New York Times AMG Review
06-16-2007, 01:46 PM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
New York Times AMG Review
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/au...ws/17AUTO.html
They call the E63 the best of the lot. Keep in mind that NYT car reviews tend to be a bit like Consumers Reports ("who in their right mind ..."), but it's a good article.
They call the E63 the best of the lot. Keep in mind that NYT car reviews tend to be a bit like Consumers Reports ("who in their right mind ..."), but it's a good article.
06-17-2007, 06:19 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 E 500 4matic wagon; CLS 63 AMG
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/au...ws/17AUTO.html
They call the E63 the best of the lot. Keep in mind that NYT car reviews tend to be a bit like Consumers Reports ("who in their right mind ..."), but it's a good article.
They call the E63 the best of the lot. Keep in mind that NYT car reviews tend to be a bit like Consumers Reports ("who in their right mind ..."), but it's a good article.
06-17-2007, 06:25 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
06-17-2007, 07:11 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
There are so many clueless things in the article, like the "eye-popping $96,000 extra for the S65." It makes no sense to compute the AMG cost premium from the base S550's price. It's another indication that the Times reviewers have no depth of knowledge about the cars they cover. It reminds me of the CL65 review. They mocked the supposed 8 HP increase (from 604 to 612) in the new model as stupid, not realizing they were comparing pre-release press that quoted the European DIN figure versus the American SAE figure for the same engine!
They always seem in over their heads.
They always seem in over their heads.
06-17-2007, 08:23 PM
#6
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 E 500 4matic wagon; CLS 63 AMG
There are so many clueless things in the article, like the "eye-popping $96,000 extra for the S65." It makes no sense to compute the AMG cost premium from the base S550's price. It's another indication that the Times reviewers have no depth of knowledge about the cars they cover. It reminds me of the CL65 review. They mocked the supposed 8 HP increase (from 604 to 612) in the new model as stupid, not realizing they were comparing pre-release press that quoted the European DIN figure versus the American SAE figure for the same engine!
They always seem in over their heads.
They always seem in over their heads.
06-17-2007, 09:04 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Almost certainly. C&D/R&T together have a circulation of about 1.3 million. The Sunday Times has a paper circulation of over 1.6 million, plus about 10 million per month at the web site. I would guess the demographics are in the Times' favor as well.
I'm sure MBUSA is thrilled with the coverage, inaccuracies and not-quite-grokking AMG notwithstanding.
I'm sure MBUSA is thrilled with the coverage, inaccuracies and not-quite-grokking AMG notwithstanding.
Trending Topics
06-17-2007, 11:49 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Here is a well written article about the 2004 E55 by one of my favorite writers, Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times.
He won a Pulitzer Prize for his articles.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/cr...rks/neil2.html
It's an old article, but it's one of my favorites about this car.
One of my favorite lines from the article:
"At speeds well above 100 mph, the car still has enough dynamite to blow your license to kingdom come."
He won a Pulitzer Prize for his articles.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2004/cr...rks/neil2.html
It's an old article, but it's one of my favorites about this car.
One of my favorite lines from the article:
"At speeds well above 100 mph, the car still has enough dynamite to blow your license to kingdom come."
Last edited by t-bone; 06-17-2007 at 11:51 PM.
?
06-18-2007, 08:27 AM
#11
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yup, I enjoyed reading that article on Sunday morning. They didn't bash AMG at all, I was quite suprised how nice of a job they did on that article. And yes, it is true that at $190,000 the S65 is overpriced, but so what?
