WTF is going on?! I picked up a British Magazine , CAR, they reviewed the E55 against the M5, RS6 and the S-Type R. Then I noticed that the photos all looked the same in style and the license plates were the same ones from the December 2002 issue of Automobile in America. To my surprise the author was the same guy - Georg Kacher.

Mr. Kacher is either an idiot or has been paid to write a different review for the US. Here is where the conspiracy comes in - It is the same author the same photographer the same cars and the same test but he reports the results differently and worse for the US printed magazine.

He reported in "Automobile" USA (Zero To 60):

Audi RS6 - 4.3
BMW M5 - 4.8
S-Type R - 5.7
MBZ E55 - 5.0

He reported in "Car" UK (Zero To 62):

Audi RS6 - 4.7
BMW M5 - 5.3
S-Type R - 5.6
MBZ E55 - 4.7

Now I am no genius (yes I am) but wouldn't a car reach 60 mph quicker than it would 62 mph? So if the E55 reached 62 mph in 4.7 seconds it would reach 60 mph in less time - say 4.5 seconds? How can the E55 reach 62 mph for the Brits at 4.7 and slow up to 5.0 seconds to reach 60 mph for Americans?

Now on to gas mileage.

He reported in "Automobile" USA:

Audi RS6 - 13mpg
BMW M5 - 14mpg
S-Type R - 12mpg
MBZ E55 - 11mpg

He reported in "Car" UK:

Audi RS6 - 15.8mpg
BMW M5 - 16.9mpg
S-Type R - 14.8mpg
MBZ E55 - 13.9mpg

Now again I am no genius (yes I am) but isn't a gallon a gallon in the US and the UK? He did not list it as liters but gallons. So how can the E55 get 13.9 mpg for the Brits and only 11 mpg for the Yanks? Then in the articles "specifications" section it states that overall fuel economy is:

Audi RS6 - 19.3mpg
BMW M5 - 19.6mpg
S-Type R - 22.6mpg
MBZ E55 - 21.9mpg

The E55's overall gas economy is better than the M5 and the RS6!

Errors are everywhere in the "CAR" article! The "SPECS" also list the E55 with 541bhp!



I have posted the entire "CAR" article: www.e55amg.com/carmag.html

GEORG KACHER SHOULD BE FIRED!

 

Kev, so you see now that there was no reason for you to screem like a little girl touched by an old man here after all. Benzo is a champ despite the attempts by fk clowns like this "writer".
where is the logic in putting out new E55 on the market that could not beat old M5? If MB did not care about beating M5 they would do to E55 what they deeed to new CLK55.
Great research, Kev.

 

how come it's 541 bhp? is it in UK mesurments or somthing?

 

Nope. It is just an error. That shows how these magazines have poor quality control and misprints.

The european HP rating on the E55 is 476 which is a DIN measurement. The US E55 will have 469 HP which is a US SAE rating. Just like the SL55, SL55 & S55 have a euro rating of 500HP and a US rating of 493HP.

 

Anyone else interested in sending an email to Automobile magazine about the misleading information written by Georg Kacher:

letters@automobilemag.com

 

May be the guy is jelous because he can't have the E55

 

I don't believe anything unless Car+Driver prints it. Looking forward to the real review in C+D. Automobile doesn't even do their own tests, it's a dentist's coffee table magazine, not for real car buffs.

 

Some time ago (different article, cars and author) someone picked up on these anomalies when an apparently identical review appeared on both sides of the Atlantic.

The explanation given was that many reviewers are freelance and sell their reviews to magazines all over the world.

Since the precise specification of car/engine/fuel quality can vary in different markets, the 'buying' magazine is responsible for obtaining the manufacturer information relevant to its home market.

There is a difference between a 'review', a 'road test' and a 'track test' over here in the UK. The first two are purely subjective driver impressions, usually published with manufacturers figures.

The track test is (to my mind) the most interesting, as it shows what a particular has actually achieved on test - thus Autocar achieved 0-60 in 4.6 secs in their C32 test.

BTW, I enjoyed your posts, and thought you might be interested in this.

PS Georg is not my uncle.

 

Interesting that the horsepower numbers were correct and verifiable for all three cars EXCEPT the E55 (minor 15% error).

Also, the price works out to about $80,000 for the E55 if you compare with known US prices on others.

 

The pricing was an error also. He listed the E55 price as "Base Price" in Automobile for $86k but it should have been listed as "Price As Tested". That E55 had many options including:

Comand
Distronic
Keyless GO
Parktronic

 

Magazines don't do a good review. Just my 0.02

 

Some of them do

 

as I said before, the best review is your very own

 

Errr, those articles have a lot of differences, but on fuel consumption a US gallon is approximately 0.8 of a UK Gallon, which might explain the variation. So 80% of 13.9 mpg is 11.1 mpg. Close enough. (Sorry if this has been mentioned already).

But how did Kacher, usually highly respected for his spy stories rather than road tests, get the rest so wrong??

 

Mustard, thanks for the clarification on the differences between a US Gallon and a UK Gallon. That is weird!

 

May be in the UK they use Imperial gallon which is bigger than the US gallon.

But I agree. the rest of the stuff makes no sense whatsoever.

 

maybe he is an idiot?

 

Numerous errors as others had mentioned, also he got the tire size wrong on the E55.

 

I do believe however that Gallons in UK are different than US Gallons. I read that somewhere.

 

Kev, one explanation could be that the E changed models from 210 to the 211.

However, since the M% did not change models, how are the owners taking the news that it takes about a half second to increase 2 mph. The RS6 too.

 

lmao This thread is more than 2yrs old! :p

 

ooops

 

So, what's your point ?

 

Here's my point...!

 

May be before he tested an OLD 210 E55...