2012 E550 Instrument Test Car and Driver
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 93
Likes: 12
From: So Cal
2018 M4 comp cabriolet, 2017 C43 Sedan, (wife)
2012 E550 Instrument Test Car and Driver
Has anyone seen this? Came out the other day on line I guess. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...an-test-review
Last edited by mambrose23; Jun 4, 2012 at 06:23 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 41
Tesla Model S P100D
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
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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 1
From: Chicago, IL
2011 E550 4Matic, 2002 M3 Vert
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 41
Tesla Model S P100D
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,386
Likes: 957
W212 FL
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
Way to go 4.7 with twin turbo outperforms its ascendants too , I don't think anyone would miss older engines with bigger size
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 217
Likes: 27
From: Clear Lake Shores, Texas
2026 AMG CLE 53, 2026 BMW X5, 1972 Corvette
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.
That being said, I am a little skeptical about the 0-60 time but I believe the sub 13 second quarter mile.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 41
Tesla Model S P100D
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.
That being said, I am a little skeptical about the 0-60 time but I believe the sub 13 second quarter mile.
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.
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 217
Likes: 27
From: Clear Lake Shores, Texas
2026 AMG CLE 53, 2026 BMW X5, 1972 Corvette
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.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: Sarasota, Florida
2011 E350, 2004 911
MB and other manufacturers will always post conservative numbers.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 640
Likes: 6
2015 GL450
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].
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: Sarasota, Florida
2011 E350, 2004 911
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].
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].
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 457
Likes: 61
asdas
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.
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.
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 217
Likes: 27
From: Clear Lake Shores, Texas
2026 AMG CLE 53, 2026 BMW X5, 1972 Corvette
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 41
Tesla Model S P100D
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,139
Likes: 41
Tesla Model S P100D
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.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 967
Likes: 39
From: PA
18'Porsche GT3, 16' Ram 3500 mega diesel,30' Model A Ratrod, 17' E43
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.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 640
Likes: 6
2015 GL450
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.
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.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 640
Likes: 6
2015 GL450
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.
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 217
Likes: 27
From: Clear Lake Shores, Texas
2026 AMG CLE 53, 2026 BMW X5, 1972 Corvette
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
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
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 457
Likes: 61
asdas
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.
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.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 457
Likes: 61
asdas
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.
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?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 93
Likes: 12
From: So Cal
2018 M4 comp cabriolet, 2017 C43 Sedan, (wife)
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)
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)
