2007 E63 review
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,336
Likes: 8
Porsche 991S, Cayenne S, 1972 BMW 3.0CS E9 Coupe
guys, really. instead of admitting the truths in my review, the reviewer himself is attacked. that's an ad hominum argument.
im not a car newbie. im not a forum newbie either. i didnt buy the wrong car, not do enough research, nor was i expecting 997tt performance. geez.
several folks said i didnt do enough research on the car. although that is not correct, it does somewhat touch upon the reason for the post. in reading these threads on the car, people could easily be lead to believe that the car is something that it isnt. thus, the reason why i gave an honest review. btw, its not like the review was terrible. it is what it is. an honest assessment.
im not a car newbie. im not a forum newbie either. i didnt buy the wrong car, not do enough research, nor was i expecting 997tt performance. geez.
several folks said i didnt do enough research on the car. although that is not correct, it does somewhat touch upon the reason for the post. in reading these threads on the car, people could easily be lead to believe that the car is something that it isnt. thus, the reason why i gave an honest review. btw, its not like the review was terrible. it is what it is. an honest assessment.
i am a guy who owns this car. you are a guy who doesnt. you also apparently know nothing of the difference between crank horsepower, wheel horsepower and, most importantly torque to weight ratio.
my first car was a Mustang 5.0. would i get my kid a Mustang 5.0 as a first car? hell no! that car with all its torque and propensity to get sideways was really fun for me, but certainly not what i would want to give to my kids. it was only like 225 hp but a beast. the e63 is far, far, more tame. like i said, the power that it does have is more like a safety feature than an unexpected danger. if you havent driven one, then you really dont know what your talking about and have no place calling me names.
my first car was a Mustang 5.0. would i get my kid a Mustang 5.0 as a first car? hell no! that car with all its torque and propensity to get sideways was really fun for me, but certainly not what i would want to give to my kids. it was only like 225 hp but a beast. the e63 is far, far, more tame. like i said, the power that it does have is more like a safety feature than an unexpected danger. if you havent driven one, then you really dont know what your talking about and have no place calling me names.
When somebody says that, then it has to be based on a comparison. So the obvious response would be that you are comparing to your own car(s) and experiences. And then you went on to talk about your previous Mustang and in the same breath say the E63 is "far, far more tame."
When you say those things, then certainly you'll have to expect certain responses.
When you make a review such as yours, or any review for that matter, it has to be based on comparisons. And the logical argument is what are you comparing. You were the one who decided it was appropriate to bring up the fact that you also own a 997TT (and a heavily modded one, too, btw.) So you should have expected the responses of apples vs oranges. Or at the very least, responses which would include arguments that revolve around the idea that you "bought the wrong car" for your own needs or expectations.
Anyway, my point (I cannot speak for anyone else) is that this is the wrong car. It's clearly spelled out in auto reviews and on the internet that the supercharged 5.5 motor has dramatically different characteristics than the NA 6.2 motor. And especially on this forum. You claim that you gleaned info here that the 6.2 was appropriate to your expectations, yet that's not the case. No one here as ever said the 6.2 has the torque characteristics of the 5.5. Quite the opposite in fact. And neither does any review ever published either. They are simply different beasts (did you read these reviews? They are explicit.)
So a proper conclusion is that you didn't buy the right car or do enough homework. Certainly an in-depth test drive would have revealed all this to you, no?
And to say that you're giving it to your daughter when she reaches driving age does imply that it's a benign and innocuous car that has little performance. That's pretty clear. No reason to really say it otherwise, right?
The other issue is that you come on here with your very first post rather than coming on earlier before you bought the car. And instead of introducing yourself and asking about your disappointments, you chose to make a "review" instead. And that review was negative (based on your own personal experiences with other cars.) Surely you knew you would get these sorts of responses. It's a mild form of provocation. Imagine the response on the Porsche forum on 6speed or on Rennlist if someone with a RWD/front engine biased decided to make their very first post on their disappointment about the dynamics of a rear engined sports car......
You know what is being said here. Just as you know the motive of your review. If you're a lawyer, you'd surely understand all this.
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
2007 E63
I don't believe it was an ad hominem attack (not hominum, that's a common misspelling), but simply a response to someone saying this: "first off, it does not have shocking or extra impressive acceleration. period. i dont care what reviewers say, it doesnt. the lack of sufficient torque is a major drawback of this car."
When somebody says that, then it has to be based on a comparison. So the obvious response would be that you are comparing to your own car(s) and experiences. And then you went on to talk about your previous Mustang and in the same breath say the E63 is "far, far more tame."
When you say those things, then certainly you'll have to expect certain responses.
When you make a review such as yours, or any review for that matter, it has to be based on comparisons. And the logical argument is what are you comparing. You were the one who decided it was appropriate to bring up the fact that you also own a 997TT (and a heavily modded one, too, btw.) So you should have expected the responses of apples vs oranges. Or at the very least, responses which would include arguments that revolve around the idea that you "bought the wrong car" for your own needs or expectations.
Anyway, my point (I cannot speak for anyone else) is that this is the wrong car. It's clearly spelled out in auto reviews and on the internet that the supercharged 5.5 motor has dramatically different characteristics than the NA 6.2 motor. And especially on this forum. You claim that you gleaned info here that the 6.2 was appropriate to your expectations, yet that's not the case. No one here as ever said the 6.2 has the torque characteristics of the 5.5. Quite the opposite in fact. And neither does any review ever published either. They are simply different beasts (did you read these reviews? They are explicit.)
So a proper conclusion is that you didn't buy the right car or do enough homework. Certainly an in-depth test drive would have revealed all this to you, no?
And to say that you're giving it to your daughter when she reaches driving age does imply that it's a benign and innocuous car that has little performance. That's pretty clear. No reason to really say it otherwise, right?
The other issue is that you come on here with your very first post rather than coming on earlier before you bought the car. And instead of introducing yourself and asking about your disappointments, you chose to make a "review" instead. And that review was negative (based on your own personal experiences with other cars.) Surely you knew you would get these sorts of responses. It's a mild form of provocation. Imagine the response on the Porsche forum on 6speed or on Rennlist if someone with a RWD/front engine biased decided to make their very first post on their disappointment about the dynamics of a rear engined sports car......
You know what is being said here. Just as you know the motive of your review. If you're a lawyer, you'd surely understand all this.
When somebody says that, then it has to be based on a comparison. So the obvious response would be that you are comparing to your own car(s) and experiences. And then you went on to talk about your previous Mustang and in the same breath say the E63 is "far, far more tame."
When you say those things, then certainly you'll have to expect certain responses.
When you make a review such as yours, or any review for that matter, it has to be based on comparisons. And the logical argument is what are you comparing. You were the one who decided it was appropriate to bring up the fact that you also own a 997TT (and a heavily modded one, too, btw.) So you should have expected the responses of apples vs oranges. Or at the very least, responses which would include arguments that revolve around the idea that you "bought the wrong car" for your own needs or expectations.
Anyway, my point (I cannot speak for anyone else) is that this is the wrong car. It's clearly spelled out in auto reviews and on the internet that the supercharged 5.5 motor has dramatically different characteristics than the NA 6.2 motor. And especially on this forum. You claim that you gleaned info here that the 6.2 was appropriate to your expectations, yet that's not the case. No one here as ever said the 6.2 has the torque characteristics of the 5.5. Quite the opposite in fact. And neither does any review ever published either. They are simply different beasts (did you read these reviews? They are explicit.)
So a proper conclusion is that you didn't buy the right car or do enough homework. Certainly an in-depth test drive would have revealed all this to you, no?
And to say that you're giving it to your daughter when she reaches driving age does imply that it's a benign and innocuous car that has little performance. That's pretty clear. No reason to really say it otherwise, right?
The other issue is that you come on here with your very first post rather than coming on earlier before you bought the car. And instead of introducing yourself and asking about your disappointments, you chose to make a "review" instead. And that review was negative (based on your own personal experiences with other cars.) Surely you knew you would get these sorts of responses. It's a mild form of provocation. Imagine the response on the Porsche forum on 6speed or on Rennlist if someone with a RWD/front engine biased decided to make their very first post on their disappointment about the dynamics of a rear engined sports car......
You know what is being said here. Just as you know the motive of your review. If you're a lawyer, you'd surely understand all this.
I posted the review for those who dont have the car and are incorrectly lumping it together with true sports cars. It wasnt a post targeted to the die hard forum member, but instead to the now over a thousand people that have read the thread, most of which probably do not own or have an emotional connection to the car.
while a large percentage of the members dont like the post, i bet that the larger number of guests find it informative. Besides, guys, its not like im totally flaming the car. in reality, the same stuff that is in my post can be found in past posts of the same people that are upset with my post.
As to the point about there being lots of posts descibring the true performace of the car, i disagree. there arent. from the VAST MAJORITY stuff that i've read, the car will slam you back in your seats and has scary acceleration - which it doesnt. i knew what i was getting when i bought it, and i am happy with it. However, when i see those crazy inflated reviews, I have to call BS.
thanks for the correction to my spelling.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 458
Likes: 3
'08 E63 Wagon
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,336
Likes: 8
Porsche 991S, Cayenne S, 1972 BMW 3.0CS E9 Coupe
Yes, i will admit that i expected this reaction.
I posted the review for those who dont have the car and are incorrectly lumping it together with true sports cars. It wasnt a post targeted to the die hard forum member, but instead to the now over a thousand people that have read the thread, most of which probably do not own or have an emotional connection to the car.
while a large percentage of the members dont like the post, i bet that the larger number of guests find it informative. Besides, guys, its not like im totally flaming the car. in reality, the same stuff that is in my post can be found in past posts of the same people that are upset with my post.
As to the point about there being lots of posts descibring the true performace of the car, i disagree. there arent. from the VAST MAJORITY stuff that i've read, the car will slam you back in your seats and has scary acceleration - which it doesnt. i knew what i was getting when i bought it, and i am happy with it. However, when i see those crazy inflated reviews, I have to call BS.
thanks for the correction to my spelling.
I posted the review for those who dont have the car and are incorrectly lumping it together with true sports cars. It wasnt a post targeted to the die hard forum member, but instead to the now over a thousand people that have read the thread, most of which probably do not own or have an emotional connection to the car.
while a large percentage of the members dont like the post, i bet that the larger number of guests find it informative. Besides, guys, its not like im totally flaming the car. in reality, the same stuff that is in my post can be found in past posts of the same people that are upset with my post.
As to the point about there being lots of posts descibring the true performace of the car, i disagree. there arent. from the VAST MAJORITY stuff that i've read, the car will slam you back in your seats and has scary acceleration - which it doesnt. i knew what i was getting when i bought it, and i am happy with it. However, when i see those crazy inflated reviews, I have to call BS.
thanks for the correction to my spelling.
You knew what segment the E Class sedan falls under in respect to other categories. Everybody knows that these are heavy cruising sedans. Read the reviews I posted. The editors are comparing the car to other heavyweight comfort sedans, not sports cars. And the "vast majority" of all car reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt. Aside from quantitative specs, they are very subjective. Anything qualitative needs to be assessed by the potential buyer. You need to test drive any car yourself, always. I think this is all understood by car enthusiasts.
Your argument about helping those who might think it's a sports car, and posting the 'review' in the manner you did and for that reason, isn't quite logical. I don't know if you're a trial lawyer, but as an attorney you do understand reason and logic. Your post doesn't fall under the category of "helping new buyers" in the true sense.
Nonetheless, this forum is full of information about the car. You weren't exactly posting a public service announcement and you knew that.
Maybe next time post in an honest and less provocative manner and you'll get plenty of decent responses and a good dialogue about the pros and cons of AMG E Class ownership.Imagine if I posted for the very first time on Rennlist or 6 Speed that I felt the 997TT I just bought was a dog in comparison to my 'fill-in-the-blank' car. What's the point? And what kind of responses do you think I'd get? And if people said they are two different cars, and I replied that they were simply "in denial" about their own cars, what would you expect? (fwiw, I'm a PCA member and own two 911 variants.)
Next time, if you are honestly wanting to call out car reviewers (re: "however, when i see those crazy inflated reviews, I have to call BS"), then make a post about that issue. That's been done a few times here already. And there's a long history here of the pros and cons of these cars. The members here on MBWorld understand the real nature of them and are the best source to go to for information.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh NC
2007 E63, 2006 C55
RE: E63
"unlike my porsche which will rev to redline very, very fast, the merc seems to take forever for the engine to reach high rev. its like the engine is so large that it has to overcome a whole lot of inertia just to get wound up."
Fastlaw, welcome to the Forum. I did not see a description of your car, mileage, condition, etc. but from the above comment in your original post, I'd suspect that something is wrong with it.
My E63, while certainly not having near the torque or power of my SL600, revs through 1st/2nd gear in "S" trans mode so quickly as to render the paddles redundent. 0 - 60 comes up in 4 seconds flat, provided I can get good traction. The engine loves to rev right to redline, and it is easily a low 12 second qtr. mile car which has hung with and embarassed more than a few exotics.
It is not a Porsche 911 turbo, nor a sports car. It is a refined hot rod German 4 door sports sedan, and it fulfills that mission beautifully. That may not be the right car for you based on your post, it sounds like you have a bit of buyers remorse.
I do suggest that you have your car checked out to ensure it is running correctly.
Fastlaw, welcome to the Forum. I did not see a description of your car, mileage, condition, etc. but from the above comment in your original post, I'd suspect that something is wrong with it.
My E63, while certainly not having near the torque or power of my SL600, revs through 1st/2nd gear in "S" trans mode so quickly as to render the paddles redundent. 0 - 60 comes up in 4 seconds flat, provided I can get good traction. The engine loves to rev right to redline, and it is easily a low 12 second qtr. mile car which has hung with and embarassed more than a few exotics.
It is not a Porsche 911 turbo, nor a sports car. It is a refined hot rod German 4 door sports sedan, and it fulfills that mission beautifully. That may not be the right car for you based on your post, it sounds like you have a bit of buyers remorse.
I do suggest that you have your car checked out to ensure it is running correctly.
Last edited by NCE500; Mar 13, 2011 at 09:21 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,717
Likes: 17
From: San Jose, CA
2007 E63 w/P30 and Eurotech CF Diffuser
Putting a teenage driver in a car like this is unwise and irresponsible. Just look back to the M5 in Florida going off the runway a instantly killing all 5 of those "good, responsible" 18 year olds.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 12
From: MA
E63S
63 looks, 55 performance is the way to go.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
7 Craziest Things AMG Gas Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
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
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
2008 E63AMGP30
I can agree with some of what you say, but I wouldn't classify the E63AMG as unimpressive in terms of acceleration. Have you ever run the 997 or the E63 on a track and compared the lap times? Or are you talking about straight line grunt "seat of the pants" meter perceptions? Just to clarify. Some track data to compare the two cars might help here---from anyone. I'm not singling you out per se. Opinions are just that. Though I hate to say it, any sedan that will run low 12s in a 1/4 mile is far from "unimpressive". Again, I hate using 1/4 as an indicator of what makes a fast car, but many use it here as bench mark. What kinds of times are you running with the 997?
I've had a Supra Turbo, Steeda Cobra, Corvette ZO6, M3, and several other quick cars. My P30 E63 is quicker than most of them other than in tight corners. I wouldn't say it is a corner-carver, however. But it does handle its business well enough for a sedan. The grunt on the interstate is very impressive to me. But that is my "seat of the pants" meter opinion. My goal is to run my E63 at Summit Point or VIR this summer to get some base-line lap times to tell. I specifically got the P30 package to have a better experience should I ever decide to do some track days. So far that is my plan.
I agree about the gas and interior. I think the acceleration is pretty darn good for a sedan. But I didn't buy it to run 1/4 mile times. From the data I see, the E55s mod better obviously and can hammer a 1/4 quicker. But, I am curious how all of these would stack up on a road course. The 997 is going to have the obvious edge with AWD and better symmetry, but my question is by how much.
I've had a Supra Turbo, Steeda Cobra, Corvette ZO6, M3, and several other quick cars. My P30 E63 is quicker than most of them other than in tight corners. I wouldn't say it is a corner-carver, however. But it does handle its business well enough for a sedan. The grunt on the interstate is very impressive to me. But that is my "seat of the pants" meter opinion. My goal is to run my E63 at Summit Point or VIR this summer to get some base-line lap times to tell. I specifically got the P30 package to have a better experience should I ever decide to do some track days. So far that is my plan.
I agree about the gas and interior. I think the acceleration is pretty darn good for a sedan. But I didn't buy it to run 1/4 mile times. From the data I see, the E55s mod better obviously and can hammer a 1/4 quicker. But, I am curious how all of these would stack up on a road course. The 997 is going to have the obvious edge with AWD and better symmetry, but my question is by how much.
Last edited by Lycan; Mar 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Brain fart
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,567
Likes: 180
From: Indiana
'94 NSX,'99 NSX Z,'12 C63 Black Series (Prior: '07 E63, '08 CLK63 Black Series,'14 E63-S & 16 C63-S)
Actually, deep down I know the E63 is one of the fastest cars you can get without going totally off the deep end. Granted, if you have a modified 997TT then in your house the E63 may be the 'dog', but for the majority of other motorists sprinting from 0 - 60 mph in the 4 second range is pretty freaking quick. To each their own, but I have driven almost everything (including the super fast Carrera GT), and the E63 is still is one of the most impressive acceleration rides I have ever been in.
Last edited by Meeyatch1; Mar 14, 2011 at 09:39 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
2008 E63AMGP30
If he has a modded 997TT then that car should be a low-11 second or high 10-second car. Even exhaust and tune on that car will make a HUGE difference. I just bounced this thread off of my buddy with a modded 997TT and he gave me his feedback. They are freaking fast cars.
So yeah, a car like that would numb the senses a bit. The E63 might seem a little tame to someone used to driving a land rocket. But a little research on the car should tell him that---shouldn't be a surprise. However, to 95% of the population a sedan that can run 0-60 in 4 seconds flat and run low 12s in the quarter is indeed very fast. There are very few STOCK automobiles in the world that can claim those speeds...period.
Cheers.
So yeah, a car like that would numb the senses a bit. The E63 might seem a little tame to someone used to driving a land rocket. But a little research on the car should tell him that---shouldn't be a surprise. However, to 95% of the population a sedan that can run 0-60 in 4 seconds flat and run low 12s in the quarter is indeed very fast. There are very few STOCK automobiles in the world that can claim those speeds...period.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
2007 E63
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 1
From: ny
2019 s560 sedan
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,336
Likes: 8
Porsche 991S, Cayenne S, 1972 BMW 3.0CS E9 Coupe
All the 360 Modena owners were certainly "left scratching their heads." They were even the ones that brought it up on the F-car forums. And they also were giving thumbs up and a lot of cred to the AMGs.
On a road track it would be different. But all of us will agree to that in the first place, so I don't get why your comment was suspect.
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
From: W Coast & E Europe
08 E63, 07 RS4, 04 GT3, 10 LR4, 02 Pajero
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,336
Likes: 8
Porsche 991S, Cayenne S, 1972 BMW 3.0CS E9 Coupe
fwiw, those weren't my figures (and why I put them in quotes), but Evo's numbers for the cars. But it looks like a typo on their part (mixing the hp number with ft lbs: http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...z_e63_amg.html
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
2008 E63AMGP30
It's a very quick sedan. Are there faster cars? Absolutely. Kinda comes down to what you want the car for. Personally I didn't go buy a MB to use as a 1/4 mile drag car. Even thought it is fun sometimes...
Ehhhh the E63 only runs 0-60 MPH in 3.9 seconds and will click off a near 12 second 1/4 mile. That's too slow and boring. Yawn. Ehhhh I'm giving it to my 16 year old nephew for Driver's Ed Training.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 4
From: California, USA
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
I think it's because maybe he feels all Ferraris are super fast just because they all have a prancing horse logo on them.
All the 360 Modena owners were certainly "left scratching their heads." They were even the ones that brought it up on the F-car forums. And they also were giving thumbs up and a lot of cred to the AMGs.
On a road track it would be different. But all of us will agree to that in the first place, so I don't get why your comment was suspect.
All the 360 Modena owners were certainly "left scratching their heads." They were even the ones that brought it up on the F-car forums. And they also were giving thumbs up and a lot of cred to the AMGs.
On a road track it would be different. But all of us will agree to that in the first place, so I don't get why your comment was suspect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdp6SO5p9wU
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 4
From: California, USA
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
+1
It's a very quick sedan. Are there faster cars? Absolutely. Kinda comes down to what you want the car for. Personally I didn't go buy a MB to use as a 1/4 mile drag car. Even thought it is fun sometimes...
Ehhhh the E63 only runs 0-60 MPH in 3.9 seconds and will click off a near 12 second 1/4 mile. That's too slow and boring. Yawn. Ehhhh I'm giving it to my 16 year old nephew for Driver's Ed Training.
It's a very quick sedan. Are there faster cars? Absolutely. Kinda comes down to what you want the car for. Personally I didn't go buy a MB to use as a 1/4 mile drag car. Even thought it is fun sometimes...
Ehhhh the E63 only runs 0-60 MPH in 3.9 seconds and will click off a near 12 second 1/4 mile. That's too slow and boring. Yawn. Ehhhh I'm giving it to my 16 year old nephew for Driver's Ed Training.
Check out the video I posted
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 389
Likes: 8
From: Louisville, Kentucky
Formerly: 2007 e63; 2012 GL450
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
From: The Magic City
C63
I'm curious, why did you buy the car if it wasn't what you thought it would be based on the reviews you read? Did you not test drive it? Your impressions should have been realized right then & there.
You should have just bought an E550 & saved the money.
You should have just bought an E550 & saved the money.
