perfect but is mechanically excellent and is well known as a very good and still tight example. I often use it as a trackday tool .

Thanks, may well take you up on this, maybe you could PM me your details as im down your way on Sunday.

Thanks

 

[jaymanek]

p.s. ChrisAK ones looks great but probably too good as id feel guilty not having a garage space for it.

 

[wemorgan]

So to boil it down: You want a 2.5 not a 2.3. A manual not an auto. A nice example, but not a mint example. A local car not too far. A good value example not a dear one. Fussy? You? Never

Enjoy the car hunting, as I'll enjoy reading about it

 

[jaymanek]

lol! yes you got it mate! I know ill find one eventually though...

Im sure the 2.3's are just as good but the 2.5 is the one ive always fancied.

 

[nick.ged]

easy as pie to swap the boxes, so dont rule out a well priced auto.

 

[wemorgan]

easy as pie to swap the boxes, so dont rule out a well priced auto.

Just the news Jay's wife didn't want to hear

ps. she helped Jay change the Pagoda's box the other week

 

[jaymanek]

lol no i wont be doing silly things like that... it has to be the right one to start with... no more "projects"

 

[Darkmonsta]

The auto does have very good reviews though - a few people on the 190 forums do seem to rate them so don't rule them out.

Also interested in why you'd go for the over the 2.3..? Again, I'm biased but certainly the 2.3 seems to be a rawer, more involved drive?

 

[mattc]

... no more "projects"

Delete that immediately! - your wife can read this thread and you WILL have it thrown back in your face at some point

 

[neilrr]

Would the poll have been different if you'd listed the options as

1)Notchy, crude, agricultural manual, or,

2)Silky smooth auto.

I've owned both auto & manual versions of both the 2.3-16 & the 2.5-16. The nature of the two cars (auto & manual) is very different & depending on what you're going to use it for you could end up with something unsuitable. Unless you work at a race track & drive to work on a race track there are other considerations to evaluate than just sporty feelings.

The manual version of either 16v cries out to be driven hard & red lined in all the gears in a take no prisoners, I don't give a **** about my license, on the prowl for newer pretenders to humiliate & educate manner. It's pretty much impossible to drive sedately. The manual is at it's best on twisty, sweeping A & B roads. In bumper to bumper, stop-start commuter traffic it's a serious PITA.

The auto is easier to live with. It's perfectly happy to rumble around pretending to be a 'normal' 190E. However, when you need to move quickly the acceleration is there, available on demand. I think on the move, particularly on A or M roads the auto feels quicker, though performance tests of the day show v.little in it.

As an everyday car I'd opt for the auto. It gives up some of the driveability in exchange for liveability. I'd also keep a clean license a lot longer in an auto.

 

[wemorgan]

neilrr: how does the 2.3 compare to the 2.5?

 

[jaymanek]

The auto does have very good reviews though - a few people on the 190 forums do seem to rate them so don't rule them out.

Also interested in why you'd go for the over the 2.3..? Again, I'm biased but certainly the 2.3 seems to be a rawer, more involved drive?

basically just because the BHP is a little more!

 

[stwat]

The auto does have very good reviews though - a few people on the 190 forums do seem to rate them so don't rule them out.

Also interested in why you'd go for the over the 2.3..? Again, I'm biased but certainly the 2.3 seems to be a rawer, more involved drive?

Totally agree. The 2.3's are true screamers and are much more visceral and brutal in their power delivery. A true hooligan of a car that begs you to rev the t!ts off it and calls you a mummies boy if you dont LOL. They have a shorter stroke (over square?) engine that revs up quicker than the 2.5's. Incidentally, Mercedes went back to the short stroke engines for the EVO models

The 2.5's are obviously great cars with a bit more power but they deliver that power in a much more laid back manner due to the longer stroke engines. Both 2.3 and 2.5's have almost identical performance figures. The 2.5 being a few fractions of a second faster to 60mph but both have the same top speed.

In my opinion the 2.5's where designed for the fat German business men who wanted a more comfortable Autobarn cruiser rather than a raw visceral screamer

The 2.5's are more at home with the auto box due to the nature of the engine. Though both 2.3 and 2.5 are much much better with the Getrag

The Getrag box can be quite baulky around town but get the car out on some fast twisty roads and it really does start to make sense and come alive. Its a truly fantastic gearbox in that situation.

 

[neilrr]

neilrr: how does the 2.3 compare to the 2.5?

The 2.3-16 is revvier, rawer & more exciting because it needs to be driven harder & reved higher to extract the power. The 2.5-16 feels a little softer, a little tamer, a little toned down.

I also think the 2.3-16 is better built. I've got a 2.3-16 breaker I bought with a blown bottom end & then discovered it had had a fairly serious accident on the NS front corner some years before. Not economical to fix, I've used it as a donor car for the 2.3-15 & 2.5-16 I have. The 2.3-16 has better quality bits & is of a heavier, sturdier construction than the 2.5-16, though that is a trend I've noticed in all MBs as time moves on.

The newest one of these things is now going on 18 years of age. I'd buy on condition & SH before any other considerations. The BHP after all this time will be different in each car & you may well find a 2.3-16 that'll run rings around any 2.5-16.

I know of only 4 people who've owned both the auto & manual versions (though I'm sure there are more) - Will on this forum, Nick (cossie connoisseur) on the 190 forum, zakh who converted his auto to manual (banned from this forum & nearly every other MB forum & a certifiable nut job) & yours truly.

I'd ask them. Well, three of them.

 

[CrysAk]

figured ill jump on this also ^^ (ill avoid being biased as ive got mine up for grabs )

it depends what you want from the car...
ive driven both (albeit a short time in an auto for personal reasons)
the auto is very smooth but with it the car just didnt feel "special", nor deserving of the "cosworth" brand.
the manual on the other hand is great (when warm) and really brings out the beast in the car, the dogleg is perfect for the country lanes even if it is a bit of a PITA around town, but youl soon forget about that once your away from the traffic lights

as mentioned above, the 2.5 seems alot more "refined" and leisurely to drive, power delivery is very smooth and it just feels pleasant to drive, where as the 2.3 is alot more balls out, high revving and just a blast to thrash *cough* not that i ever have of course

overall.. 2.3 manual for fun, 2.5 auto for commuting and if your a boring old fart

see not biased !!

hehe, either way 2.5, 2.3, manual or auto, your better off looking for a car thats in good nick and well looked after than gunning for exactly what you want, esp as these cars are getting on a bit now.

youl be very hard pressed to find one in good nick inside/out + full service history on the cheap (as i found out a few years back)

however i was looking for a project car, so was a little easier for me to find the right one

 

[Rob77]

My W201 is a Sportline with a 3.0 M103 so not a Cosworth but probably having a similar ride and performance.

It was the first auto I ever owned and I'm very happy with it. I've never used a Getrag gearbox but jeez it's a manual gearbox at the end of the day.

I actually find the 4 speed autobox one of the plus points about the car. Round town you never think about it and on kickdown the redline comes up pretty much right away.

I'm not saying I wouldn't buy the manual but I think it would be a good idea to try out an auto before ruling it out.

 

[Darkmonsta]

The 2.3-16 is revvier, rawer & more exciting because it needs to be driven harder & reved higher to extract the power. The 2.5-16 feels a little softer, a little tamer, a little toned down.

I only have, and have only driven, the 2.6 16 but certainly it begs to be thrashed; it took a while to get over my mechanical sympathies and let the thing bounce around at the top end of the rev range. When you do, though, my god it rewards! Mine only does 3k a year these days and I ended up getting another cheapo daily driver as the dog leg was annoying in traffic. No desire to get shot of it completely though...

 

[NISFAN]

Got to be a manual in a Cosworth

 

[NISFAN]

Came across this whilst searching for technical info on the OM651 engine.

Browser Warning

 

[jaymanek]

Or there is this 2.5 which is also on the 190 forum.
1989 MERCEDES 190E 2.5-16 Cosworth in our family 19 yrs on eBay (end time 19-Jul-10 20:44:44 BST)

My 190 2.5-16 Cosworth for sale

Well ive gone and done it... put a deposit on the one above.

As i dont have time to go to Edinburgh he is driving it down to me in a couple of weeks. Cant wait. :bannana: :bannana: