The MBUSA site continues to indicate that the 0-60 MPH times are "TBA" for the E320 and the E500. Other country sites, however, have such figures, based upon 0-100 Kilometres Per Hour. For example, the UK site shows the figures as 7.7 seconds for the E320 and 6.1 seconds for the E500. By my calculations, the conversion of 0-100 KPH to the equivalent 0-60 MPH is a factor of a reduction of about 3.5% based upon the fact that 100 KPH is about 62.1504 or 3.5% more than 60 MPH (the UK MB site bases it on 62.5MPH, so I am being more conservative with the KPH to MPH conversion-which makes no difference when rounding to the nearest 0.1 of a second).

So, for the E320, the 0-60 time would be about 7.4 seconds and for the E500, the 0-60 would be 5.9 seconds (consistent with the "little brochure" some of us got with the performance indicated I think). I do not understand why the MBUSA site hasn't been updated to provide this information? Is the performance different from the UK, for example, to the US models with the same engine? Also, I haven't found this information in the "big brochure", have any of you?

 

I haven't found it either and also wonder why it is not yet available on MBUSA. They must have this info. Why not post it. Nice number crunching jhb

 

Do a side by side car comparison on www.mbusa.com between the E320 and the E500 and you will see the figures. It gives the figures for acceleration as follows:

0-60 mph in 7.1 seconds for the E320 and 0-60 mph in 6.2 seconds for the E500.

 

That just doesn't seem right. The 2002 E430 according to Edmunds runs to 60 in the low to mid 6 second range (didn't give an exacte number). The 430 has 275 hp. The E500 has 27 more horses and the MB site has it running about the same time? Should be around 6 seconds flat I think.

 

Its definitely not right, because the E500 weighs 318 pounds less than the S500 (which does a consistant 0-60 in 6.1sec).

Also, not that I always trust their numbers, but C&D got 5.7sec to 60 out of the CLK500.....the E500 weighs 230 pounds more than the CLK. So, I think 5.9-6.0 is the correct range for the E500.

 

In preliminary brochure for new E-class was stated as 5.9, however later MBUSA showed 6.2 the same as for E430. The new brochure doesn't have any numbers, so I can guess that improvement isn't so big and showing something like 6.1 could disappoint buyers. Anyway, I believe that 5.9 is realistic number.

 

what also is wierd is the mpg....16/23........the s500 is better than that.....and the cd is lower on the E!!!

 

published 0-60MPH figures, seat of the pants tell me that the E500 can really haul a$$!

I drive a SLK32 (you all know about the 0-60 time on that one) and during my test drive with 4 people on board, the E500's acceleration felt like my SLK32! Like they say, there is no substitute for displacement.

So take the figures published by MB on the 0-100KPH as it is. Or if you prefer, the acceleration 0-60MPH of the E500 felt as quick as the SLK32 to me.

After 100KPH, I am sure the SLK will pull away because of the supercharged engine.

 

something to remember in comparing.
they haven't published final gear ratios yet for the new E.
The older brochure had final ratio for the 320 at 3.07:1 and 2.82:1 for the 430.
the taller ratio can slow the cars 0-60 but gives it a smoother cruise at 80.