mambrose23

Has anyone seen this? Came out the other day on line I guess. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...an-test-review

BenzBee

Impressive numbers for the E550. Way to go MB!

mitaka

Thanks for sharing...

WEBSRFR

As much as I'd like to believe this, something is off... How did they get 4.3 seconds?

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 17.5 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 sec

SolidGranite

Agreed because they said .5 faster than the outgoing NA V8 which is also false. The 2010 and 2011 550 is more like 5.3 to sixty.

WEBSRFR

+ this is contrary to all published Mercedes figures. According to Mercedes the new engine is just about .2 seconds faster to 60 compared to the one it replaces (presumably using the same Mercedes methodology).

I always figured this lack of power compared to the BMW 550 engine is why Mercedes is going to have a new engine for the 550 in 2013 or 2014 because the 2012 engine just isn't competitive enough -- though as I'm sure it is a very fine engine! Mercedes would not be ditching an engine after 1 year unless they felt they really had to. The good thing is that the new engine coming to the 550 is going to be one sweet power-plant and can properly keep up with the BMW 550. If someone is about to buy a 550 I think it is best to wait for the new engine.

With this anomaly I am hesitant to trust the other figures presented in the article.

BenzV12

They said company's new 4.7 liter motor but in other test mag it said 4.6

Way to go 4.7 with twin turbo outperforms its ascendants too , I don't think anyone would miss older engines with bigger size

dan1495

I own a 2012 E550, and I am still puzzled why they want to change the engine configuration. It is a vast improvement over the 5.5 liter N/A engine in both power and fuel economy. I have gotten over 28 MPG at 75 MPH on the highway.
That being said, I am a little skeptical about the 0-60 time but I believe the sub 13 second quarter mile.

WEBSRFR

I'm not sure if I agree with your statement about it being such a vast improvement in power. We are talking about just 20 extra horsepower and according to Mercedes' own published figures the engine is only 2/10 to 1/10 of a second faster than the previous engine. Now Fuel economy I would agree with you. In city driving I am barely getting 14-15 MPH with the older engine.

http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...specifications

The biggest issue is that the BMW 550 is at least half a second faster and Mercedes can't allow that to happen. They would not be changing the engine after just one year unless they really had to. They had to to keep the 550 competitive in in the segment and price point the 550 plays in and 5.2 seconds to 60 is about or below average for a $65-70K vehicle and Mercedes has to do better than average.

The good news is when we eventually get around to getting our next 550 with the new engine it will be even better than the current engine with a 0-60 time in the late 4s and that's very much a good thing -- Especially given the fact that you can't get an AMG car with 4MATIC it is wonderful that with the upcoming 550 engine you get both 4MATIC and a beast that can take you to 60 in about 4.7 seconds.

dan1495

WEBSRFR - have you driven one of the new E550'S? No disrespect intended, but I have owned both and the overall power as well as the power delivery seems to add up to more than just 20 horsepowewr. Just my opinion, though.

jvc300

I would disagree! First, just use sport mode w/traction control off and a good driver you can achieve these results.
MB and other manufacturers will always post conservative numbers.

ttoE550

Going by butt feel is notoriously unreliable. I used to hang out with race car drivers, some of whom raced for 40+ years each, and the only way they'd trust whether or not a mod had made the car faster and by how much was by a stopwatch. Every time. Particularly when one is discussing a couple of tenths.

If my math is correct, at 0.2 seconds faster to 60 mph and assuming equal starts, you'd be roughly one car length (9 ft) ahead at the end. [0.2 seconds at 60 mph is about 18 ft but you don't do 60 mph the whole way; I assume the average speed is 30 mph, so about 9 ft].

jvc300

+1

brauhaus313

It puzzles me why so many here stick to the word of MB and their dealers' marketing like it was spoken from the mouth of god.

If you stick by pure bottom line hp and torque figures, you're missing the forest for the trees. The turbocharged V8 has a way fatter torque curve and AWD standard. The old RWD may not have been able to even handle the extra torque from way down in the RPM range and would have probably lost a few tenths spinning its tires or the traction control would have gone haywire. The new AWD turbocharged V8 launches from a dig, and its worth a few tenths down the strip.

Also, if you've actually driven the turbo V8 vs the NA V8 and you really think it feels only marginally faster/quicker, you're F-in crazy.

dan1495

That was the point I was trying to make. You did a much better job explaining it than I did.

WEBSRFR

No I have not and I will...

I think what you are noticing is the increase in torque though, which is a substantial increase -- but that does not necessarily make the car faster -- at least if the specs published by Mercedes is to be believed the 0-60 time is barely changed between the two engines.

WEBSRFR

Maybe the person who is "F-in crazy" is the one who ignores published specs for the butt-o-meter

I agree that the newer engine has much more torque and it likely feels faster but at the end of the day what I'm concerned about when I pay extra for the V8 is how fast the car is to get up to speed. CDIs have lots of torque but I would not necessarily call them fast.

The bottom line is that Mercedes themselves decided the engine was not fast enough and hence it is being replaced after just a year for a more powerful engine. What you are arguing about has already been decided by Mercedes and they realized the car needs more power at extra cost to them and I happen to agree with them. With the new engine the E550 will be competitive with the BMW 550. It is not now.

RobbieRob

In the car and driver magazine, it posts the older NA motor going 0-60 in 4.6 and 1/4 in 13.1. So I would have to bet the new motor is about .3 seconds faster to 60. Its all a bunch of crap though(magazines), which ever magazine likes what brand better, that is the vehicle that will look better in their articles. I still can't see the heavier 550i with about the same specs(close) as the MB being that much faster, actually should be the other way around. The real kicker is, check out what the magazines are posting on the Audi A7. With 300hp they are saying that the thing is going sub 5 seconds to 60, and check out the weight of it.. Yeah, ok??? Either way, the new MB motors are pretty BADA** in my mind. Just get with it on the electronics and I would be 100% happy.

RobbieRob

Web, the Bmw has 400hp/450tq, the benz has 402hp/443tq. The BMW is heavier, how can it not compete with the current settup?

ttoE550

I already have AWD in my old V8. It's pretty quick off the line without much drama. I can't tell you how many times my butt told me I was going faster than ever on a track, only to have the timer tell me very different. I'm sorry, but I am going to go with the pros who tweak cars for a living - you can't trust the butt.

ttoE550

From what I've read and heard about this, the car rags drive the cars in way that would leave them a smoking heap if done daily. It's easy to do that when it's not your car. I used to race in a series that had identical cars, and at the start of the race I would be along side a really good driver (one time Marco Andretti) and when the flag dropped it was like he had twice the horsepower. I was puzzled by this until I learned that there was an open secret of somehow nearly stalling the car by popping the clutch, flooding it with gas (I think, I never really understood it), rescuing it, and then flooring it. Whatever it was, it was rough on the car. So while I was just pressing the accelerator, he was doing a lot of work. I'm sure his 10-60 times were at least 0.5 seconds better than mine because he was car lengths ahead.

I don't know what the equivalent is for a passenger car, but I am sure that the car rags know all the tricks. I don't know what motivation MB would have to treat its cars that way.

Also, the car mags might run the car nearly on empty. That can make a difference.

edit: changed 0-60 to 10-60. We had rolling starts.

dan1495

OK, everyone has pretty much much convinced me that my new E550 isn't really any faster than my my old N/A 550 and that a BMW 550i with runcrap tires will wipe my car off the face of the earth in shameless fashion. I didn't buy this for a track car, however, and if it feels faster to the old buttmeter on my daily commute isn't that really what it's all about?

By the way, this is the R & T test of the conqueror TT BMW 550i - 0-60 in 5.0 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.4 seconds. I know - the magazine tests don't mean anything.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/car/2011-bmw-550i

brauhaus313

Is it the bottom line? What makes you think all these things? I'd say it's more assumption and speculation at this point. I also didn't argue anything about why Mercedes is changing the engine. If I had to guess, it would be that they figure in the long run, a single turbo engine, along with whatever changes they may make to the motor may make it more reliable and easier to work on and build (therefore cheaper, rather than at an extra cost to them as you propose). One turbo is cheaper than two.

Also, if I had to speculate on why the published 0-60 numbers may not match up with real world numbers, I would guess that MB didn't want to cannibalize sales of the E63 when the E550 is only a few tenths off on the 0-60 sprint.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think you do either.

brauhaus313

Was your old V8 twin turbo charged? What was it's 0-60? I don't see it's relevancy.

I'm with you on the butt dyno being unreliable though. I guess I shouldn't have wrote anything about the TT E550 feeling way faster than the NA E550. Takes this discussion down the wrong road.

Maybe you can question C&D's driving and testing methods, but if they flogged the car, so what? I'm sure they do the same for every car they test. However, I don't know why C&D would publish numbers that optimistic for the E550 if it really does low 5's. All these magazines are shills for BMW aren't they?

mambrose23

OK, When I first found and posted the 2012 E550 Instrument Evaluation from Car and Driver, it was just something I thought I'd share for information. I never thought it would cause so much controversy, lol
A few observations:
I currently have the 2012 TT motor in my E550 Cab (I also have a 2012 sedan). I replaced my 2011 N/A motored E550 Cab with an identically optioned car just to get the motor, brakes, and other enhancements. I also had the same N/A motor in my 2009 CLK 550 cab, so I am very familiar with it, and liked it very much, btw.
My family mostly owns BMW cars. My two brothers own current models of the M3 Cab, manual with air intake and exhaust, and a 550i automatic. Neither of them roots for MBZ, trust me. We have not had any to a track, and are too responsable to race from a standing start or drive really fast on public roads. However, the reality is that the MBZ is faster than both the BMW's in real world driving. From a rolling start to 80 or so mph (a long freeway entrance ramp) the Benz pulls both of them. I'm sure that the M3 would kill me on a track, but in a straight line it lacks the torque to compete. We both run Michelin PSS, rear 275/30/19, him same but 265mm. Can't speak for the magazine pumping up numbers, but the CLS 550 got to the low 4's in 3 seperate mags, and the Audi S6 with only 420 hp and 406 tq, but all wheel drive, just got to 60 in 3.7 in a comparison test with the E63 (non pp) and the M5. Of course the other two cars walked away from it after 60, but a good motor with all wheel drive will get out of the hole smartly. Personally I could care less what the car actually does on paper so long as I have family bragging rights...(somewhat kidding)