Stuck between the E39 M5 or W211 E55.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,230
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles, California
2006 E55 BEAST
I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I've heard this several times before. But how in the **** did a MY 2005 E55 inherit anything from a MY 2006 CLS? A little bit of time traveling? Is the Delorean back in use?
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 449
Likes: 1
From: San Diego, CA
Huracan. S63. CL63. E55.
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 105
Likes: 2
From: San Diego
2004 E55 AMG
I know the steering rack was changed for either '05 or '06 sorry to misinform if I am.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
They actually introduced the CLS very early in 2005 as a 2006 model...maybe this was a mid-year change?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,230
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles, California
2006 E55 BEAST
Lol. And the MY 05 E55 was out in 2004. And from what I've heard all the MY 05 E55s have the upgraded steering rack/suspension. All I'm saying is... why did the E have to get it from the CLS? Why couldnt the CLS get it from the E? Lol. jk jk. I'm not trying to start a war, just some friendly debate.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,230
Likes: 1
From: Los Angeles, California
2006 E55 BEAST
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 105
Likes: 2
From: San Diego
2004 E55 AMG
There was a reason I went with a 2004 instead of a 2005 and that is because of the scheduled maintenance.
I thought I had that confused with what year the steering rack was upgraded.
But now that you have confirmed the new steering rack in 2005, the point I was trying to prove is moot.
I thought I had that confused with what year the steering rack was upgraded.
But now that you have confirmed the new steering rack in 2005, the point I was trying to prove is moot.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
E55
Not according to the EPA's http://fueleconomy.gov website. I ran a comparison on the two, and came back with the following city/combined/highway numbers for each car:
W211 E55: 13/15/19 (used MY 2005)
E39 M5: 12/15/19 (used MY 2003)
Reason is BMW gear their cars more agressively than the Benz stuff, and they also have shorter final drives....takes more energy to turn the bigger gears, which is why my old W208 CLK55 with a 5.5L V8 got better mileage (16/18/22 EPA) than the E46 M3, which had a 3.2 L I6 (15/17/22 EPA)!!
W211 E55: 13/15/19 (used MY 2005)
E39 M5: 12/15/19 (used MY 2003)
Reason is BMW gear their cars more agressively than the Benz stuff, and they also have shorter final drives....takes more energy to turn the bigger gears, which is why my old W208 CLK55 with a 5.5L V8 got better mileage (16/18/22 EPA) than the E46 M3, which had a 3.2 L I6 (15/17/22 EPA)!!
13/16/21
True real life results I have had when trying to drive economically:
M5 12.5-13.5 l/100km I got results easily under 10l/km dont remember the lowest anymore..
E55 15.5-16.5 l/100km, lowest I have ever seen: 9.8 l/100km
996 TT lowest around 8l/100km, the turbo makes the difference and the displacement
True life results are very different and I mean especially in economical driving. In the E55 I just dont get it to drop whatever I do. Most of the times I dont try anymore
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: CT
2005 E55
Not sure if you have bought a car yet but I have owned both cars and will try to help.
I had a 2001 M5 that i sold to a freind and he still has it. I bough it it new and sold it with 70k on it. the car was flawless from day 1. The maf sensors go at about 40k but not really a big deal. The clutch is not weak. It wears prematurely because all BMws have a clutch delay valve that you can easily remove. This valve allows for smother engagement and less wear on the drive train. But it cause a loss in perforance and clutch life. I got rid of it and the car never had clutch problems again. I did this same mod on my 2 M3s also. The Vanos will eventually make noise but does not affect performance at all and wont need changing until 100k and will cost 2k to repair. Oil burning issues were only M5s built in the first half of 2000. all the rest do not have this problem.
My point is as far as reliability the M5 is better than the E55.
But the E55 will kill the M5 in a strait line. The M5 still feels better in the corners though. If your not worried about reliabilty go for the E55. I love mine but its still under warranty. If repairs is a major concern go with the M5.
The E55 has alot of potential to cost you money. The SBC brakes are major issues. The airmatic is problamatic. the super charger clutch goes also. The command system also has problems. Thats just off the top of my head. Dont go with a 2006 M5 they make the E55 and E39 M5 look like a camry as far as reliability goes.
I had a 2001 M5 that i sold to a freind and he still has it. I bough it it new and sold it with 70k on it. the car was flawless from day 1. The maf sensors go at about 40k but not really a big deal. The clutch is not weak. It wears prematurely because all BMws have a clutch delay valve that you can easily remove. This valve allows for smother engagement and less wear on the drive train. But it cause a loss in perforance and clutch life. I got rid of it and the car never had clutch problems again. I did this same mod on my 2 M3s also. The Vanos will eventually make noise but does not affect performance at all and wont need changing until 100k and will cost 2k to repair. Oil burning issues were only M5s built in the first half of 2000. all the rest do not have this problem.
My point is as far as reliability the M5 is better than the E55.
But the E55 will kill the M5 in a strait line. The M5 still feels better in the corners though. If your not worried about reliabilty go for the E55. I love mine but its still under warranty. If repairs is a major concern go with the M5.
The E55 has alot of potential to cost you money. The SBC brakes are major issues. The airmatic is problamatic. the super charger clutch goes also. The command system also has problems. Thats just off the top of my head. Dont go with a 2006 M5 they make the E55 and E39 M5 look like a camry as far as reliability goes.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 449
Likes: 1
From: San Diego, CA
Huracan. S63. CL63. E55.
Not sure if you have bought a car yet but I have owned both cars and will try to help.
I had a 2001 M5 that i sold to a freind and he still has it. I bough it it new and sold it with 70k on it. the car was flawless from day 1. The maf sensors go at about 40k but not really a big deal. The clutch is not weak. It wears prematurely because all BMws have a clutch delay valve that you can easily remove. This valve allows for smother engagement and less wear on the drive train. But it cause a loss in perforance and clutch life. I got rid of it and the car never had clutch problems again. I did this same mod on my 2 M3s also. The Vanos will eventually make noise but does not affect performance at all and wont need changing until 100k and will cost 2k to repair. Oil burning issues were only M5s built in the first half of 2000. all the rest do not have this problem.
My point is as far as reliability the M5 is better than the E55.
But the E55 will kill the M5 in a strait line. The M5 still feels better in the corners though. If your not worried about reliabilty go for the E55. I love mine but its still under warranty. If repairs is a major concern go with the M5.
The E55 has alot of potential to cost you money. The SBC brakes are major issues. The airmatic is problamatic. the super charger clutch goes also. The command system also has problems. Thats just off the top of my head. Dont go with a 2006 M5 they make the E55 and E39 M5 look like a camry as far as reliability goes.
I had a 2001 M5 that i sold to a freind and he still has it. I bough it it new and sold it with 70k on it. the car was flawless from day 1. The maf sensors go at about 40k but not really a big deal. The clutch is not weak. It wears prematurely because all BMws have a clutch delay valve that you can easily remove. This valve allows for smother engagement and less wear on the drive train. But it cause a loss in perforance and clutch life. I got rid of it and the car never had clutch problems again. I did this same mod on my 2 M3s also. The Vanos will eventually make noise but does not affect performance at all and wont need changing until 100k and will cost 2k to repair. Oil burning issues were only M5s built in the first half of 2000. all the rest do not have this problem.
My point is as far as reliability the M5 is better than the E55.
But the E55 will kill the M5 in a strait line. The M5 still feels better in the corners though. If your not worried about reliabilty go for the E55. I love mine but its still under warranty. If repairs is a major concern go with the M5.
The E55 has alot of potential to cost you money. The SBC brakes are major issues. The airmatic is problamatic. the super charger clutch goes also. The command system also has problems. Thats just off the top of my head. Dont go with a 2006 M5 they make the E55 and E39 M5 look like a camry as far as reliability goes.
Having owned all three cars (M5, M3, E55) I can say they are all very different and each have their own perks of ownership...but I truthfully think you need to spend some good seat time in each car before making your final decision.
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
From: CT
2005 E55
From what I understand the E39 M5 does not have the CDV (clutch delay valve) and the E46 M3's do...which is why all the M3 guys take their CDV's out.
Having owned all three cars (M5, M3, E55) I can say they are all very different and each have their own perks of ownership...but I truthfully think you need to spend some good seat time in each car before making your final decision.
Having owned all three cars (M5, M3, E55) I can say they are all very different and each have their own perks of ownership...but I truthfully think you need to spend some good seat time in each car before making your final decision.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
I looked up the porsche 996 turbo also from the same site which I have have personal experience with:
13/16/21
True real life results I have had when trying to drive economically:
M5 12.5-13.5 l/100km I got results easily under 10l/km dont remember the lowest anymore..
E55 15.5-16.5 l/100km, lowest I have ever seen: 9.8 l/100km
996 TT lowest around 8l/100km, the turbo makes the difference and the displacement
13/16/21
True real life results I have had when trying to drive economically:
M5 12.5-13.5 l/100km I got results easily under 10l/km dont remember the lowest anymore..
E55 15.5-16.5 l/100km, lowest I have ever seen: 9.8 l/100km
996 TT lowest around 8l/100km, the turbo makes the difference and the displacement
Yeah, these SC beasts are *extremely* sensitive to driving technique....if I leave tranny in comfort mode and drive it with very light throttle, I can average around 19-20 on my commute (about 50 miles, with 5-6 our "urban" loop and the rest highway), but in sport mode or w/even mildly (and I mean mildly) agressive throttle inputs, it drops to 15-16, and with full throttle you can see the gas guage drop!! 
