BoBcanada

ALso look at ml63 times with SL55 identical!! lol

you can see the rest of the article here ( In German)

http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=57532

chiromikey

that article means nothing to me if it can't include a w211 e55...except to feed the conspiracy that mb is trying to hide something.

BoBcanada

I think #31 is w211 e55

vraa

Look at 18, 31 and then 85.
That leads me to believe that 18 and 31 are the W211 versions.

chiromikey

yeah, i guess your right, just listed as the wrong model year i guess.

vraa

No it could be right, remember the cars might have been MY2002 in Europe.
I know there was a MY2002 R230 in Poland.

BoBcanada

18 is E63 not e55 and yea 31 is the e55!

chiromikey

bob got me but you're being silly, i was specific about an e55 w211 not e63 but you're probably right about the euro model year thing.

BoBcanada

Yea i got confused lol


I'm surprised that ml63 is with sl55 and gt3 lol thats just awesome if the test is right. I mean 5200 lbs of weight moving so fast damn it.

chiromikey

i guess what is also confusing me about this e55 is that since the intro of the w211 e55 it's almost exclusively been reported in the 4.5 second range not 4.8, regardless of 0-60 or 0-62mph tests.

vraa

I know you were specific about the E55 W211, but I provided the E63 as another reference.

L8Apex

I wish it was 0-100-0 in mph. That is a test. Better yet 0-150-0 mph would be much better.

20C4S

i assume the natural NA 63 car has more traction than the SC 55 car off the line. btw, there's no way the 997TT is faster than CGT if it's not 4 wheel drive.

stevebez

There is no way an E39 M5 (30) is faster than an W211 E55 (31) in this test ... I have had/have both and there is just no way....

E63 has a pretty good time ... but it seems some of the data is just taken from a spec sheet.

sprins

Damn! A 4 year old vehicle is yesterdays news already. I mean, when a minivan van keep up

Ted Baldwin

...........I understand that we are all interested in the E55, E63, Ml63 but look at the gallardo. From the list, the gallardo is as fast as the SLR and faster than a Murcielago. A lot of this info is probably mix and match taken from various sources, so I doubt that the info is accurate. what is begining to appear though is that the 63 series are not slower than the 55's. If you discount the W211 E55's listing, how about the ML63? Or is MB purposely feeding false info to the magazine?

Ted

MiamiAMG

Agreed, they also have an M3 coupe faster than an M3 CSL.

This doesn't sound right at all.

rkao

I don't think the data are from a variety of sources.

Bob, correct me if I'm wrong but the scan appears to be from "Auto Motor und Sport"? They conduct their own independent comprehensive tests and are a well respected publication, their comparison tests are absolutely fantastic if you ever get a chance to peruse them; I try to read it when I can using my broken German. They also have a great television program that is sometimes seen here dubbed in English on DW (Deutsche Welle) channel that can be found on some cable programming.

And look at the last column, that's the year they last tested the model, so appears to be pretty up to date.

Ted Baldwin

..............thanks for the correction. I see that for the gallardo, the 2006 model is much faster than the 2003 model(#3 vs #17). At the same time, how does one explain the results, or hacve all beenm living in fool's paradise all this time?

Ted

pas

Testing an '03 E55 in 2002 is quite possible as the cars are made available to magazines, also any car built from july to dec is the next years model, and we all know manufacturers release next years cars in the fall of the current year.

I don't speak German so I am assuming the last column is test year not model year. Also both the E55 and CLS55 had 4.8 sec 0-62 times (0-100kmh), and we all know they are both faster than that.

Until there are a couple of magazine tests with comparisons or a few of us have made 1/4 mile runs we really won't know which is really faster. I am willing to bet that the 55 is more fun to drive on the street than the 63, there is no substitute for torque.

Kens-E55

I agree here 100%. The fastest an M5 EVER TESTED was 0-60 in 4.9. And most of the time it was in the 5.1 to 5.3 range!---no way it turned the numbers listed above

This only tells me that the article is either bogus or a little hype to sell copies.

blackbenzz

Gallardo is listed twice on there with 2 different times. As mentioned before, the M3 coupe is NOT faster than a M3 CSL. This list is straight up BS!

BoBcanada

which m5?

rbc55

all 997 tt are all wheel drive

L8Apex

This comparison (to me) means nothing. What do we get out of this besides what car can hook up best out of the hole? Advantage will go to AWD ala 997tt. A comparison like this (997tt vs CGT) is like taking an F1 car to an autocross event. WASTE O TIME. The CGT will not shine until it hits 100 mph.

Like I said before a true measurement would be the 0-100-0 mph or 0-150-0 mph. That would seperate the men from the boys.