Dec 2002 Automobile Magazine.

Article Summary.

BMW M5 is the winner....

Jag S-type R 12 mpg 0-60 5.7 sec 1/4 mile 14.2 sec @ 100 mph
The four valve per cylinder, 4.2-liter V8 from Coventry is seriously strong, yet it still lags a long way behind the three valve per cylinder Benz...

While the three German cars stay hot on each other's heels when pushed, the Jag slowly but surely, drops back. It loses 1.4 sec to the RS6 from 0 -60 mph, it is more than 4 sec behind the E55 at the 100mph mark and it takes almost twice as long as it rivals to reach the electronically governed 155 mph top speed.

Jag's extra gear can't mask its relative lack of pulling power. The Jag in particular is hampered by the fretful demeanor of it digital watchdogs (Electronic stability control)

Pitch, dive and sway are far too pronounced. Brakes are excellent, steering is direct and precise, but the engine does not communicate particularly well with the transmission...

The Jag rides remarkably well. It is quiet and refined, lavishly appointed and nicely assembled. We might be able to overlook the cramped cabin and the small trunk, but we can't ignore the underwhelming straightline performance and the overall lack of agility.

Audi RS6 13 mpg 0-60 4.3 sec 1/4 mile 12.8 sec @ 109 mph
Caught off-kilter, humming along at low revs in a high gear, the turbo V-8 takes a second or two to build up to full boost, but once therem, it loads up the driveline like a Pratt & Whitney jet engine at full afterburner.

thanks to the AWD the RS6 puts the power down with aplomb. It is unfortunately, nose-heavy, a trait that makes it understeer strongly. The RS6 also has the knobbliest ride. especially at low speeds. It also has a heavy steering

The Audi Dynamic Ride Control (DRC) keeps body motions in check. DRC gives the RS6 a speed advantage in the corners, but at the expense of feedback and response. The car remains so consistently flat, discovering the limits is a strangely uninvolving experience.

The RS6 is blindling fast. But little niggles such as wind noises, questionable directional stability on uneven surfaces and the lumpy ride bring it down.

M5 14mpg 0-60mph 4.8 sec 1/4 mile 13.2 sec @ 108mph
It has the best steering, which is accurate, quick enough but never nervous and very three dimensional in the way it transmits messages to your palms

The M5 corner by corner, more elastic and nimble than its rivals.

Five years old, the M5 still manages to beat the new kids on the block. The BMW simply drives better than the rest. ...it strengths are a beautifully progessive and creamy engine, a neatly spaced six speed gearboxm great steering ample brakes, and the best chassis in the super sedan league.

The M5 doesn't ride as well as the Jag, lack the explosive power of the Merc, and can't match the traction and ultimate grip of the Audi. But as a whole, the BMW is a masterpiece.

E55 11 mpg 0-60mph 5.0 sec 1/4mile 13.1 sec @ 112mph

With the stability and traction off, the E55 can't wait to demonstrate its own pirouette, which is more difficul to control because of slower steering and considerably greater mass. In addition, the Airmatic suspension affords too much body roll, to the detriment of at the limit handling.

The Benz does not decelerate as well as expected. It electrohydraulic brakes feel strangely passive, heavy and lifeless that feeling was backed up by the longest 70 to 0 mph stopping distance. The steering deserves criticism for its rubbery response and uneven weighting.

 

>> The M5 doesn't ride as well as the Jag, lack the explosive power of the Merc, and can't match the traction and ultimate grip of the Audi. But as a whole, the BMW is a masterpiece.

Hmmm... a 'masterpiece' lacking the 'explosive power of the Merc'. Can you say, 'Contradiction'?

The M makes up for its lack of explosive power with an occasional exploding engine...

E55bliss

 

Thanks for the article sum-up. I was waiting to read it before judging, but I must say it sounds discouraging. We all know the M5 is a phenominal car, and if AMG can't match it with the new E55, it sounds like we should all wait for the E60 M5. If the E55 costs over $80K without options, that will also be another big negative...

Interesting comment about the brakes... the last Car and Driver road test of the SL55 noted that the braking performance was sub-par, taking some 20 feet longer to brake from 70 MPH than the SL500.

Incidentally, there was a previous road test of the E55 in which they discovered the power steering losing boost halfway down the slalom course. I recall this same problem in my '02 C32...

Hopefully some upcoming roadtests will redeem the E55. I am especially curious to see what the european magazines (Evo, Car) have to saw, but for now it seems like AMG has once again fallen short of the M benchmark...

 

DAMN-IT E55 AMG! OH SO DAMN DISAPPOINTING.

We love Mercedes cars but we can't make excuses for the E55's sub-par performance anymore. What a waste!

After this article gets full circulation many pre-orders for the E55 may be CNX! (That is cancelled!)

 

I have not seen the article yet, but overall I am a little dissappointed myself. The acceleration is awesome. The 0-60 time of 5.0 is dissapointing, but that is probably due from lack of traction at start. The 0-100 & 0-150 times is a better measure of performance, and these numbers are simply awesome for a lux/sport sedan. What dissappointed me most about this review is the braking & steering of the E55. The AMG boys just cannot seem to tweak the steering enough to rival the M division of BMW. AMG cars are made for high speed straight line acceleration, and the E55 gives you all of that. I just wish they could give us a little more in the handling department. The braking is a big dissapointment, AMG cars usually test very good.

As other publications do their respective tests on the new E55 I am sure you will see better 0-60 times, probably in the range 4.4-4.7. If the 0-100 & 0-150 times are duplicated by other tests, the new E55 will be hard to beat. Even the new M5 with a rumored V-10 and 500hp will be hard pressed to match or exceed the flat out high speed acceleration of the E55. In the handling department, the new M5 will be the class leader.

 

Either this test and review is rubbish, or the new E55 has missed the mark. Our old E55 has done better. In Road & Track's March 2000 comparison of the E55 vs. the M5, Sam Mitani picked the E55. Stating the car out handled the M5 with less understeer, and being more neutral and precise. In that test the old E55 also matched the M5's 0-60 time (5.1 vs. 5.0) and out braked the M5 as well. I think I'm going to stick with my w210 E55 for a long time.

 

I just got the issue of Automobile yesterday. I concur your disappointment. I don't see how they recored a 0-60 of 5.0seconds. The car must have been slipping it's wheels all the way through first gear.

Generally I take all automotive magazine reviews with a grain of salt. It is very rare to find an article that does not "default" titles to BMW for their manual transmission and steering feel.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

Me too! Unless the W211 E55 gets significant improvements/specs to the handling, steering and suspension for the 'Mid Model Update' around 2005/2006 I will not be interested.

Also, getting 11mpg is atrocious! If the tank is like the 21.1 gallons in the W210 E55 - the cruising range would be something like 232 miles to the tank. A lot of refueling during road trips. Adding that damn gas guzzling supercharger may be a bad idea. Damn I really feel sorry for the owners in the S55k, the family, luggage and road trips.

 

11 would be average - I'm sure the highway/freeway mpg is higher, probably around 18-20

 

yeah - you are right schvetkaaks

Still, this poor review has made AMG, the E55 and Mercedes a laughing stock of the tuner cars especially BMW Motorsport. I am highly pissed.

 

Relax E55 KEV, it is only one publication's review. I think you are concentrating on the 0-60 time far too much. Look at the 0-100 & 0-150 times, very impressive. The handling & braking is dissappointing in this review, no doubt about that. The M cars are known for their precise steering, AMG cars have always been a step behind. Let us wait and see what other publications say about the new E55, before we can make a fair assesment.

What dissappoints me most from this review if true, is the estimated price. I am hoping of a base price of $73,000-$75,000 .

 

I own a 2001 M5 and have an E55 on order (late summer delivery) this review is very, very disapointing I'm almost thinking of the RS6 but I can't see myself happy with an Audi (even a 450 hp twin turbo one).

 

I wouldn't blame the disappointing 0-60 performance on wheel slippage. Turning off the ESP does not turn the ESP off. I don't know why the button even exists. I would not be surprised if the only reasons for the "slow" off the line times were because of too low a rear end ratio and the ESP.

Although MB has never been the best at 0-60 times, MB had the distinction of having the best stopping distances. I am very disappointed that the new breaking system does not appear to work as good as the old system. Something must be wrong.

 

Either there is or the auto magazines are just being biased against MB as usual.

 

oh great, now nothing will make M5 owners to shut up

 

The SL55 posted MUCH better 0-60 times with an even higher (or is it lower) rear end ratio. Basically, if it was a rear end ratio problem, the SL55 would be worse.

 

According to Car & Driver the SL 55 has a higher rear end ratio (2.82 vs 2.65 for the E 55) which is better for acceleration from a standing start. A lower rear end ratio will give you better gas milage and a higher top speed. Most cars have ratios in the 3s. The US muscle cars in their heyday had rear end ratios of 4.11.

 

KEV coming from you I find it very funny. Arent you the dude with hardly over 1000 thats, right , 1000 miles on your car? What is the fastest that you have gone on your car? YOu don't need a car like that anyways and here you are screeming like a little girl who's been touched buy an old hairy man over one very suspicious review.
What is the milage on your cars ?
Ford explorer 100 000 miles
E55 1400 miles?
HOw often does your E55 sees the sun?

 

I am too not happy about the results of that test.....but we must take into concideration the atmoshpere at the instant moments. there might have been a slightly harder head wind for the merc hence resulting in loss of tenths of seconds.

The m5 might have scored a good 0-100km time cause its a manual and the driver might have reved it up to say 3000rpm or more and just dumped the clutch avoiding bog down. The big benz is an auto and must start from idle revs hence it wont have that intiail go compared to a manual shift.

anyhow 350kw or 368Kw is a F**King bucketload of power nevertheless i will be happy

 

One thinks to considerate for the New RS6, which is a stock 4WD car.
H&S has launched the RS6 Chip: 500 hp 480 lbf. +190mph

http://www.hs-elektronik.com/datenbl...0ps-560nm.html


Nonetheless, this people are still working in the ///AMG 5.5 SC.
Bye
Pierre32///AMG

 

Damn, imagine what the next M5 must be like. 550HP V10.....

 

Eddy, Damn Right I am "screeming like a little girl" because I expected more out the gate and not excuses for the sub-par performance so far tested.

It was ok for the W210 E55 to be 2nd to E39 M5 and now the all new supercharged W211 E55 is further behind E39 M5 and the 'not new' chassised RS6 and tied with the S-Type R.

 

Kev, why not lower expectations and be happy? Please read the translation from the german test drive of RS6, E55 and M5 it says about M5 that you need to turn off all the elecronic stability programs , (DSC) ? and that you need expirienced driver to to be able to come even remotly close to the numbers advertized for these cars. For you and me that is not an issue at all the way we drive here . The fairy tale numbers that come from track with who knows what kind of drivers interest me very little. Kev, cut through the bull**** and be happy.

 

Don't be dissapointed by Automobiles bias torwards BMW. Looking through the magazine you will find no less then 4 articles covering a BMW of some sort and at least 1 BMW advertisement in the rag. Mercedes has all of 0 advertisments in the magazine. You really think that they are going to give the E55 or even the RS6 the top spot with all that coverage in the magazine?

The BMW is a 5 year old design, the interior is not up to par of that of any of the cars tested with it. It doesn't have the power of that of the RS6 or the E55. In the handling department, I would say all that is a matter of opinion. Someone might say that the BMW rides better then you have another smoe on the street that might say that the RS6 drives better and so on.

I have read the article a couple of times and see no reason why the BMW won. The magazines couldn't even give a good reason to why the BMW won. I guess BMW stuffed enough money into that issue so they had no better choice but to let the older M5 win.

IMHO I would have to say its a dead heat with the E55 and the RS6 taking top honors with a slight edge with the RS6 having AWD and a slight edge with the E55 with the styling. The Bimmer coming in a distant 3rd with a older design and the Jag last with its feble attempt to make a something that is fast.

 

Lo pan is right.... the M5 is old and has virtually no technology compared the new e55, the e55 is loaded with the latest technology! air suspension (ajustable, how cool is that) a some sort of brakeing system that brakes each wheel individually at the required time via flyby wire, super seats which inflate and deflate on the sides to keep u in your seat, semi active suspenion like in the old f1 in 92', clutchless semiauto on the steering wheel(everyones got that but it changes in 0.4 sec's i think enzo does it like 0.1sec). there is mroe but i cant think of them.....so the m5 can be a tad quicker...but hey, look what it doesnt have!