What is difference in E320 and E500 suspension feel?
 

Hey, I'm new to this forum, but have been lurking for a while. This is my first post and it's something I'm really interested in. First, my wife drives a 2003 E320. Great car, great looks and decent acceleration. I'm seriously considering getting an E500 for my personal car (getting out of BMW X5 lease in about three months) because I like the looks of the E class so much. The thing that I would like to know is how much of a difference does the sport suspension on the E500 stiffen up the ride?

As I mentioned above, I really like the looks and the feel of my wife's E320. It's just not stiff enough for me in some corners. I have been checking out the new E500's with the AMG package, and hope that the difference is noticable difference.

Does anybody have any real world experience with both the E320 and E500?

Thanks,
Rusty G.

Airmatic is generally "softer" compared to shocks/springs in ride quality.

airmatic suspension allowd you to adjust the stiffness of the suspension, so you can make it as soft or as sporty as you like, or you can leave it in auto.

I have both. An 04 E320 wagon with conventional suspension and an 05 E500 (delivered about a month ago) with airmatic. I am a BMW person, having driven a 540 for years. To be sure, you have to discount a bit because a wagon is a wagon, but the E500 in my opinion handles better. The ride is firm enough, especially if you keep your tires a couple of pounds above the recommended pressure. But I do not think a subjective comparison would result in the conclusion that the E500 is stiffer. Its different, and to me, better, but it is not stiffer. In retrospect had I to do it all over again, I'd have bought an E500 wagon rather than the E320. If I were you, I would definitely get a test drive in an E500. That will provide an answer, on the spot.

There is SO much more that makes up the "feel" of the 500 vs 320. A test drive, and a few minutes with a list of included items will tell you. If torque is important to you, go with the 8 cyl!

Try the CDI before you decide.
 

:)

Perhaps that should be changed to read:

If torque is important to you, go with the 6 cylinder E-320 CDI.
That's right, the diesel, with 30 ft/lb more torque than the 8 cylinder 5 liter V8!

Sure the V8 will out drag the E-320 CDI in a street race, but in all around everyday driving, there is no substitution for superior torque. With your E-500 V8, you'd better have it in one of its many lower gears and keep it there all the time, or the diesel will pull away every time. :zoom:

:)

Period.

A period produced by the indentation of a sledgehammer. :y

Thanks fellas!
 

:)

I'm glad to see that there are some knowledgeable individuals present. :zoom:

:)

Ahhh yes guys, but the man was comparing 2 gas powered vehicles. If torque was the most important thing he could have considered a stump puller too! :p

The E500's ride quality depends a lot upon the tires installed, based on the comments I've seen posted here and my own experience. My '03 has the Continental tires that nobody seems to like, including me. I would describe the three ride settings, with only moderate hyperbole, as: 1 - Very firm, 2 - Teeth-rattling, 3 - Retina-detaching. Who knew air could be so hard? Let's not even get into the noise and vague handling. The '04 and '05 E500 came with different tires, maybe Michelins, and owners of those cars seem to speak much more kindly of the ride quality. But, like the man said, only you can be the judge, so test-drive an E500.

Don't worry.. We fly through our 7 gears with no problem.. :)

Remember?
 

:)

Barry, you were the person that mentioned torque originally, weren't you? :hammer:

So it occurred to me that perhaps he might not have considered the CDI instead of the gas hungry V8.

That' s why I pointed out the fact that the CDI has far superior torque, thinking that he might not have thought about the diesel as an alternative to the E-500. :zoom:

I'll say it again, the CDI will have all around better performance in everyday type driving than the E-500 because of the CDIs superior torque at any rpm.
After all, if he considers the E-320 gasser to have good performance, he will be more than satisifed with the far superior performance of the E-320 CDI, wouldn't he?

:)

7 G-Tronic
 

:)

Ah yes, but you have to kick your 7 G-Tronic equipped 5.0L V8 down several gears, and really wind it up like a small high revving motor to get any kind of performance out of it, don't you? :hammer:

Meanwhile, the CDI simply torques away in whatever gear it is in including fifth speed (overdrive) with absolutely no need to drop a couple of gears. And on a long trip when you are stopping to replace all the excess fuel that you've wasted winding it up all the time to get any kind of performance from it, the more powerful CDI will go on motoring past you with a couple of hundred more miles left in its' original tank. :zoom:

Sure, seven speeds are better than five, and the new box helps with both your fuel econmy and acceleration. Must have been something when the E-500 V8 only had nearly the same gearbox (5-speed) as the diesel.
Eventually, we'll see the new 7-G Tronic trans in all of the MBZ vehicles. Think of what the CDI will be like then.

I know from driving the kids E-420 and then getting back into mine, that there is no comparison in driveablity. I go almost twice as far on a tank as they do, and on diesel fuel, not premimum gasoline.
BTW, it will not run well on regular . . pings like crazy, and has even less power.
Their car needs to be wound up all the time to perform the same as my older E-300 diesel does all the time without being in some lower gear. And mine has only 244 ft/lb of torque, but it is available at only 1600 rpm. How much torque does your E-500 gasser have at only 1600 rpm?

Have you ever driven a diesel, especially the E-320 CDI?

Years ago, there was a commercial:

"Ask The Man Who Owns One"
'Course that was before your time, wasn't it?

Do you know the difference between 24 mpg highway and 37mpg highway?

How about the difference between 339 ft/lb torque and 369 ft/lb?

:)

Generally Speaking?
 

:)

When comparing your two cars, which one is the better all around driver?

I know that your '93 E-500 is one powerful machine, but don't you enjoy the all around power (torque) of the CDI better? :zoom:

:)

E320 CDI
201 hp @ 4,200 rpm
Net Torque

369 lb-ft @ 1,800- 2,600 rpm - 800 RPM to play

E500
302 hp @ 5,600 rpm
339 lb-ft @ 2,700-4,250 rpm
- 1550 RPM to play

I mean, talking about gearing down to get torque.. It appears the CDI is the one you should be talking about not the E500.

Anyone know the 0-60 on the CDI?

Differences?
 

:)

Not to be a smart ***, but to point out the difference between 1800 and 2600 is how much? :y

I don't understand your comment: "It appears the CDI is the one you should be talking about not the E500."

Why would anyone need to gear down to get to the rpm of the maximum torque when the CDI is in that range for
maximum torque already? :crazy:

But to get up to your cars 2700 rpm, you must drop at least one gear, and probably two!
Remember, all E class cars save the 4-matic have the same rear-end ratios, and your 7 G-Tronic has an even higher gear ratio when it is in the higher of your two overdrives.
Do you even know those ratios? I'll bet that you do not!

What do you mean with: "to play?"

0 - 60 mph is quoted by the factory for the CDI on their website (the same place you acquired the other figures you quoted BTW!) as 6.6 seconds.
For your E-500, they quote 5.9 seconds.
For the E-320 gasser, it is 7.1 seconds.

Questions and comment invited, please. :zoom:

:)

MBUSA states that the E320 CDI does 0-60 in 6.6seconds. Although the E320 CDI has good mileage, it is not all that environmental friendly either. The E320 CDI Sedan does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont and is not available in these states.

The E500 V8 has a better torque curve comparing to the E320 CDI. As far as everyday driving goes, I never had to "kick down several gears" to accelerate. A light tap on the gas pedal would make the car accelerates up to speed smoothly thanks to the flat torque band and the close gear ratios. Simply put, the car never runs out of torque w/ the 7G. :zoom:

Not to poke a finger in your eye...because it all comes down to personal preference, but if a diesel powered car was so grand, they wouldn't be so rare, would they? I mean demand by the public would push automakers to make more of them.

My dad loved his 500SD, and says to this day he'd get another one, but I don't like the smell, clatter, & dirtier exhaust of a diesel, nor do I want to have to look around for a diesel pump at 2 am in a quiet residential community, or pull in to refuel & be hub cap high next to a big rig in a truck stop. The viability of a diesel powered car has been proven, yet they will never be mainstream in the USA. They perform well, yet many people still object for the reasons I have mentioned. I'm sure there are people who wish this weren't so, but fuel cells will be here and more widely used before the diesel car ever catches up or outsells the gas powered car.

That being said, its still all about personal choice.

First, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my initial inquiry. I'm not as concerned about torque as I have pretty much made up my mind that the E500 is going to be fast enough for me. I have even driven one on a short test drive.

The problem is that it's hard to get a feeling for a vehicle with a salesman sitting next to you in the front seat. On the other hand, I can drive my wife's E320 just about any time I want to, and it's a great car. . .it just doesn't offer the support or firmness that I'm expecting, and was hoping that somebody with real world experience with the E500 could tell me how firm the ride in the E500 would be compared to the E320.

Rusty, the ride is firmer and softer - depending on setting. I hated the comfort mode when I first got the car.. Now I like it more then the firmer setting. It kinda actually made me sea sick (term: driving a boat) when I first got it and now it is super comfortable and nice..

Not entirely accurate. The E320 CDI is one of the most environmentally friendly diesel cars out there. However the states of California, Maine, Massachusetts, etc. have passed legislation that requires higher emission controls than their gasoline counterparts. So high in fact that there are NO diesel cars for sale in CA, for example. It is not the fault of MB that the CDI cannot be sold in 5 states, but rather the standards for diesel cars have been raised very high in a few states. Whether this is good or bad has yet to be determined however I suspect legislators were fearing the old noisy and black smoke filled exhaust smells from older diesel cars.

My understanding is that it is not the car, it is the fuel available in the US. In Europe where low sulpher diesel is the norm, the CDI is cleaner than the petrol equivalents.

Once the US lowers its sulpher content (I forget when this is due), then the problem goes away.

Better that What?
 

:)

Better torque curve than the CDI? You are joking I hope? :crazy:

And ONLY if you keep yours "on the pipe" as the bikers say, that is at or above 2700 rpms. And when you wind it up all day like that, what kind of fuel economy are you getting?

How can 339 ft/lb torque way up at 2700 rpms and above be better than 369 ft/lb at only 1800. Get real! When you are cruisng along, at what speed are you turning 2700 rpm in you highest gear? The only way that your car can get into the torque curve is if it drops at least one, and possible more gears. Your "light tap on the throttle" will not get it done when next to a CDI doing the same thing. When you tread lightly, does it stay in whatever gear it was crusing in before you stepped on it? If it does, you're not into the 2700 and above "flat" torque curve!

I do hope that you have the ability to fully understand what I'm saying?

The CDI on the other hand, does not have to change gears at all. It is always at or in its maximum torque range which is where you drive it all day long, and it does have 30 ft/lb more torque. Period. :zoom:

If we are cruising along side by side, and we both accelerate together, the only way you'll come out on top is if you hit yours hard enough to cause the trans to drop one or more gears. Now you can believe that or not, for I do not care. But that is a fact Jack. Ask anyone that owns the CDI (or my older diesel for that matter,) and they'll tell you the exact same thing. :zoom:

Who cares about whether or not these cars pass the stupid smog rules here now or not? Come June 2006, they will.

Funny thing, the pickups with diesel engines are much dirtier than these cars, and yet they are selling like hot cakes here in Calfornia. Kind of tell you what John Q public really wants, doesn't it. And at a $5K premimum too!

Funny thing also, MBZ is completely sold out of the initial 3000 units intended for the 2005 MY run in the first five months, and is going to be sending more over to N A to meet the demand. When is the last time you heard that said of either the E-320 or E-500? In fact, there is a local dealer that was discounting both those cars to the tune of $6K or more simply to get rid of 'em! Funny,

I read here where the majority of the cars for ED were CDIs. I wonder why? :hammer:

:)

True!
 

:)

For 2004, California went crazy on the emission rules, and on the C A R B fuel which is a little better than the "Rot Gut" sold in the remainder of the N A continent, the TDIs and CDIs could not pass their new for 2004 rules. We have the federally required fuel for June 2006 (ULSD, only 10 PPM Sulpher) here and now available at BP (Arco) stations. It is probably the cleanest fuel available anywhere in the World! Had they tested the TDIs and the CDIs on that fuel, there would have been "no problemo"!

But it is only available at approximately 122 stations throughout this large state, and therefore must not have been considered readily available.
BTW, C A R B fuel averages only 325 PPM, so it isn't nearly as bad as the rest of the Continent.

Those other four states simply follow the C A R B lead, and make the same mistake that the California board does.

:)

Unfortunately, A)most of us own one or the other, not both, so we can't compare, and B) We chose the one we do have so we are obviously in favor of the one we picked...so it still comes down to a test drive. Its a sunjective decision.

You've got a lot of good opinions on this topic so far but I'll add mine to your posting. The early E-500's had a different calibration to the suspension with VERY noticeable differences between the three settings. Firm was super firm and you felt every bump but vehicle handled well in the turns with less roll. My second E-500, which was a NAV replacement vehicle at the end of the 2003 model year, had a decidely different suspension feel to it with hardly any differenc in road feel in straight ahead driving in the three positions, but improved handling on curves and in the mountains with the firmer settings. They also improved the throttle brake interconnect and did away with the low speed problems encountered in the early models.

Now, to get to your basic question. In my opinion the new E-500's are significantly better than the E-320's in handling when maneuvering (i.e. rapid turns with either acceleration or braking) but not much difference when you are moving straight with moderate turns. My friend has a 2004 E-320 and agrees with this opinion. SO, it depends on how you want to drive the car. If you take it easy most of the time, you won't notice much of a difference, BUT if you are an agressive driver, the E-500 is the CLEAR winner, in my opinion. Since I live in California, I haven't driven a new CDI vehicle but seriously doubt it could keep up with me in the mountains near where we live.

[QUOTE=Double Eagle]You've got a lot of good opinions on this topic so far but I'll add mine to your posting. The early E-500's had a different calibration to the suspension with VERY noticeable differences between the three settings. Firm was super firm and you felt every bump but vehicle handled well in the turns with less roll. My second E-500, which was a NAV replacement vehicle at the end of the 2003 model year, had a decidely different suspension feel to it with hardly any differenc in road feel in straight ahead driving in the three positions, but improved handling on curves and in the mountains with the firmer settings. They also improved the throttle brake interconnect and did away with the low speed problems encountered in the early models.

QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more about the pre-nav cars and the replacements with respect to the lack of difference between the settings. I had both, and they were night and day. Even in my E55 the differences in airmatic are slight at best. Not to throw a wrench in this but unless I have completely lost my mind I thought I had read somewhwere that the E320 actually pulled better numbers on some handling tests due to the lower weight of the 6 vs. 8?

Both husband and wife are driving the same generation of E-class sedan? You really like this car a lot. I still remember the time I and my older sister were both driving the fifth generation of Honda Accord sedan, haha we loved that style. I really can not answer your question because I don't have a E-class.