SoCalCLK

2007 Mercedes-Benz E550

List price $59,000

Price as tested $66,815

Curb weight 3885 lb

Engine, transmission 5.5-liter V-8; 7-sp automatic

Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 382 @ 6000

0–60 mph 4.9 sec

0–100 mph 11.5 sec

0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.3 sec @ 108.1 mph

Our mileage, EPA city/highway est 21.0, 15/23 mpg

I got those numbers from Road and Track. I was just browsing to learn more about the E550/CLK550 engine and saw these sobering numbers. That puts the car faster than an old 996 Carrera, and new Boxster/Cayman S! Whoa!

JRAMGV8

Im not saying those numbers are accurate but the V8 is fast I test drove that car before getting the E350. I"m impress on how the V6 performs. Are you getting the E550

SoCalCLK

I am leaning towards the CLK550, but it's harder to find recent articles on it. Most of the test drives are on the E550, which is understandable.

The CLK550 (the way I have it configured) compared to the E550 is around 5K less.

However I may end up with an E350, since it leases out really well! It's a conflict of wallet versus desire to go fast!

AsianML

I want a C550.

c55m8o

3885 lbs??? How'd they get the E to shed all that weight compared to the W211?!

Those numbers are frigg'n awesome -- betters the W210 E55! (and about where my car is with the lighter weight).

SoCalCLK

I was thinking the exact same thing. In fact it has been confirmed that the MY 07/08 W211 E550 is faster than the W210 E55 AMG!

Same for computers as it goes for cars I guess!!

JRAMGV8

lol

JRAMGV8

Awesome if you do get the E350... all I can say is the V6 performance won't dissapoint you but the E550 V8 sure kickass...

SoCalCLK

man! You E350 with AMG Sports Package is just stunning. Looks like an E55, quite frankly! It's a beauty and a definite candidate for me.

JRAMGV8

Yup 2008 E350, AMG Package, P2 I did have a few people come up to me saying "is that the E63". I tell them its an E350

Vik888

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=4477

Link for anyone thats interested in seeing the summary of their road test. Its not an article per say, they only did a full article on the 07 E350.

But I've read before in many other articles that the 07-08 E550 is faster than the old generation E55 AMG, which is great news.

c55m8o

....it's all about the more efficient transmission, and higher redline...

csumt76

Anything with the 550 runs hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JRAMGV8

^^^ Sure does..

mtnbenzer

Why is the R&T test so much faster than MBs own figures and most of the other tests I've read? I've heard MB figures are typically conservative but this is a big difference over the advertised 5.4 0-60. I'm not complaining as my 550 4-matic Sport should be here end of Oct. Just seems like a big deviation from the mean. Maybe R&T tested closer to sea level? The 4-matic is said to be .1 sec. slower due to weight and drive train. That makes it pretty efficient at that.

cyclerider

They also probably turned off ESP. It's hard to get good times with traction control slowing you down. Car and Driver got test results similar to R&T.

mtnbenzer

That is good to hear and only heightens my excitement. And I thought my 01 E-430 was reasonably fast. It was still fun to drive the day I sold it and to think the new car, seven years later, is over a second faster, more torque, better suspension, etc.

jaser35x

Anybody have any 0-60 and 1/4 mile times from a stock E500?

MidniteBluBenz

1) Car Mags record faster times for 2 reasons. i) They will drop clutches or brake torque to produce the most efficient launch technique. Although most of the V8 M-B's have always just been stomp on the gas pedal and hang on to produce the fastest acceleration runs. Some mag's have cited that this is how they achieved the fastest times. ii) M-B tests their cars with two passengers and a trunk full of luggage. (~ additional 300lbs of stuff in the car) Car Mags obviously don't do this in the interest of producing the fastest times. A car mag that consistently records slow times for their cars won't be popular in the industry.

2) The times for a E500 are 5.8 0 - 60 and 14.2@99 q/m IIRC. If it's an '04 or newer with the 7G tranny it'll be faster than that. And these numbers were produced when the engine only had a few thousand miles on it. A well broken in E500 will be quicker than that, especially if it has the 7G tranny. A CLS500 (which weighs more than a E500) w/ the 7G in Car & Driver recorded 0 - 60 in 5.5 and q/m in 14 flat @ 101.

NCE500

I just got to 1000 miles with the 550 over the weekend, and have opened mine up a couple of times. Yes, it is plenty quick, but it really shows it's improvement over the E500 from 60 up to 100 where it pulls much stronger. I would say from SOTP that this is easily a mid 13 second car in the Qtr. mile. I have a spare set of 06 E55 wheels with Conti Sport2 Summer rubber ready to go on that I will install after getting my 1st diagnosis service done. Aside from cosmetic improvements, I anticipate the Conti Sports will improve things a bit for both traction and handling.

Regarding E500 times, Motor Trend tested both the E500 and CLS500 back in 2005. The E500 did 0-60 in 5.7/Qtr. mile 13.9@100, and CLS did 0-60 in 5.6/Qtr. mile in 14.0@100. Very close numbers, but the CLS probably had a little better rubber vs. the E while CLS weighed a little more than the E. IMHO both were/are plenty fast cars.

mtnbenzer

Wasn't that V-8 the 302 h.p.?

ProV1

20 posts and not a single timeslip post?? c'mon E550 owners give us some actual numbers!!

SoCalCLK

My thoughts exactly. However, I don't think MBZ has sold as many E550s as they might have hoped? Don't get me wrong, it's a great engine, and something that should have been introduced many years ago.

However, are there not many E550 owners on this forum?

emilner

We are here, I just don't think many guys hit the track. I can tell you I have pulled ahead of a C5 Vette or 2 an they run in the mid 13's. I can tell you this car is VERY fast, so much so that is startles you when you nail it sometimes.

Vik888

Just got mine a couple of days ago .. driven 200 miles in 2 days .. damn break-in period :-P