190E Cosworth vs. W124 E320

[mercboiuk]

liiive_o's thread about E320 TT vs M3 reminded me a recent comparison I made.
So rather than hijack his thread, I've started this new one.

A friend of mine has a 190E 2.5-16 with manual transmission. It is a stock engine on a pre-cat car.
137,000 miles
205 bhp
~175 lb/ft

A couple of weeks ago, we tried a comparison with my E320 Coupe.
Mine has a standard engine, and the 4-speed automatic gearbox.
106,000 miles
220 bhp
219 lb/ft

We managed a "from rest" 0-60 comparison, 50mph rolling start and a Vmax test (For legal jargen, it all took place at a private location).
Conditions were cold and ever so slighty damp.
On paper, the 190E and E320 is very similar, so it was going to be a good fight.

0-60:
I used the manual shifting for the auto 'box. The 190 gained a bonnet's length off the mark, but the 320 began to claw it back from about 40mph.

Rolling start:
50mph, me leaving the gearbox in "Drive". I can't remember which gear he was in
The 320 won over until we backed off at around 100mph. I presume it was the 3.2's greater torque.
However, it was very close, with the 320 only pulling away rather slowly. The advantage I had, before backing off, was only 3/4 of a car length.

Vmax:
We attempted this from a rolling start of 70mph. As with the other rolling start, the 320 pulled ahead, where it stayed. Being flat out, on a flat surface, my friend said that once he was his top end, I was still pulling away ever so slightly.
He said his Cosworth was reading 145mph.
My E320 Coupe was reading 148mph.
So true speeds were probably in the region of 140 and 143, respectively.

I would speculate that if we were to do a handling test, the Cosworth would walk all over the E320.
And even in these straight-line tests, the 320 only just beat the Cosworth.

I'm not sure if anyone is actually interested in this comparision of two old Mercs, but I thought I may as well post to provide an insight into an hour of fun

Darren

 

[janner]

The 190 is 200kgs lighter which is what narrowed the gap. The E320 is pretty quick for a family saloon (or coupe in this case).

 

[kth286]

Interesting you used the manual change on the auto - wondered why ?

Looking up the figures in the handbook on my same 320 4 speed, it starts off in second gear and will go to 65 mph in that same gear, so NO wasted time changing gears hence (in my opinion) good 0-60 figure.

Wondered how the comparison might have worked out if you let the auto do the work from standstill and with the switch in S position.

Did you have the switch in S position anyway ?

Torqu figure is actually 229 for the 320 coupe.

 

[mercboiuk]

Interesting you used the manual change on the auto - wondered why ?
Did you have the switch in S position anyway ?.

Yup, I had the gearbox in "Sport".

The manual change, in theory, should give a faster getaway from standstill - as when stationary, moving teh gear lever into the "2" position actually puts the gearbox into 1st gear

Darren

 

[BlackC55]

"S" is for Summer
"E" is economy

 

[A210AMG]

OK don't laugh....

In my barge, when I use the manual mode to change gears it does 'feel' quicker. Is it?

I don't have a S or W mode.

Have to say for a barge it goes well,

 

[mercboiuk]

"S" is for Summer
"E" is economy

I always assumed it was S "Sport" and E "Economy" on this era of Mercedes. And then later gearboxes S "Summer" and W "Winter".

Thanks for the correction

Darren

 

[NicDale]

The 190 needs a tune up! From my experience i'd say that its quicker than a w124 E320, either that or the E320 wasn't running right. And really thats the problem with old cars, neither are at their peak so it's difficult to say which would be the quickest.

How would a 5spd auto effect acceleration?

 

[janner]

From my owner's manual..
S = Standard
E = Economy

 

[Adam230K]

From my owner's manual..
S = Standard
E = Economy

Thats correct. And 'W' would stand for Winter, on later models.

 

[coupe deville]

Sounds like fun,you saw 148 on the speedo ?
and how private is private, is it a qulet road in the early hours
well m'lud he said he could outrun me

 

[Adam230K]

I'd love to go test out the top speed of my c230k after i map it and remove the limiter and move the rev limiter from 5800 to 6000. The last time i tried it, the needle stopped dead on 155 (i assume i was doing 150-152mph due to the error of the speedo) but i had 300 revs left. Maff did tell me when we were at Ollie's GTG, (He has the Ferrari 599 with the monstrously sounding Enzo engine), that he goes to track days where you can thrash your car on a run way... maybe we should do a GTG there!

 

[Will]

Sounds like an interesting comparison Darren

But - being honest (and genuinely, not biased), I tend to agree with NicDale.

May I add just one piece of quite significant info

The 2.3-16 and 2.5-16 engines fitted to the 190E 'Cosworth' models can vary significantly from one car to another. I'm talking probably 25% of peak power in extreme cases and to a greater extent torque at lower RPMs.

The main reason for this is due to the way the valves are operated. The 2.3/2.5-16 models do not have hydraulic tappets like most engines, they have solid lifters and as such the valve clearance is set by shims. They are supposed to be checked at each full service (12k) but are generally overlooked

By far, the majority of these engines are never looked at for years / 00000s of miles. In extreme circumstances, they run badly - poor starting from cold, poor idle etc. Generally, they just feel 'a bit flat'.

Driving a properly running (especially a freshly overhauled) 2.3 or 2.5 is like night and day compared with a 'typical' example that you would find today.

I genuinely would be interested to know if your friend has had his car looked at recently?

A set of feeler guages and a compression tester would tell you a lot about the state of the engine. Many of these cars are driving round with very, very poor compression and a lot of owners are totally oblivious to this - especially if it's the only 2.3/2.5 they own/have driven The power output is normally very slowly lost over many years/miles.

The difference on my 2.5-16 auto after I overhauled the cylinder head was incredible

Will

 

[st4]

I'd love to go test out the top speed of my c230k after i map it and remove the limiter and move the rev limiter from 5800 to 6000. The last time i tried it, the needle stopped dead on 155 (i assume i was doing 150-152mph due to the error of the speedo) but i had 300 revs left. Maff did tell me when we were at Ollie's GTG, (He has the Ferrari 599 with the monstrously sounding Enzo engine), that he goes to track days where you can thrash your car on a run way... maybe we should do a GTG there!

would be ace, but my sluggish car would be no good

 

[coupe deville]

I'd love to go test out the top speed of my c230k after i map it and remove the limiter /quote]


where can I find the limiter on mine

 

[Will]

Also, just to add - Darren, I've got both a 2.5-16 manual and a 2.5-16 auto. There's quite a difference to the drive between both cars - the auto has quite a character with a 4-speed auto and 7k+ rev limit, very long gears etc.

It'd be probably even more interesting to compare both cars (W124 E320 and the 2.5-16) if both had the same transmission

Will

 

[mercboiuk]

Sounds like an interesting comparison Darren

But - being honest (and genuinely, not biased), I tend to agree with NicDale.

May I add just one piece of quite significant info

The 2.3-16 and 2.5-16 engines fitted to the 190E 'Cosworth' models can vary significantly from one car to another. I'm talking probably 25% of peak power in extreme cases and to a greater extent torque at lower RPMs.

The main reason for this is due to the way the valves are operated. The 2.3/2.5-16 models do not have hydraulic tappets like most engines, they have solid lifters and as such the valve clearance is set by shims. They are supposed to be checked at each full service (12k) but are generally overlooked

By far, the majority of these engines are never looked at for years / 00000s of miles. In extreme circumstances, they run badly - poor starting from cold, poor idle etc. Generally, they just feel 'a bit flat'.

Driving a properly running (especially a freshly overhauled) 2.3 or 2.5 is like night and day compared with a 'typical' example that you would find today.

I genuinely would be interested to know if your friend has had his car looked at recently?

A set of feeler guages and a compression tester would tell you a lot about the state of the engine. Many of these cars are driving round with very, very poor compression and a lot of owners are totally oblivious to this - especially if it's the only 2.3/2.5 they own/have driven The power output is normally very slowly lost over many years/miles.

The difference on my 2.5-16 auto after I overhauled the cylinder head was incredible

Will

Thanks for your comments Will

TBH, I was expecting the Cosworth to win. I'm not sure if his car has been subject to a decent service and tune up, but I'll certainly point out the things you have mentioned - so thank you for these comments, too

Darren

 

[kusanku]

Thats correct. And 'W' would stand for Winter, on later models.

I can recall having this debate before, when several people reported getting less mpg on the "economy" setting. It was suggested at the time that the UK manuals at that time were incorrect and that S and E stood for Sommer (summer) and Eis (ice, meaning the winter setting). No idea what the truth of the matter is.

 

[Will]

Also, I'd personally think that both cars would be pretty well matched at higher speeds (triple figures), but I would've expected the 2.5-16 to be quite a bit quicker off the mark due to the lighter weight and ASD.

Obviously the 2.5-16 would be a much more nimble car - it's probably not fair to make comparisons there.

Will

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I'd love to go test out the top speed of my c230k after i map it and remove the limiter and move the rev limiter from 5800 to 6000. The last time i tried it, the needle stopped dead on 155 (i assume i was doing 150-152mph due to the error of the speedo) but i had 300 revs left. Maff did tell me when we were at Ollie's GTG, (He has the Ferrari 599 with the monstrously sounding Enzo engine), that he goes to track days where you can thrash your car on a run way... maybe we should do a GTG there!

I could calculate the theoretical top speed for you if I could find a good source for information such as drag coefficient, frontal area (or height and widest track), and weight. Today, Google is not my friend.