Why is the CLS55 slower than the E55 stock for stock? Is it because of the weight because I know it's heavier, though not really sure on the actual weight ie. someone measuring their one at truck stop or scales. Some people have told me it has to do with the coefficient of drag and also the wider tires. I've also run with 2 CLS55s, nothing serious just highway pulls to 130mph and my car always had 1-2 car lengths on the CLS.

 

The e55 is significantly lighter and has a better power-to weight ratio, that's principally why...!

 

1-2 car lengths? Is the other driver fatter than you? Are u built like Felipe Masa and he's like big as a casa? weight is key, speical that close at that speed. Also I hear the cls while sleek looking has a bad cd compared to wider rear cars.

 

i've ran a few e55s and we're always neck in neck or half a car apart (stock vs. stock)

 

It's to compensate for the fact that the CLS is a bit prettier. That's also why the CLS only has 4 seats. Keep things even. Lol

 

I have not experienced any of this tbh

I also believe that very few of the cls's race, where as there are far more E's out there that do, thus the over all results favour the E

I find most of the CLS owners only tend to mod for looks and go big *** 20 rims on the car, which just kills its performance ...nuf said

 

Yup it does. There was a discussion on that in this forum with an article.

 

Not sure that it is, necessarily:
Car & Driver tests the CLS55
Curb weight: 4327 lb
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.7 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 23.7 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 12.5 sec @ 115 mph

Car & Driver tests the E55
Curb weight: 4237 lb
Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.9 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.5 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.7 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 12.5 sec @ 116 mph

CLS55 tested in ams, 2004:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 130 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,5 s

CLS55 tested in auto zeitung, 2004:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

CLS55 tested in Sport Auto, 1/2005:
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,4 s

E55 tested in Sport Auto, 1/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

E55 tested in AMS, 11/2005:
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,1 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,3 s

To me it seems like it'd be more of a driver's race than anything else, with the CLS55 probably having a launch edge due to slightly higher weight and fatter rear tires....up high the E55 might have a slight edge due to better aerodynamics and skinnier tires, though it isn't reflected in the 0-xxx numbers here (although a slightly better launch would help it make up some time).

Anyway, you certainly don't see this difference in the test numbers, I'd think that results would be more dependent upon driver and car than anything else.

 

Well I'm not "fat" and my car is stock, no weight reduction, stock wheels and nothing thrown out. Not that I race but yh it was a random highway pull, they were definitely AMGs, not 63s either and the blokes driving were both not "morbidly obese", I can't really tell at 40 mph on the road through the window lol but neither pulled on me, 1-2 car lengths is an estimate but the point is we weren't neck and neck or me behind. It probably does have to do with the power to weight, I'm surprised though that AMG didn't take weight out with the CLS, it's sportier and prettier but AMG seems to have trouble making car's sporty, they make amazing engine but it's like they make the cars heavy on purpose. The CLK Black was probably the first time AMG alone made a good sportscar. If they did that to all the cars BMW wouldn't stand a chance.

 

Thing is, though, that there is no appreciable weight difference, according to Mercedes: MBUSA lists the following curb weights for the 2006 CLS55 and E55:

2006 CLS55: 4,050 lb/1,737 kg
2006 E55: 4,087 lb/1,855 kg

And further, American and European test data for the two vehicles simply do not show that the cars are appreciably different performance-wise. With regards to your personal experience, two runs where you could easily have jumped on it a bit sooner and picked up the lead do not a gold standard establish. Timed tests are the way to go, and the gap isn't there.

Anyway, as I said, I really think that it's a driver's race.

 

The CLS55 does not weigh less than the E, Mercedes is delusional if they say that. All car quoted weighs are a bit off, people have to weigh their cars, most people can't be bothered or are too busy though.

 

Mercedes doesn't know the weight of their own cars?? O-kay....

Anyway, putting that little nugget aside, we can take solace in the fact that automotive publications weigh the cars they test.

I already quoted Car & Driver above, who also weigh the cars they test:
So the cars, which again they actually weighed, were within 90 lbs of one another, which could easily be explained by options. Also note that they tested the CLS55 nearly a full second faster to 150 mph, despite its whopping 90 lb heavier curb weight.

But wait, there's more: each of the Euro tests I cited weigh their cars as well; here are the performance tests you ignored again, updated to reflect the tested vehicles' curb weights:

Now then, let's look at objective facts, shall we?

1. The tests show no appreciable difference between the cars' acceleration beyond variances within the tests of the models themselves, i.e. the variances in the tests of the different E55s and CLS55s are the same as the variances between the differences between the cars. Test data from four different publications show that the vehicles' acceleration is basically the same, and the one publication that tested to 150 mph tested the CLS55 a tad bit faster. But statistically, the acceleration variances are all within the same range for all vehicles tested, ergo there is no statistical difference in the cars' acceleration as tested.

2. The weight differences are negligible; Car & Driver had them within 100 lbs, easilly explainable by options or lack thereof, and the lightest of the Euro tested cars was a CLS55 at 1845Kg. Further, with the exception of this lightest car, the remaining CLS55s and E55s tested by the European publications were all within 20 Kg of each other.

3. Mercedes' published figures also show this. Therefore, the data does not indicate that your claim that MB is "delusional" is true.

4. Lastly, Car & Driver also has tests for the CLS500 and E500. The cars' respective weights: CLS500: 4048 lb E500: 3969 lb

The cars' respective options:
CLS500: (includes $1300 gas-guzzler tax and $720 freight), $66,920;
heated and ventilated front seats, $1270; Lighting package
(includes headlamp washers, bixenon headlights, and cornering
lights), $1220; Keyless Go, $1080; Entertainment package
(includes Harman/Kardon stereo with in-dash 6-CD changer),
$980; Trim package (wood-and-leather-covered steering wheel
and shift knob), $890; massaging driver’s seat, $590; massaging
front-passenger’s seat, $590; power trunklid, $510; power rearwindow
shade, $450

E500: base Mercedes-
Benz E500 (includes $465 luxury tax and $665 freight),
$55,980; Distronic cruise control, $2950; dual sunroofs, $1500;
Sport package, $1375; Value Added package (includes heated
seats and steering wheel), $875; Harman/Kardon stereo, $700;
luxury tax on options, $222

So, here a heavily-optioned CLS500 came in at about 80 pounds heavier than a lightly-optioned E500. Clearly, there is nothing indicating a heavier curb weight in the CLS platform.

 

agreed stock 4 stock they are almost identical.
on looks i give the edge to the CLS- such beauty!
the german taxi (e55) is pretty awesome once modded