it was in a test of the M5, Audi RS6, Jag S type R....

first the bad news.... 0-60 was 5.0 flat, they said they couldnt get the car to go the 4.5 claimed.....also they picked the M5 at the end of the test....

here are the performance figures...

0-60 0-100 0-150 1/4 mile 30-70 70-0
Audi 4.3 10.4 26.8 12.8@109 4.6 162ft
M5 4.8 11.7 27.6 13.2@108 15.4 163ft
Jag 5.7 14.3 49.0 14.2@100 6.0 152ft
E55 5.0 10.2 22.8 13.1@112 3.9 170ft


The E55 only got 11mpg, and the magazine estimates the base price to be $86,650

 

Hmm... well for our sake I hope everything in that article was wrong.

Also, the base price of 86,650 seems WAY to steep.

 

The 0-60 time is a bit dissapointing, but it just seems to me that they were not able to get all the power to the ground in a controlled manner. Now look at the 0-100 & 0-150 times, very impressive. These two numbers are better representation of how impressive the E55 is. The E55 is a awesome high speed lux/sport cruiser, and these numbers prove it. A difference of 4.0 seconds over the Adi RS6 to 150mph, that is quite a big spread at those speeds.

I hope the est. price is wrong, we will just have to wait and see.

 

You're right... I meant, the 0-60 and the price was disappointing.

I also think it was a problem with getting traction at launch.
I think the tires are 265s? MB should put a lot wider rolling stock on this car, especially with the amount of power it's putting out.

Seems as though stock MB tires are always on the smaller side.

 

well it seems like everyone else has, so heres my estimate...

I think the car will be around the 80k mark, but by the time you add on that juicy gass guzzler and delivery....look for a price of ~82k/83k before options

I have followed the benz market pretty closely the past 5 yrs as you can see from my previous CLK purchases and always took an interest in AMG models and pricing differentials....so I am pretty confident in my guesstimate

 

Did they give the weights of all the cars?? I am really interested to see how heavy the E55 is compared to the others...

Glad I have a deposit on an E55 and an RS6 !!

 

The E55 has never been base priced more than the S430 which is $72,600 for 2003. So the final numbers will be interesting.

The new E55 still can not top the old M5 in 0-60. That's bad!

Only 11 miles per gallon - that's bad.

These cars will eventually be hard to sell after the first year and the die hards get theirs. Most people will buy the S430 with standard navigation, room and luxury and the E55 will not move well if priced at $82 or $83k base price.

 

strange test !

the 0-60 times are simply wrong!

Audi RS6 4.3

BMW M5 4.8

MB E55 5.0

there has been several test in the german car-press about these car. always the same, the W211 E55 was always the fastest of the three and always under 5sec from 0-100km/h (~62miles). than comes the M5 at about 5sec and the RS6 a little bit over 5sec.

i have posted a video of one of the track test some time before where you can see who is the fastest. but the Audi has the better handling and harder suspension.

 

What issue? I don't see it in the November issue...

 

Something wrong with the numbers posted.
Even MB's conservative estimate on their website is 0-60=4.7
This has already been exceeded in other road tests, and even MB's own road tests from 2001 (using the E55 mules) saw 0-60 times below 4.7.

Also, the RS6 time is dramatically faster than has been reported elsewhere.

I'm unconvinced that Automobile was using optimized conditions.

 

I've never had a lot of respect for Automobile magazine, so I don't place much stock in their review. Still, the 0-60 time is quite dissapointing. The old E55 has been tested at 5 secs, even 4.8 secs, I really expected the new E55 to easily run it in 4.5 secs.

Have not read the article, but I wonder if they had the traction control on or off? With so much power, getting proper traction at launch is key.

 

I agree with mikE55 and others... Automobile magazine is not well respected in the test department. I find it odd that Automobile could really test a car identical to the final shipping E55 this early. Why have not Car and Driver, Motor Trend, or Road and Track tested the new E55 if Automobile was able to?

Something smells fishy. I'll wait for the tests from these other magazines before making any conclusions. As for the RS6 beating a supercharged E55... no way, unless they tested on a track covered in ice or something.

 

Was the test done in the US or in Europe? It may have been done in Europe and if Automobile has the clout & credentials to get it done before the other mags then maybe they have better sources or contacts than the others do not have. Or maybe they are just the first to publish their December edition.

Regardless of how they got it done, I am not shooting the messenager and highly pissed at AMG for making an incompetant 'new' car that is still sucking in the dust and exhaust fumes from the M5.

 

Motor Trend, Car and Driver, and Road and Track are all horrible in the testing department because they are all in the bank books of whomever is the one putting the most money up front for the test. They are bought out so easily and so frequently, it's nice to see some variance in testing. I still like Autoweek the best for the American mags, but they don't do enough testing...

 

Edit-Looking at the numbers it would seem they tested on a slippery surface. the Benz had a higher trap speed than the other cars. They may have just floored it with the traction control on and gotten a poor launch. Car and Driver has a similar preview with estimates as well. Theirs is 4.5sec 0-60. Car and Driver specifically estimates that the E55 will be a bit quicker than the SL55.

 

The performance times and gas usage are surprising to me too. With that much gas usage and the supercharger, I would think the performance times would be much better than an M5. I do suspect that the 0-60 times are hurt by MB's selection of too low a gear size for the rear end. Is it smaller than last years E55? MB seems to have the philosophy that a car is better if it can do 200mph as opposed to American thinking of stressing 0-60 performance. Also a low gearing for the rear end should help overall gas milage usage, but that dosen't show up in these numbers.

The projected price does not surprise me. If the base price includes no options as discussed by several on this forum, it is not hard to add $10,000 in options. In that case the base price discuused on this forum is consistant with the magazine projection.

 

The W210 E55 came with pretty much every option. Most of the AMG models come standard with almost all of the options.

So, I don't see why the W211 would be much different. Knowing that... I think the estimated 88K is completely ridiculous. Especially since the performance seems to only be marginally better, if that, over the "older" generation M5.

I'm gonna have to rethink my E55 deposit and possibly find a substitute if that estimated price comes out to be correct.

 

I checked the rear end ratios between my 2000 E55 and the 2003 E 55's reported in the new Car and Driver article. The 2000 E55 has a 2.82 ratio. The 2003 is a 2.65 ratio. Both are way too low for the kind of start up performance I like. If MB used a 3.55 ratio, I bet the car would smoke its tires thru 100mph. Car and Driver also stated the SL 55 has a ratio of 2.8! Sounds like another MB trick to make the E55 slower.

 

So does that mean, that on the freeway, at say, 70mph in 5th gear, the SL55 will be revving higher than the E55?

Also, besides lower gas mileage, are there any downsides to changing out the rear end gear?
And how easy is it to do this?

 

As an M5 owner, I am more than pleased with the conclusion of the Automoblie Magazine staff. However, I must agree with the E55 proponents that the tested 0-60 times are disappointing. The true time of the car should be in the 4.4 to 4.5 range. The times were probably hampered by a lack of traction. The SL55 wears 285's in the rear. For some reason, M-B decided that the E55, a lighter car (more than 200lbs)...with equal torque (516 ft-lbs) than the SL55, did not require equal traction. The E55 must have lost up to 6/10's of a second to tire spinning. You factor that into the equation, and reduce the 0-60 and 0-100 times by 1/2 a second and now the numbers look dead on right. The E55 was not made for 0-60 sprints...leave that distinction for the RS6 with its all-wheel drive. The E55 was made to clobber sports sedans and sports cars from 60mph on up. Even the vaunted 996 Twin Turbo's better make sure they are in the right gear on the highway...otherwise they'll get a birds-eye view of the quad tipped exhaust.

Getting back to the result of the test....the reviewers obviously felt the M5 was the best all-around car for the stated reasons in the article. I don't think that a 1/2 a second faster time to 60mph would have changed that result. The E55 was obviously the fastest accelerating car in the field (traction permitting). I think it boils down to chassis feel and the manual transmission. What the M5 gives up in sheer accelerative force it makes up in its enthusiast friendly feel and response.

It all boils down to preference. The M5 is more suited to those who want sports car performance and feel in a 4 door sedan. The reviewers probably would fall into that category (along with myself). If someone has a sports car and wants to change it up with a car with luxurious appointments, brutal acceleration, beautiful styling, automatic transmission and meticulous engineering, the E55 is the hands down choice. If I could have both...I wouldn't hesitate to get an E55......or if the next generation M5 is as ugly as I think it will be!!!

Just my $.02.

Tom

 

Hi Tom, welcome to the board. Personnally I love all the German Tuned cars in the article. Having an E55 I never worried about it being 2nd to the M5 - still a great spot to be in. Usually the stick is what is favored the most in the M5.

However, with that review the car falls short and may tie for 3rd place with the S-Type R. Now I am worried!

 

Yeah, that's the thing that bugs me too. The old E55 was pretty much considered a near equal match for the e39 M5. Although most car mags gave the nod to the M5 due to it's greater emphasis on hard core sports car like performance, many editors also gave their personal nod to the E55.

It's really too early to tell by this one review. But we all fully expect the new E55 to leap frog the current e39 M5.

 

i agree with Tom in that basically what distinguishes the m5 and the e55 may be in the slushbox. i dont think most drivers will be able to distinguish the difference in the same degree as these editors do. i would love to get either, i simply chose to put a deposit down on the m5 b/c i want a n/a v10. but as my friend put it the e55 aint nothing to sneeze at. both would do