PaulE550

I asked the MB dealer if I could take a quick test drive of the E43 a few weeks ago, when I bought my TTV8 E550 in for annual maintenance. Pretty slow day in the sales department. While the E43 is a big improvement over the E350 / E400, it's not quite there in terms of what I currently drive. For someone who is used to an AMG, like Peter, I think he might be significantly disappointed. That is why I suggested he might want to consider the supposed E50 as an alternative.

Yes I would agree with you that the E43 would be more favorably compared to the 535 than the 550. A true apple to apple comparison.

ngerstman

How hard did you press the e43? Is it possible that smoothness of the new 9 speed transmission gave you the misimpression of less guts to the new e43 engine versus the older ttv8? Thanks. Regards. Ned.

PeterUbers

Paul brings up excellent points as do you all and truth be told I have not yet driven the e43... this is on the must do list for this month

Brettboytn

I know 0-60 times aren't everything, but the E43 isn't in the same class as the S6 and new M550xi.

0-60 times
E43 - 4.7 seconds
M550xi - 4.0 seconds
S6 - 3.9 seconds

c4004matic

There is no doubt that its a badge job but it does include most of the E 63 non engine goodies.

c4004matic

The merc is kind of a dog down low but if you check the 1/4 they are running neck and neck. Personally anything running around 4.5 to 60 is in the top5% anyway. My rentech c400 runs 4.7 to 60 with a 12.9 1/4 at 112mph. I would expect the E 43 to have identical if not slightly better numbers. It eats hemi chargers, stangs and camaros for lunch! Not bad for a taxi!

c4004matic

if you compare the s6 and bimmer to their v8 amg competition they are dog meat.

PeterUbers

yes the 1/4 in the s6 goes by in 12.4 @ 112
the 550i is 12.7 @ ?

e43 I believe remains untested in the 1/4

c4004matic

I havnt seen any 1/4 mile numbers either. My expirience with the 3.0 its that it revvy and doesnt stop pulling till well over 130 (another plus of the aftermarket tune no limiter).

Munich77

Nice choices of cars - I would go for a V8 but then I am biased!

PeterUbers

im definitely leaving that way ...

PaulE550

Had the car for about 20 -25 minutes. As I said a short test drive, but long enough to get a pretty good feel for the car. Honestly, the 9 speed didn't feel drastically different from my 7 speed. Both equally smooth from a dead stop through accelerating up to 80 mph on the highway. The E43 is just a bit slower and the engine a bit louder at higher rpm. Performance difference of a V6 versus a V8 as your would expect. Nothing out of line. Again, for someone like Peter, who is used to driving a AMG, it will be a noticeable difference he may or may not appreciate. Especially if he is also looking at the BMW and Audi models mentioned.

ngerstman

what engine is in your e550? My 2011 e550 has the 5.5 liter naturally aspirated 380hp engine, the year before the engine change to the twin turbo. The e43 has the turbo 6 with 396hp so a bit more than my 2011. That should make for an interesting comparison. Wonder which engine I'll prefer. Regards. Ned.

PaulE550

I have the 4.7 liter TTV8 (M278) engine in my coupe. MB rates the engine as 402 HP, but had the car dynoed at 435 HP. So MB seems to under-rate their engines a bit.

c4004matic

[QUOTE=ngerstman;7013727]what engine is in your e550? My 2011 e550 has the 5.5 liter naturally aspirated 380hp engine, the year before the engine change to the twin turbo. The e43 has the turbo 6 with 396hp so a bit more than my 2011. That should make for an interesting comparison. Wonder which engine I'll prefer.
Regardless of power a v8 will always sound better than a v6. That said the E 43's piped in music is very fine indeed.

c4004matic

I Iwould also not be surprised if the 43 specs have been dumbed down a little bit to make the 63 seem that much different. If you have read the 63 reviews, if it werent for drift mode which disengages the front diff, there wouldnt be much power sliding . The fact is that once you reach a certain power level traction, downforce and other issues become more critical. On a staight line the more hp the harder you can accelerate at higher speeds. Ergo the difference becomes more pronounced the faster you go. The huge differences between the 43 and 63 are at 100mph plus.

threeMBs

Official MBUSA.com 0-60 E43 number is 4.5sec, while (2017) E550 coupe is "only" at 4.9sec (for my 2014 W212 E550 with the same TT V8 engine as in a coupe, it was posted at 5.2 sec; just for comparison, for 2014 CLS550, also with the same engine, it was posted at 5.1 sec while now for 2017, with 9sp tranny instead of 7sp, its down to 4.9sec). And while I did not drive E43 yet, the numbers on paper are clearly in E43's favor over TT V8 in W212/218/207 550s.

HBerman

The 0-60 mph numbers on my 2013 E550 were also 5.2 sec, vs. the 0-60 mph numbers on my 2017 E300 of 6.3 sec. That's why I can't feel much seat of the pants difference below 70mph on my ride.

threeMBs

Had '17 E300 for two days as loaner - I definitely felt the difference in acceleration and especially highway passing and merging. However, W213 cornered (even on taller A/S tires as compared to my lower profile summer tires) with much more precision, most likely due to significantly less weight in W213 rwd (my car was listed at 4,400 curb).

Edit: I'd like to add that any seat of the pants acceleration comparison between W213 and W212 have one rarely mentioned phrase - "throttle delay" in all pre-facelift W212 cars. Somehow MB "fixed" this issue with 2014 W212 re-design (pre-facelift cars could be "fixed" by installing SB). W213 of course does not suffer from the throttle delay but the lack of torque down low (I'm talking about E300) is very noticeable as compared to 550s (but not 350s). So I take any such statements from prior TT V8 owners of E550 and CLS550 who moved onto W213 E300 with a big grain of salt. (One potential explanation is that maybe those in E550/CLS550 were driving only in E mode (instead in always S as there's a noticeable difference) and now they drive '17E300 only in Dynamic+ mode.)

c4004matic

That 6.3 figure is actually a litle optimistic the2 tests Ive seen by CR and KBB put the 300 at 7 sec. I drove it quite a bit and found the power on the 300 more than adequate.

threeMBs

I would ignore any "tests" (especially those "showing" E300 to be slower than E350 - its not). Lets compare apples to apples and use only the "official" MB numbers posted on mbusa.com. 6.3sec is the number for E300 (it was 6.5 for E350). The E43 number is 4.5sec, so for anyone loading E300 with options, well I think its no brainer to take E43 instead for $10K MSRP more (of course the actual transaction price difference will be greater due to E300 discount and lack of it for E43).

c4004matic

I cant opine on the 350 since I never drove it. I would check CR on that. Their speeds are slower than anyone elses but they are consistent. Their speed test is simply stomp and go, which is what 99% of us do every day.

c4004matic

Ok visited CR for the 350 vs 300. The 350 was 6.3 and the 300 is 7.1 a significant if not huge difference. However the transmission makes a big difference in feel and drivability that is not reflected in absolute numbers. The 9g seems to always pick the perfect gear for best performace regardless of the situation, thus it never feels flatfooted. The 9g is an admirable partner to the 4.

zer0t

I'm looking st an e43 today and edmunds TMV is nesrly 5k off MSRP. When I spoke to the dealer Saturday they said it would be sub MSRP in the e43 if I wanted to go,that way.

threeMBs

$1K off on a $91K E43 - only 1% off:

https://mbworld.org/forums/e-class-w...ml#post7024812