• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Did Cosworth Have A Hand In The W201 2.5 16v?

D

Deleted member 37751

Guest
Can anyone one confirm whether Mercedes had the W201 2.5 16v tweaked/tuned by Cosworth?

I was under the impression that it was only the 2.3 that was the 'genuine' Cosworth, so to speak.

If anyone has the answer it would end a prolonged disagreement...
 
From Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
Other companies known to have benefitted from the Cosworth engineering input are Mercedes-Benz (with the 190 E 2.3-16), Rolls-Royce, and Audi (notably their RS cars).[citation needed]
Cosworth’s involvement with Mercedes-Benz came with moves in the mid-1980s from the German manufacturer to re-enter motorsport after retiring from direct factory participation after the tragic 1955 Le Mans crash which killed 80 spectators. Mercedes-Benz was looking to create a Group B rally car out of its new W201 Chassis (190E Model) and turned to the expertise of Cosworth to shorten the development time for this project.[citation needed]


2.3-16 Targa Car
The request was a huge surprise for Cosworth, and the original brief for a 320*bhp engine based on the 136*bhp Mercedes M102 2.3-litre SOHC 4-cylinder engine was passed duly passed to Mike Hall, who “drew the famed DFV and BDA engine”.[11] Designed around the existing M102 head bolt pattern, the new twin cam, 16-valve, pentroof head, had its valves set a 45° included angle, rather than the 40° angle of the BDA.[11] The valves were the biggest that could be fitted into the combustion chamber. Flat top pistons delivered the 10.5:1 compression ratio. The new Cosworth WAA[12] engine also was Cosworth’s first one-piece head, i.e. the camshaft carrier was cast integral with the head itself. Again the constraints of the existing head-bolt pattern meant that Hall had to shift the camshaft bearings from outside each pair of camlobes as in the BDA to in between each cylinder's pair of cam lobes. The upside being that this configuration made for less flex at high rpm.[11]
The advent of the AWD turbo Audi Quattro gave the rear-wheel-drive, normally aspirated 190E rally car no chance of being successful and the competition car was stillborn. Instead Mercedes Benz decided to recoup its development cost by selling the car as a road going sports-sedan. Hall detuned the WAA race engine to 185*bhp by reducing the port diameters and a more restrictive fuel injection and induction was substituted for the race items to complete the detune.[11] All WAA 2.3-16 engines were built in the Cosworth factory with the heads being produced by the Coscast method.
Cosworth assisted with the later 2.5-16 engine (WAB), and the short-stroke 2.5-16 Evo engines (WAC) although these were all manufactured in house by Mercedes-Benz.[citation needed] The 190E 2.3-16 became the basis for privateer Mercedes entries into the DTM from 1988. The short-stroke 2.5-16 190E EVO II was race-developed to 375+ bhp, gaining the 1992 DTM crown with Klaus Ludwig at the wheel.
 
I wonder why Cosworth were chosen over a more local company? Did they have greater racing heritage at the time compared to others?
 
I'd seen that exert from Wiki but it didn't seem conclusive enough for me, Bobby. (the citation needed bit)
 
I wonder why Cosworth were chosen over a more local company? Did they have greater racing heritage at the time compared to others?

The engine was being developed to go racing.
 
As far as I know the wiki article is correct...

Cosworth only really developed the heads, which are a work of art, Mercedes supplied the rest... Good job otherwise all these engines would be dead by now.
 
The reason given for the production of the 2.5 litre version of the 16 valve engine was MB's decision to give official backing to teams racing in the German touring car championship [ DTM] This increase in capacity was designed to take on BMW's M3 which was conceived specifically as a group A touring car. The teams were AMG, Snowbeck Racing Service [ Danny Snowbeck] and MS racing [ Jochen Mass Gunter Schons] and former FI team Zakspeed I would wager many of the detail changes in the engine from 2.3 to 2.5 would have incorporated experience from these racing teams fed back to MB.:dk:
 
Last edited:
Its also worth remembering that AMG at the time was not owned by Mercedes (that happened few years later) but also they did not have experience with 4cyl engines. On the other hand Cosworth was the place to go in the mid 80s

Theo
 
Why do you ask?
 
I think he wants to buy one but only if they have pedigree.
 
Why do you ask?

Because originally I thought that both the 2.3 and the 2.5 were 'Cosworth' tuned, so to speak.

Then, for some reason I can't quite recall, I came under the impression that the 2.3 was a 'proper' Cosworth and because of the obvious similarities between the two cars that the 2.5 had been entirely a Mercedes car but had been lumped together with the 2.3.

Does that make sense?
 
I think he wants to buy one but only if they have pedigree.
You know me too well...

At the moment it's between a W201 'Cosworth' and a W202 C36 as a bit of a project.

Besides me making a good profit on that E30, it was an eye opener as to how 'slow' even a straight six was. I understand the W201 won't be exactly a rocket, but it'll be a manual and I'm told they are 'revvy' :devil:
 
Have a look at the 190 forum where this has been discussed ad nauseum.

So that means there is some conjecture on the subject then?
 
Amongst those without a life, possibly.

Amongst normal people, not really.
 
Cosworth designed the valve train and cylinder head used in both cars. There is some question where the heads were machined but that's about it. The 2.3 and 2.5 are both cars with a long motorsport pedigree [ touring car racing] although Mercedes originally planned to take the 2.3-16v rallying would you believe! The 2.5 is essentially a "stroked " 2.3 that's all. To all intents and purposes the same car. To be honest I would be far more concerned with the condition of any car you wanted to buy than very minor differences in their provenance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom