callmiro

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/wagons/1308_2014_mercedes_benz_e63_amg_s_model_4matic_wag on_first_test/

V8

335X-ray

Impressive numbers for any car, especially a wagon. Nice to have real world numbers for a US spec car. Makes me think the sedan might be a 3.3 sec 0-60 car! Sub 12 second 1/4 mile numbers are very impressive.

For comparison, another motor trend test of the 2013 M5: 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and gets through the quarter in 11.9 seconds at 120.3 mph. For comparison's sake, a Porsche Panamera Turbo we tested recently performed these same feats of strength in 3.5 seconds to 60 mph and 11.9 seconds at 114.7 mph through the quarter mile. But all-wheel drive is clearly a big advantage for the Porsche, and its extra 68 lb-ft of torque help the 102-pound-heavier Panamera get out of the hole.

MT M5 Spec page

X

nstanford99

great numbers! very impressive, i cant wait to see what the S-Model sedan will be.

Thanks for the post

captlst

Omg!!! That's wicked fast. Can't wait for the sedan numbers. The wait for my car is killing me.

xtyper

Given the sedan is 500+lbs lighter than the wagon, I predict 3.2 0-60 and 11.4@123 quarter mile.

drhemi

According to the brochure the weight difference is only about 240 lbs. Interestingly, the specified US weights (4431 Sedan, 4674 Wagon) are about 150 lbs heavier than what was quoted in the Canadian documents. I suspect the Canadian ones are in error.

Likely the factory's figures of 0.1 sec faster 0-60 are close.

Wayne

callmiro

I bet you the numbers will be the same. The wagon hooks harder and launches harder with more weight distribution in the a$$

xtyper

Odd, I thought the 2013 Sedan was listed at 40xxlbs, and I assumed the 2014 would be minimally different. I must have overlooked the extra weight of the new AWD system. With that in mind, the non-AWD should be trapping 123-125mph!!!

otakki

The numbers are impressive. However, the figures are somewhat expected due to the use of AWD system. Nearly all of those compared cars are RWD. IMO, it would be more appropriate to compare to other AWD cars, ie Porsche Panamera Turbo as mentioned, or GTR which has less hp/tq yet better power transmission to the ground.

Ditto...due to the extra weight in the rear.

Chocofishez

A new benchmark set. All performance sedans will need to follow suit. AWD and turbocharging are here to stay.

I'm quite looking forward to crushing almost everything on four wheels with impunity, while rocking my AC seats and B&O. All this with no gas guzzler tax. What a machine.

otakki

Now the goal will be for each maker to tweak the system in terms of front/rear and side to side power distribution and the speed of it, traction control, etc. The most ideal one, IMO, would be the one that is on the GTR now: the ATTESA ETS-PRO that is fully variable between f50:r50 to f0:r100 (most of the time) depending on the condition.

keyserS

Was funny, the GT-R did worse this year than in other MT tests, slower time, and handling complaints.

Ferrari uses 30-35/65-70 on FF and LaFerrari, IIRC.

33/67 is great, Audi has tried 40/60 but still understeer mostly due to weight distribution and motor placement.

Quaife diffs F/R and a fixed split probably best for performance, traction control can limit as needed without killing balance.

I suspect alignment mods will help with grip, -1.0-1.5deg camber should change contact patch for the better. Corner weights and fiddling does wonders without changing a part. Throwing away the Conti's not bad idea though.

AMG12

Very Impressive when you compare to the much lighter and PDK'd Panamera Turbo S.

Power wise the Turbo S spots the Wagon 22 hp and has identical torque with oeverboost, so pretty similar.


2014 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S-Model 4-Matic Wagon
BASE PRICE $103,295
PRICE AS TESTED $110,195
VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door wagon
ENGINE 5.5L/577-hp/590-lb-ft twin-turbo DOHC 32-valve V-8
TRANSMISSION 7-speed automatic
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4703 lb (51/49%)
WHEELBASE 113.2 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 193.4 x 76.4 x 59.9 in
0-60 MPH 3.4 sec
QUARTER MILE 11.7 sec @ 120.4 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 110 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.95 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.3 sec @ 0.84 g (avg)
EPA CITY/HWY FUEL ECON 16/24 mpg
ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 211/140 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 1.03 lb/mile




2012 Porsche Panamera Turbo S
BASE PRICE $174,175
PRICE AS TESTED $194,665
VEHICLE LAYOUT Front engine, AWD, 4-pass, 4-door sedan
ENGINE 4.8L/550-hp/553-lb-ft* twin-turbo DOHC 32-valve V-8
TRANSMISSION 7-speed twin-clutch auto.
CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST) 4388 lb (54/46%)
WHEELBASE 114.9 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 195.6 x 76.0 x 55.8 in
0-60 MPH 3.5 sec
QUARTER MILE 11.8 sec @ 118.0 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 105 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION 1.00 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT 24.4 sec @ 0.82 g (avg)
EPA CITY/HWY FUEL ECON 15/23 mpg
ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CITY/HWY 225/147 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 1.09 lb/mile
*590-lb-ft with overboost

2012 merc amg

Ya and the wagon gets better fuel economy than the Panamera, pretty impressive.

Shellbmb

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...t_drag_race_3/

Karl901

Last night I took the E63 S to drag strip.
Without race start ran 11.88 sec @121.9 mph

335X-ray

Nice! Especially trap speed! How many miles on your beast right now? Under 1k?

X

trev0006

what a monster

xtyper

Impressive! Do you have timeslips you can post? I'm particularly interested in your 60 ft's with the AWD.

AMG E Power

trap speed would have been faster if he waited for the cooler weather, S. FL is been 95-100 degrees with 80-90 percent humidity for the past month.

Karl901

Time slip printing was to light to scan. No time slips.

mainly

try race start!

callmiro

It will probably launch harder, at the track, without it

I bet it is hooking a 1.6 to low 1.7 60 foot

mainly

why would you say that?

think about it. they called it RACE START for a reason.

you arent giving AMG engineers much credit, saying that a feature they engineered into all their cars is basically useless...?

i would bet race start would yeild the best time.

i know it does with the m5.

Karl901

0 to 60ft I was at 1.97sec. I would have used Race start at the track , but there was no time to screw with at the line.