MBUSA says E55 is "the Fastest Mercedes Ever"!
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 210
From: Washington D.C.
2024 GLE63s / 2016 GLE63s (traded) / 2016 E63s / 2002 E55
MBUSA says E55 is "the Fastest Mercedes Ever"!
The PRNewswire release of 12 Feb 2003 states MBUSA is saying:
"'Kompressor' Engine Makes E55 AMG the Fastest Mercedes Ever"
I emailed Bob Gritziner, Senior Editor of Auto Week on 12 Feb just to get the E55 Base Price and he further replied:
"At the Chicago show, they announced MSRP of $76,000. BTW, I checked on the "fastest production Mercedes ever" claim and they stand by it.
Enjoy."
Bob Gritzinger
Senior Editor, News
AutoWeek
1155 Gratiot Ave.
Detroit, MI 48207-2997
313-446-0342
313-446-1027 (Fax)
248-425-1383 (Cell)
bgritzinger@crain.com
See PRNewswire Article:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...E=Feb+12,+2003
"'Kompressor' Engine Makes E55 AMG the Fastest Mercedes Ever"
I emailed Bob Gritziner, Senior Editor of Auto Week on 12 Feb just to get the E55 Base Price and he further replied:
"At the Chicago show, they announced MSRP of $76,000. BTW, I checked on the "fastest production Mercedes ever" claim and they stand by it.
Enjoy."
Bob Gritzinger
Senior Editor, News
AutoWeek
1155 Gratiot Ave.
Detroit, MI 48207-2997
313-446-0342
313-446-1027 (Fax)
248-425-1383 (Cell)
bgritzinger@crain.com
See PRNewswire Article:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...E=Feb+12,+2003
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
From: Riyadh, KSA
2004 Range Rover, 02 S 600, 02 Yukon
Dealers netstar system is talking of a 0-60 of
4.3 seconds 
He read the post himself to me, where he quoted it saying that Mercedes claims that some automobile magazines have tested the car at 4.3 seconds for a 0-60...this thing is going to be very very fast.....
on another note all of you who thought the car would be paying 75k or under for a base price were a little too optimistic as I thought, you make look at 76k (which my dealer confirmed too) as being near to 75k but, look at it this way, 76k plus 700+ for destination 1700+ for gass guzzler, your looking at 78,500 before any options and one more thing....
thats for the 2003's, whats to say Mercedes doesnt up the the price for the 2004's, they have always up to now, added 500-1000 bucks more the for the next year model, so this car could easily be in the 79-80k price range before any options.....
alot more than the 72k some thought it would be, especially considering you dont even get xenons and the like standard on the new model....
He read the post himself to me, where he quoted it saying that Mercedes claims that some automobile magazines have tested the car at 4.3 seconds for a 0-60...this thing is going to be very very fast.....on another note all of you who thought the car would be paying 75k or under for a base price were a little too optimistic as I thought, you make look at 76k (which my dealer confirmed too) as being near to 75k but, look at it this way, 76k plus 700+ for destination 1700+ for gass guzzler, your looking at 78,500 before any options and one more thing....
thats for the 2003's, whats to say Mercedes doesnt up the the price for the 2004's, they have always up to now, added 500-1000 bucks more the for the next year model, so this car could easily be in the 79-80k price range before any options.....
alot more than the 72k some thought it would be, especially considering you dont even get xenons and the like standard on the new model....
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Since August I've been one of those claiming the base would be $74-76K.
I feel good about the announced price for several reasons:
1) I would have paid even more if they had priced it higher
2) I will not be getting any expensive options because I wouldn't make good use of them anyway
3) The car is "worth" more than that in a relative sense. Compare it to a Viper, RS6, S8, outgoing M5, etc etc....you're getting a LOT of power/luxury/technology/safety/stealthy panache and just plain exhilaration compared to the competition in this price range.
4) Many people were firmly convinced it would be priced a lot higher...and that would have been fair IMO.
5) The taxes and destination and whatnot would have been added on to everyone's guesses regardless.
I was personally relieved and pleased by the $76K
I feel good about the announced price for several reasons:
1) I would have paid even more if they had priced it higher
2) I will not be getting any expensive options because I wouldn't make good use of them anyway
3) The car is "worth" more than that in a relative sense. Compare it to a Viper, RS6, S8, outgoing M5, etc etc....you're getting a LOT of power/luxury/technology/safety/stealthy panache and just plain exhilaration compared to the competition in this price range.
4) Many people were firmly convinced it would be priced a lot higher...and that would have been fair IMO.
5) The taxes and destination and whatnot would have been added on to everyone's guesses regardless.
I was personally relieved and pleased by the $76K
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 210
From: Washington D.C.
2024 GLE63s / 2016 GLE63s (traded) / 2016 E63s / 2002 E55
BASE PRICE IS $75K!
Originally posted by nabzy
on another note all of you who thought the car would be paying 75k or under for a base price were a little too optimistic as I thought, you make look at 76k (which my dealer confirmed too) as being near to 75k but, look at it this way, 76k plus 700+ for destination 1700+ for gass guzzler, your looking at 78,500 before any options and one more thing....
on another note all of you who thought the car would be paying 75k or under for a base price were a little too optimistic as I thought, you make look at 76k (which my dealer confirmed too) as being near to 75k but, look at it this way, 76k plus 700+ for destination 1700+ for gass guzzler, your looking at 78,500 before any options and one more thing....
Gas Guzzler is a tax just like State Sales Tax so to include it may not be appropriate.
Being optimistic and guessing below $75k is OK and reasonable because there were automotive journalist that reported the base price betwen $72,500 and $75k a couple months ago.
The main point of the "Base Price Guessing Game" which I probably made more noise about than others was because orginally too many people were posting and reporting a base price of $85k without any real data to support it other than the reported RS6 price and the price of adding an aftermarket supercharger from Renntech or Kleemann to the W210 E55.
Additionally, many people in other countries are paying thru the nose for E55's and many here tried to compare/compute the price by converting dollar amounts for E55 in other countries and that does not work well. Aussies pay the equivalent of $129k US dollars for an E55 and that is just the base price.
Last edited by E55 KEV; Feb 15, 2003 at 11:05 AM.
Trending Topics
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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 1
From: Bloomington, IN
1997 Toyota Tacoma 4x4
Re: MBUSA says E55 is "the Fastest Mercedes Ever"!
Originally posted by E55 KEV
The PRNewswire release of 12 Feb 2003 states MBUSA is saying:
"'Kompressor' Engine Makes E55 AMG the Fastest Mercedes Ever"
I emailed Bob Gritziner, Senior Editor of Auto Week on 12 Feb just to get the E55 Base Price and he further replied:
"At the Chicago show, they announced MSRP of $76,000. BTW, I checked on the "fastest production Mercedes ever" claim and they stand by it.
Enjoy."
The PRNewswire release of 12 Feb 2003 states MBUSA is saying:
"'Kompressor' Engine Makes E55 AMG the Fastest Mercedes Ever"
I emailed Bob Gritziner, Senior Editor of Auto Week on 12 Feb just to get the E55 Base Price and he further replied:
"At the Chicago show, they announced MSRP of $76,000. BTW, I checked on the "fastest production Mercedes ever" claim and they stand by it.
Enjoy."
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 20,081
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Volvo V90 CC
Re: Re: MBUSA says E55 is "the Fastest Mercedes Ever"!
Originally posted by mbtech208
It's the fastest Mercedes sedan ever, not the fastest ever. I believe the SLK32 AMG still has that title for the time being.
It's the fastest Mercedes sedan ever, not the fastest ever. I believe the SLK32 AMG still has that title for the time being.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 581
Likes: 4
From: Dallas
C32 AMG
I don't think the SLK32 can possibly be faster than the E55. The SLK32 is marginally faster than the C32 due to less weight - but, compared to the E55, it still is several tenths of a second slower to 60mph / 100kph (4.8 sec 0-60 vs. 4.3).
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 210
From: Washington D.C.
2024 GLE63s / 2016 GLE63s (traded) / 2016 E63s / 2002 E55
It says fastest Mercedes - not fastest sedan!
Originally posted by mbtech208
It's the fastest Mercedes sedan ever, not the fastest ever. I believe the SLK32 AMG still has that title for the time being.
It's the fastest Mercedes sedan ever, not the fastest ever. I believe the SLK32 AMG still has that title for the time being.
Last edited by E55 KEV; Feb 17, 2003 at 02:08 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
M3
Re: Re: MBUSA says E55 is "the Fastest Mercedes Ever"!
Originally posted by mbtech208
It's the fastest Mercedes sedan ever, not the fastest ever. I believe the SLK32 AMG still has that title for the time being.
It's the fastest Mercedes sedan ever, not the fastest ever. I believe the SLK32 AMG still has that title for the time being.
The E55 will be faster 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile:
SLK32 vs. E55
0-60: 4.8s vs. 4.3s
1/4 mile: 13.2s vs. 12.7s
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 1
R170
If you're going to look at the best test numbers for the E55 than you ought to look at the best posted numbers for the SLK32 as well... I still agree that the E55 is faster, (It's an absolute beast).
C&D: SLK32
0-60:4.5s (maybe a tad optimisitic... but it is safe to say 4.6s)
1/4Mile: 13.0
I've seen a timeslip or two of an SLK32 that posted 12.9 bonestock...
granted, that doesn't mean much consider C&D layed down a 12.4 1/4 time with the new E55.
C&D: SLK32
0-60:4.5s (maybe a tad optimisitic... but it is safe to say 4.6s)
1/4Mile: 13.0
I've seen a timeslip or two of an SLK32 that posted 12.9 bonestock...
granted, that doesn't mean much consider C&D layed down a 12.4 1/4 time with the new E55.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 210
From: Washington D.C.
2024 GLE63s / 2016 GLE63s (traded) / 2016 E63s / 2002 E55
Originally posted by Dave OH
If you're going to look at the best test numbers for the E55 than you ought to look at the best posted numbers for the SLK32 as well... I still agree that the E55 is faster, (It's an absolute beast).
C&D: SLK32
0-60:4.5s (maybe a tad optimisitic... but it is safe to say 4.6s)
1/4Mile: 13.0
I've seen a timeslip or two of an SLK32 that posted 12.9 bonestock...
granted, that doesn't mean much consider C&D layed down a 12.4 1/4 time with the new E55.
If you're going to look at the best test numbers for the E55 than you ought to look at the best posted numbers for the SLK32 as well... I still agree that the E55 is faster, (It's an absolute beast).
C&D: SLK32
0-60:4.5s (maybe a tad optimisitic... but it is safe to say 4.6s)
1/4Mile: 13.0
I've seen a timeslip or two of an SLK32 that posted 12.9 bonestock...
granted, that doesn't mean much consider C&D layed down a 12.4 1/4 time with the new E55.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
E55 AMG
When the W210 E55 was released it was hailed as the fastest mercedes ever, now the new E55 reclaims that title.
But I find it interesting that the W210 E55's factory 0-60 rating of 5.4 secs was sand bagging a bit. Many car mags got 4.8-5.1 secs on the average. I've clocked my own at 4.9 secs, and many here who drag race have confirmed low 13's for 1/4 mile is doable.
On the other hand, when the CLK55 and then the C32/SLK32 were introduced, each in turn took the title of fastest mercedes ever. But for the CLK55 & C32, the mercedes claimed 0-60 time of 4.9 secs seemed a little optimistic. Many car mags got low 5's instead of high 4's, seems like the claimed 4.9 secs is more on the best case side of things (no offense to CLK55/C32 owners out there). My feeling is that the old E55's greater torque and bigger rear tires made up for its slightly heavier weight compared to the CLK55 & C32. But my point is that Mercedes current claims for 0-60 seem to be less conservative than before.
On paper the new E55 has the best hp/weight ratio of all the AMG cars, with torque equal to the SL55/CL55/S55. So it should be the fastest, but actual tests will vary. I think its skinny 265/35/18 rear tires will cause some traction loss. The old E55 had 275's the new one should have come with 19" rims and at least 285's IMO. The new E55's gearing is not as agressive as well. We all think that Mercedes is holding it back a bit, otherwise it would be too far ahead of it's more pricey big brothers (SL55/CL55/S55).
But I find it interesting that the W210 E55's factory 0-60 rating of 5.4 secs was sand bagging a bit. Many car mags got 4.8-5.1 secs on the average. I've clocked my own at 4.9 secs, and many here who drag race have confirmed low 13's for 1/4 mile is doable.
On the other hand, when the CLK55 and then the C32/SLK32 were introduced, each in turn took the title of fastest mercedes ever. But for the CLK55 & C32, the mercedes claimed 0-60 time of 4.9 secs seemed a little optimistic. Many car mags got low 5's instead of high 4's, seems like the claimed 4.9 secs is more on the best case side of things (no offense to CLK55/C32 owners out there). My feeling is that the old E55's greater torque and bigger rear tires made up for its slightly heavier weight compared to the CLK55 & C32. But my point is that Mercedes current claims for 0-60 seem to be less conservative than before.
On paper the new E55 has the best hp/weight ratio of all the AMG cars, with torque equal to the SL55/CL55/S55. So it should be the fastest, but actual tests will vary. I think its skinny 265/35/18 rear tires will cause some traction loss. The old E55 had 275's the new one should have come with 19" rims and at least 285's IMO. The new E55's gearing is not as agressive as well. We all think that Mercedes is holding it back a bit, otherwise it would be too far ahead of it's more pricey big brothers (SL55/CL55/S55).
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 1
From: Bloomington, IN
1997 Toyota Tacoma 4x4
Originally posted by KJ-TypeR
I also forgot to mention earlier that the SL55 AMG which is available RIGHT NOW is ALSO faster than the SLK32 AMG.
I also forgot to mention earlier that the SL55 AMG which is available RIGHT NOW is ALSO faster than the SLK32 AMG.
Last edited by mbtech208; Feb 19, 2003 at 11:29 PM.
