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.

To be fair, the article said that the cls was "prettier." Aren't you glad you don't have a CLK 63 (unless your are an orthodontist; for those of you who are, sorry!!)

im so pretty oh so pretty..boooooooo, I wanna be fast and ugly

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.

It was nice to get the exposure though. It may inspire those who don't read Edmunds, Road & Track, etc to wish to purchase an AMG car now that NY Times says it okay. I wonder if it reaches more purchasing power than the car magazines.

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.

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."

After reading that I went out and purchased my 55

for real ?

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?