2007 E550: 0-60 in 4.9secs / 13.3 in Qtr mile!?
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
2007 E550: 0-60 in 4.9secs / 13.3 in Qtr mile!?
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!
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!
#2
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 10,574
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
1999 C280 Previous / 2008 E350
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
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
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!
#5
Super Member
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).
Those numbers are frigg'n awesome -- betters the W210 E55! (and about where my car is with the lighter weight).
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Same for computers as it goes for cars I guess!!
Trending Topics
#8
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 10,574
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
1999 C280 Previous / 2008 E350
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!
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!
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
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.
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.
#12
Super Member
....it's all about the more efficient transmission, and higher redline...
#15
Member
550 performance
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.
#16
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harley-Davidson
Originally Posted by mtnbenzer
Why is the R&T test so much faster than MBs own figures . . . Maybe R&T tested closer to sea level? . . .
#17
Member
550 performance
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.
#19
Super Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
540 6spd
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.
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.
Last edited by MidniteBluBenz; 09-10-2007 at 12:57 PM.
#20
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Raleigh NC
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 E63, 2006 C55
RE: E550 and E500 Acceleration
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.
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.
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
However, are there not many E550 owners on this forum?
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
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.