Printable View
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;811352]becase they made more than a handful maybe
i've never seen many 190E evo's on the you can see E30 M3's out and about quite easily.
how good is the standard 190E?[/QUOTE]
Good point. Its almost impossible to find Evo II's on the web for sale.
The standard 190E is no power house. However, the handling is terrific. My brother owns a normal 190E 2.3 and a 2.5 16V. Although the handling on the 2.5 16V is better, there is no huge difference.
The 190E's were in the same class as the BMW E30's. You got them in a 1.8, a 2.0, a 2.3, a 2.6 and the Cosworth models. They were also available in Diesel models. All of them were great cars in their own right. The "standard" 2.0, 2.3 and 2.6 models were also available with a "sportline" package. The sportlines had lower suspensions (superb handling) , recaro seats, etc. I owned a 325i E30 BMW and a 190E sportline 2.3 (both of them were great cars) and there is no comparison when it comes to handling. The Merc handled the best BY FAR!
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5 16v Evo II
[QUOTE=superwaxer;811360]If Marylin Monroe is regarded as one the the most attractive women ever, why do people think that Jessica Alba is more attractive? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Because the majority may think she is. You can't have a car that is regarded as the greatest car ever, than says its worse than what the majority thinks its better even if it's true. Why? Because then it is obviously not the 'best ever'.
It was the wording not the general idea which was wrong.
[QUOTE=The_Canuck;811381]Because the majority may think she is. You can't have a car that is regarded as the greatest car ever, than says its worse than what the majority thinks its better even if it's true. Why? Because then it is obviously not the 'best ever'.
It was the wording not the general idea which was wrong.[/QUOTE]
I get where youre coming from but its not about the majority, its about opinion and the "status" of the cars. As clutchmonkey mentioned, you very seldom see the 190E 2.5 16V's or Evo II's. Thus the general enthusiast have very little knowlege about the 190E's and their racing background. That s why the "majority" like the M3 more.
My point is that every real car and motorsport enthusiast that know what motorsport was like during the late 1980's will regard the 190E 2.5 16V or Evo II as ONE of the best cars ever built, not the majority of enhusiasts today.
I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I regard the E30 M3 AND the 190E 2.5 16V as some of the best cars ever built. Facts about these cars and their track/racing history prove this to us. However, that doesnt make the one superior to the other! Thats simply a matter of OPINION
I agree that the M3's and the 190E Cosworths were both great cars and that it is only a matter of taste and opinion. However, I believe that the 190E was the best handling car of the two. I know this from experience. Not just on the road but also on the track.
[QUOTE=superwaxer;811360]There was a time when these cars were considered equals, I dont understand why it cant be the same today.[/QUOTE]
The fact that the M3 won about everything and the 190E didn't can also be one of the reasons.
[QUOTE=Ferrer;811422]The fact that the M3 won about everything and the 190E didn't can also be one of the reasons.[/QUOTE]
The BMW did not win about everything. Look at the 1986 and 1988 DTM championship results. When we talk racing and motorsport there are driving skills and other factors involved as well. Anyway, the Mercedes 190E Cosworth set 3 world records over a 50,000km endurance test. All together they broke 12 international records. Did the BMW do it?
[QUOTE=viana;811438]The BMW did not win about everything. Look at the 1986 and 1988 DTM championship results. When we talk racing and motorsport there are driving skills and other factors involved as well. Anyway, the Mercedes 190E Cosworth set 3 world records over a 50,000km endurance test. All together they broke 12 international records. Did the BMW do it?[/QUOTE]
Maybe BMW didn't see going for records as a primary or even secondary objective with the M3.
The VW Nardo prototype set numerous records as well, most of which I think may even still stand today.
If for example Ferrari had their heart set on breaking those records and entered an Enzo, I'm pretty sure many of the Nardo's records would fall.
Thing is Ferrari just didn't see it as a priority.
Not to say the 190E's records mean nothing, I just think it may mean more than what it should be.
[QUOTE=Ferrer;811422]The fact that the M3 won about everything and the 190E didn't can also be one of the reasons.[/QUOTE]
Rofl lmfao!! What does that have to do with them being concidered as equals? And by the way, what racing are you referring to? The 190E's and M3's raced all over the world in many different championships of many sorts.
Lets just get this straight.
First of all, read the beginning of this thread. Its got nothing to do with how these cars compared on the track, its about how these cars compared on the street. So unless Im blind or retarded or something, those cars on the first post are all street built, street legal cars. Not DTM race cars.
Second of all, anyone that knows the difference between a wheel and a tyre will know that any car can perform well on the track when its modified and set up correctly.
Seriously, dont embarrass yourself by comparing street cars to race cars.
[QUOTE=superwaxer;811444]
Seriously, dont embarrass yourself by comparing cars on the street the way you compare them on the track.[/QUOTE]
eh? how else are you supposed to quantitatively compare them?
you compare sportscars on the track, econoboxes on the road.
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;811448]eh? how else are you supposed to quantitatively compare them?
you compare sportscars on the track, econoboxes on the road.[/QUOTE]
My bad. Im not talking about standard cars on the track, Im talking about modified production cars (example: DTM, JGTC) on the track.
[QUOTE=Kooper;811443]Maybe BMW didn't see going for records as a primary or even secondary objective with the M3.[/QUOTE]
We have to compare these cars overall and not only on the race track. That's why I mentioned the endurance records.
[QUOTE=viana;811456]We have to compare these cars overall and not only on the race track. That's why I mentioned the endurance records.[/QUOTE]
Point taken. It is a good point, just trying to add some spice to the conversation myself ;)
Yep. Makes it a whole lot more interesting!:)