Skip advert
Advertisement

The Mercedes 190E 2.5-16 Evo II's bodykit - Art of Speed

Take a tame-looking Mercedes saloon, add an extreme aero-kit. Result? Madness

Mercedes 190E 2.5-16 Evo II

There are homologation cars, and then there are homologation cars. Aston’s DBR9 might have two Le Mans class wins to its name, but the luxurious road cars are hopelessly neutered by comparison. The DB9 was also a huge commercial success and you could even buy one with an extended warranty. Hardly the stuff of the legend, is it? Lancia, meanwhile, screwed together 200 Delta S4 Stradales through gritted teeth because that’s what it took to compete in a series so unhinged it was quickly banned. Extended warranty? Er, yeah…

Advertisement - Article continues below

The Mercedes 190E 2.5-16 Evolution II sits somewhere in between. Sure, it’s rare, but with 502 examples built by AMG in 1990, it doesn’t qualify as 24-karat unobtanium. Relative to the championship-winning DTM bruiser whose existence it sanctioned by acting as a homologation base, it was also depressingly tame, weighing 1340kg with 232bhp at 7200rpm. That sounds quite promising, until you realise the racer weighed 980kg and made 367bhp at a skull-numbing 9500rpm. The road car’s wood-trimmed interior was also incredibly plush – way too plush to be cool.

The brilliant thing about the Evo II, though, is that you wouldn’t know any of this by looking at it, because it shared the race car’s whopper of a bodykit. Group A aero homologation rules and Mercedes’ determination to slap down the BMW E30 M3 Evo made sure of that, and the result was not only a very good touring car, but a level of malevolence hitherto unseen in the marque’s subdued showrooms. Hands tied, AMG had been given no choice but to build arguably the most frightening road car in history. Painting it black – Blauschwarz, to be precise – was purely gratuitous.

Concocted by the (possibly) mad genius Professor Richard Eppler at Stuttgart University, the glassfibre bodykit was far more nuanced than its oil-slick cubism suggested. The front splitter, so precariously low but mitigated somewhat by the car’s changeable ride height, was adjustable. The upper portion the rear window also wore a plastic bracket designed to corral air towards a wing with a manually adjustable trailing edge, and the spoiler beneath was similarly adjustable.

What weren’t adjustable were the wheelarch extensions, which tapered at the rear and framed 17-inch Speedline wheels to brutal effect. They were, and still are, crucial to the enormous appeal of the Evo II, because without them the wing would look ridiculously overbearing. And without the wing, well, what you’re left with is an Evo I – an impressive but altogether less awe-inspiring homologation beast.

Skip advert
Advertisement
Skip advert
Advertisement

Most Popular

Best cars of the 1980s – performance icons from the decade of excess
Best '80s cars
Best cars

Best cars of the 1980s – performance icons from the decade of excess

The performance car as we’ve come to adore it has its origins in the 1980s. Family cars got fast, fast cars got faster, all of them were huge fun
19 Aug 2025
Mercedes-Benz EQS 2025 review – electric S-class takes aim at the BMW i7
Mercedes EQS – front
In-depth reviews

Mercedes-Benz EQS 2025 review – electric S-class takes aim at the BMW i7

Mercedes put all of its resources into creating a bespoke all-electric flagship, but it’s not quite worthy of replacing the S-class yet
18 Aug 2025
Aston Martin Vantage (2006) Fast Fleet test – living with a £30k V8 Aston
evo Fast Fleet Aston Martin Vantage
Long term tests

Aston Martin Vantage (2006) Fast Fleet test – living with a £30k V8 Aston

How much does an early V8 Vantage really cost to run? We’re starting to find out
21 Aug 2025