overall the car was pleasant and fun. interior is great. very comfortable and stable up to 130 mph.

trunk is too small. could only carry 2 large suitcases plus 4 carry on bags. my 1999 e320 4matic had a much better trunk. even my son's 2001 audi a4 has much more trunk room.

the lack of a spare tire sucks!!

overall i like my 2000 s430 much more than the new e class especially with regard to the trunk size. i would not rent this model again much less buy one.

 

Oh well... Thats nothing bad. Lots of people don't carry lots of stuff in the trunk.

 

I think MB made the trunk bigger in the 2003 E compared to the 2002 E! Was the trunk even larger in 1999?

 

2003 e class trunk is smaller. you could not travel comfortably with 4 people in new e class.

 

This is from Edmunds concerning the trunk size of the 2003 E:

Though Mercedes kept the sedan's overall length the same, it stretched the wheelbase and widened the car about an inch. The extra shoulder room is obvious, but none of the extra space between the wheels turns up in the cabin. Instead, there's a considerably larger trunk and a front end better suited to surviving a severe impact.

 

It is amazing how things strike us all differently. One of the reasons I am getting an '03 E500 is the trunk size and shape. We specifically compared the current S class trunk with the new E trunk and, while believing the overall space to be slightly larger on the E, the clincher was the shape of it. (We much preferred the nimble handling and responsiveness on the E as well and are comfortable with sacrificing the rear seat room difference). The more rectangular trunk shape on the E makes it far more usable for us. It is my understanding that this was accomplished by moving the fuel tank from behind the rear seat in combination with dropping the full size spare.

On i112151's comments of comparison to the '01 Audi A4, his 2000 S430 and his last E320 4matic, I checked the specs of all and found the trunk volumes as follows in descending order of size: '03 E: 15.9 cu ft.; '00 S430: 15.4 cu ft; '99 E320: 15.3 cu ft; and last and least, '01 Audi A4: 14 cu ft. I can only assume that the more rectangular configuration is what bothers i112151, not the actual volume. To me, it is a vast improvement-especially when coupled with the fold down rear seats (now confirmed on my E500 order @ $100 "Launch special price").

 

Thanks for the size info on the other models jhb. I knew the 2003 E's trunk was bigger than in the past. It must be the shape that he is upset about.

I also got the fold down seats at the promo price which will make the trunk space even better and much more flexible.

 

The new E has a very very big trunk size compared to any of the models quoted. It is one of the many selling points of the car.

 

it might look big, but in fact, its kinda small.....the s-class is still bigger, only by a .1 cu feet, but still....both of my camrys that we have are a lot bigger.....i dont know why, but all or mbz have such a small truck, the s-class has a trunk of 15.4 cu feet, im sorry to say, and not pointing to anyone, but thats kinda sad, when ppl said the trunk was huge, i thought it would be comparable to the ls430, but sadly it isnt. The s-class has such a large wheelbase, but the ls430 has more cu feet inside! And the trunk is 5 feet smaller, thats one third of the whole trunk.

 

So......I'll be sure not to RENT an E class when vacationing (?!?)

What's that got to do with anything?
I don't carry suitcases to work with me on my commute.

If I wanted to carry suitcases all the time I'd buy an SUV
.....or get an RV.

 

sorry, i didnt mean anything by it

 

I am not sure where bmms8 gets his information about the trunk size. Every piece of information I have, including the full E brochure, indicates that the trunk capacity on the E is 15.9 cu ft. As bmms8 indicates, the S class is 15.4 cu ft, which is not 0.1 cu ft larger than the E, but 0.5 cu ft smaller.

 

That's right. Since the trunk was made bigger in 2003, maybe he's looking at old info or maybe he needs to brush up on his math.

 

I have a 2000 E-Class. I looked at the 2003 E-Class trunk yesterday at the dealer, and it is way bigger than my 2000!!

 

i don't dispute that the cubic feet may be larger but the actual capacity to hold luggage is poor for a car this size. specifically we were unable to stack 2 pullman suitcases on top of each other like i could easily do in my 99 e class or my current 2000 s430. this limits the capacity to just 2 pullman bags plus a few carry on bags. btw, my suitcases were purchased from mercedes with my s430! since we normally enjoy taking long road trips in the u.s. this lack of luggage capacity is a terrible feature. if all you do is commute to work you obvioiusly won't be affected. however if you plan to travel with this car try out your luggage before you buy it.

btw i had a e220 tdi in germany--same body style as e500 but easier on fuel. performance was much better than you'd expect with such a small engine because of great torque. other available diesels in europe include 270, 320 and 400. our car had a range of 1000 km (600mi) per tank! damn shame these common rail diesels are not available in the u.s.

 

sorry i thought it was 15.3....dont get mad 15.3 might be for the 2002 models...

 

nearly 50% of the W211 sold at our dealership are common-rail-diesel. most customers use them for their business-trips around germany, and 220km/h vMax is enough for most people.
i112151, you are driven the E220 CDI on the "autobahn" it drives very well, or not?

next year we complete the range of engines.

Modelle PS NM Zyl. cm³ 0-100 km/h km/h Verbrauch
E 200 CDI 122 270 4R 2148 12,0 s 203 5,9l
E 220 CDI 150 340 4R 2148 10,1 s 220 6,1l
E 270 CDI 177 425 5R 2685 9,0 s 230 6,5l
E 320 CDI 204 500 6R 3222 7,4 s 240 7,4l
E 400 CDI 252 560 V8 3996 6,7 s 250 8,9l
E 200 CGI 170 250 4R 1796 -s - -l
E 200 K 163 240 4R 1796 -s - -l
E 240 177 240 V6 2597 9,1 s 236 10,7l
E 320 224 315 V6 3199 7,7s 243 9,9l
E 500 306 460 V8 4966 6,0s 250 11,5l
E 55 AMG 476 700 V8 5439 4,7s 250 12,9 l