Merc Cosworths,
Discussion
Just a quick question for you, Having had an ,86 2.3 16V 190e a good long while ago, I still think its a great car today and as i see their now becoming a classic and prices reflecting that for a good standard model.
Can you truly call the later 2.5 version a Cosworth, I could be wrong but I was told a long time a go that the name cosworth came as they made the top end of the enginge, but the later cars were all made buy mercedes. Is this true, and also would this de value the later car as its not realy a cosworth.
any comments
Anthony.
Can you truly call the later 2.5 version a Cosworth, I could be wrong but I was told a long time a go that the name cosworth came as they made the top end of the enginge, but the later cars were all made buy mercedes. Is this true, and also would this de value the later car as its not realy a cosworth.
any comments
Anthony.
None of them were what you would call Cosworths - Cosworth Engineering designed the 16v head for the 2.0 engine with 2.3 Overbore. They couldn't keep pace with Mercedes production demands, and it was eventually brought in-house towards the end of the 2.3 run.
To compare this with it's contemporaries - the Vauxhall 2.0 DOHC XE engine also used a Cosworth designed and made cylinder head, but nobody calls them MK2 Astra GTE Cosworths
The Cosworth label seems to have stuck only in the UK - never seen the term used by the Germans or Americans - and I think is as a result of the somewhat clumsy naming compared with it's showroom competition. 190E 2.3-16 doesn't exactly trip off the tongue like M3, quattro Turbo, or Sierra Cosworth.
Anyhow, the 2.5-16s are worth slightly more simply due to the fact they're not as old as the 2.3-16. However, to an afficiando of the breed, as I am, I'd rather have an early 2.3-16 with the preset tension Getrag LSD, and would pay more for the priviledge - but then not everyone is like me
Realistically, they're now well into cult classic territory, and like it's M3 peer, you pay on condition, mileage, provenance, colour, age, and finally spec.
It is worth noting that the prices some are expecting for a late, mint 2.5 are now higher than what mid-mile Evolution Is are fetching on the Continent! I've seen a UK 60K 1989 2.5-16 up for £10K recently, whilst in Switzerland, there were a couple of 70K 1989 Evolution Is up for £6500!!!
To compare this with it's contemporaries - the Vauxhall 2.0 DOHC XE engine also used a Cosworth designed and made cylinder head, but nobody calls them MK2 Astra GTE Cosworths
The Cosworth label seems to have stuck only in the UK - never seen the term used by the Germans or Americans - and I think is as a result of the somewhat clumsy naming compared with it's showroom competition. 190E 2.3-16 doesn't exactly trip off the tongue like M3, quattro Turbo, or Sierra Cosworth.
Anyhow, the 2.5-16s are worth slightly more simply due to the fact they're not as old as the 2.3-16. However, to an afficiando of the breed, as I am, I'd rather have an early 2.3-16 with the preset tension Getrag LSD, and would pay more for the priviledge - but then not everyone is like me
Realistically, they're now well into cult classic territory, and like it's M3 peer, you pay on condition, mileage, provenance, colour, age, and finally spec.
It is worth noting that the prices some are expecting for a late, mint 2.5 are now higher than what mid-mile Evolution Is are fetching on the Continent! I've seen a UK 60K 1989 2.5-16 up for £10K recently, whilst in Switzerland, there were a couple of 70K 1989 Evolution Is up for £6500!!!
Dunk76 said:
However, to an afficiando of the breed, as I am, I'd rather have an early 2.3-16 with the preset tension Getrag LSD, and would pay more for the priviledge - but then not everyone is like me
that's what I've got...but I didn't have to pay more for the privilegeDunk76 said:
whilst in Switzerland, there were a couple of 70K 1989 Evolution Is up for £6500!!!
really! I did see one in the UK for £6,000 a year or so ago, but recently they've been over £10k - which site did you see these on?We regularly like to have an argument on mercedes190.co.uk about whether the 2.5 is a real "cosworth"!
All the evidence we have is just what people remember from back in the '80s. The story then was that 2.3 heads were done by Cosworth, and then I think sent to Germany for fitting. But the stories always claim that the 2.5 enlargement was done by Mercedes. However I've never seen a shred of evidence for any of this despite looking reasonably hard, so it's all hear'say.
Of course I think Mercedes' marketing dept always downplayed the fact their sports saloon had a British-developed engine. But the fact is, Cosworth have a project code for the 2.5 version of the engine ( http://www.siipicossu.com/CostinDuckworth.htm ) - WAA is the 2.3-16 code, WAB the 2.5-16 code, and WAC the Evo 1 project code.
Additionally, if you take the head off a 2.5, it has "Coscast" stamped on it.
Here's some interesting Autocar articles from when the 2.3 came out, including an interview with Cosworth:
http://www.knapplane.plus.com/190e/16v/mag/
And here's the original 2.3-16 press pack (which I haven't read yet!):
http://z14.invisionfree.com/mercedes_190_club/inde...
Of course this is all irrelevant anyway. What matters is how they drive. My 2.5 has no service history, poor compression and needs a head rebuild. But I test drove a beautiful condition 2.3 recently, thinking I wouldn't notice the power difference. I was wrong - I really felt the missing 0.2L throughout the rev range. So for me unfortunately it has to be the 2.5.
FYI they made ~19,000 2.3s and 5,000 2.5s.
All the evidence we have is just what people remember from back in the '80s. The story then was that 2.3 heads were done by Cosworth, and then I think sent to Germany for fitting. But the stories always claim that the 2.5 enlargement was done by Mercedes. However I've never seen a shred of evidence for any of this despite looking reasonably hard, so it's all hear'say.
Of course I think Mercedes' marketing dept always downplayed the fact their sports saloon had a British-developed engine. But the fact is, Cosworth have a project code for the 2.5 version of the engine ( http://www.siipicossu.com/CostinDuckworth.htm ) - WAA is the 2.3-16 code, WAB the 2.5-16 code, and WAC the Evo 1 project code.
Additionally, if you take the head off a 2.5, it has "Coscast" stamped on it.
Here's some interesting Autocar articles from when the 2.3 came out, including an interview with Cosworth:
http://www.knapplane.plus.com/190e/16v/mag/
And here's the original 2.3-16 press pack (which I haven't read yet!):
http://z14.invisionfree.com/mercedes_190_club/inde...
Of course this is all irrelevant anyway. What matters is how they drive. My 2.5 has no service history, poor compression and needs a head rebuild. But I test drove a beautiful condition 2.3 recently, thinking I wouldn't notice the power difference. I was wrong - I really felt the missing 0.2L throughout the rev range. So for me unfortunately it has to be the 2.5.
FYI they made ~19,000 2.3s and 5,000 2.5s.
Marki said:
Dunk76 said:
The Cosworth label seems to have stuck only in the UK - never seen the term used by the Germans or Americans
Ford are the only company allowed to use the Cosworth name on road cars Russell the Coscast name - just means it was cast by Cosworth, nothing more than that. My R500 uses Coscast pistons for instance. They're not that sophisticated either - well manufactured, but not "bleeding edge"...I guess Caterham wanted to keep costs down.
rubystone said:
Marki said:
Dunk76 said:
The Cosworth label seems to have stuck only in the UK - never seen the term used by the Germans or Americans
Ford are the only company allowed to use the Cosworth name on road cars Marki said:
rubystone said:
Marki said:
Dunk76 said:
The Cosworth label seems to have stuck only in the UK - never seen the term used by the Germans or Americans
Ford are the only company allowed to use the Cosworth name on road cars 
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff