Manoj

Is there a web site to compare 0 - 62 times and 0 - 100 times.

Pbglas

This item is perhaps not hte most suitable, but since no one else has told us anything better ....


http://www.carpassion.net/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2674

Rennteam

E55
0-62 mph: 4.6 sec.
0-100 mph: 9.8 sec.

Porsche 996 Turbo
0-62 mph: 4.2 sec.
0-100 mph: 9.4 sec.

Ferrari 360 Modena
0-62 mph: 4.7 sec.
0-100 mph: 10.5 sec.

From my own personal experience, I can tell you that the Ferrari 360 Modena stands no chance against the E55 in any speed range, especially over 100 mph.
At speeds over 135 mph, even the 996 Turbo stands no chance against the E55, we tested it two times with stock cars.
I owned a Porsche 996 Turbo (RS-Tuning) before and I'm really impressed with the E55 regarding straight line performance.
However: as sporty as the E55 might feel, on the track it stands no chance against a 360 Modena or 996 Turbo, supposing that all three cars are in the hands of a good driver. Hope this helps.

AmgBoy

Where do you get the 4.2 second 0-60 time for the 911 Turbo? A Turbo can make a sub 4 second 0-60 run, I gauruntee you that!

Cheers.

Rennteam

I posted 0-62 mph times, not 0-60 mph times.
There is no stock 996 Turbo which can do the 0-62(!) mph in less than 4 seconds. Not even the GT2 does 0-62 mph in less than 4 seconds.
Best time ever done by a german car magazine was 0-62 mph in 4.2 seconds, sometimes even "only" 4.3 seconds.
The test data I posted is taken from german SPORT AUTO, the only sports car magazine which tests sports cars on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife and Hockenheim Kleiner Ring on a regular basis.
I owned a 996 Turbo for almost three years and I owned two other 996 (C2 and C4 Powerkit) and a 993 Targa before, so I might say I somehow know the 996 pretty well.

sf49ers79

WOW I'm surprised that e 55 can beat 360 mondena... is it for real though? did anybody try it on the street or race track? I really wanna test drive that e55... see how fast they can go

dNA3D

No doubt the Porsche is faster than the Modena. Best Motoring have done a couple of comparisons and the Turbo always seems to come out on top. But then, the Porsche doesn't have a prancing horse badge on it.

Bilal

That used to be my answer for all fast cars Vs. Ferrari. But take a look at the Silver Arrows from Stuttgart, and things in Maranello suddenly start looking a bit boring...

stephens

Posted elswhere on the forum. Performance comparisons

Look under "track tests".
Interestingly the standard W211 E55 is only as quick around Hockeheim as the W210 E55, which reflects my own experiences with these cars.

CarlssonCRS

man.... when you reach such high horspowers and fast acceleration times.... does it really matter which car is .1 of a second faster? as if the old folks who own such cars would dare to break 80mph on a local road, drag racing each other.... and who, seriously, would drive over 135mph on a regular basis? you'd be lucky to get off 60mph on the 405 during normal hours. i could probably count on one hand the times that i have pushed my car above 135mph....

now if you are young, the thing to consider is that... you're bound to get head in a ferrari or porsche....

stephens

Some of us do take our cars to tracks, drag strips etc. I would hazard a guess that most W211 E55 drivers like myself either have or had Porsche Turbo's, Ferrari's etc and are looking for something more practical, less attention seeking and more importantly FASTER.

IMO Ferrari drivers are the worst culprits. At track days they drive like girls, I don't understand why most of them even bother to turn up.

Rennteam

The problem is that Sport Auto used the standard suspension setting (means: semi-automatic) and used the manufacturer recommended tire pressure (which is actually more comfort oriented).

Pbglas

When you make comparisons are you comparing an automatic to a manual? When people quote 0-60 or .25 mile for MB are they using an auto or are using the simulated manual.

stephens

From personal experience, there is no advantage in manually shifting the auto, if this is what you ar referring to.

Pbglas

Thanks. It seems then that in comparisons of 0-60 etc people are comparing automatics with manuals when MB will always come out at a disadvantage. I don't know how Porsche times are obtained but with M 5, it has to be manual.

stephens

Porsche times quoted are for manuals.

C320_Avantgarde

I'm pretty sure the Ferrari 360 Modena does 0-100km/h in 4.6sec.

On the other hand, the E55 does 0-100km/h in 4.81 secs and 0-400m in 12.94 @ 180.1 km/h

However, I'm not sure if the 360 Modena that was tested had a manual gearbox or the F1-style paddle shift gear box.

Laterz!

Rennteam

Well known german car magazine Auto, Motor und Sport in it's today issue:

E55
0-100 kph in 4.4 seconds (other two tests 4.6 seconds)
0-200 kph in 14.2 seconds (other two tests 14.6 and 14.8 seconds)

Never saw in any german car test a 0-100 kph figure over 4.6 seconds for the E55.

The 360 Modena test data I mentioned was taken from the same magazine.
From 0-200 kph (125 mph), the 360 Modena is more than 2 seconds slower than the E55.

In my 996 Turbo (while it was still stock), I had several 360 Modena encounters and never did a 360 Modena outrun me, in ANY speed range. And the E55 and the stock 996 Turbo are almost head to head in performance up to 200 kph (125 mph), over 125 mph the E55 starts to pull away.

stephens

Are you an Aussie?
You appear to be quoting performance figures from Wheels magazine. It is standard practice for them to do all tests with both driver and passenger, also ESP is left on.
These performance figures come from an M5/E55/Jag shootout. Comparatively the M5 did 5.3s for 0-100kmh and 13.6s for the 1/4, and the Jag S Type R did 0-100kmh in 6.3s and 14.7s for the 1/4.

C320_Avantgarde

yeah, I'm from Australia

I actually quoted the above figures from Motor Magazine.

Cheers.

stephens

The Motor test was done at Avalon Airport with a passenger and test gear. You will notice that some of their test figures are asterixed and noted as being at Avalon. I think the surface of the old airstrips is less than ideal for acceleration testing and results in slower times. I wouldn't be surprised if the same journo did both the Wheels and Motor tests, particularly as the performance figures appear to be identical!

KurumaGOD

Does that mean the E55 will beat the 911 turbo?

stephens

Not from a standing start.

Bilal

"Does that mean the E55 will beat the 911 turbo"


Well, possibly with a bit of performance upgrades to unleash the full 500+bhp.

just remember not everyone in a 911 turbo is Mario Andretti.

Rennteam

The problem with the 996 Turbo is the fact that most owners did at least some ECU upgrade on their cars. Most 996 Turbo owners I personally know have at least real 520 HP in their cars, so if you're driving a stock E55 it is somehow difficult to have a good and fair comparison.
Another problem: a lot of 996 Turbo owners don't tell if they did something to their car, so this can be pretty frustrating if a 996 Turbo clearly outruns you in your E55 and the owners tells you that his 996 Turbo is stock. This can't be true.
From standstill, it is very difficult to outrun a 996 Turbo in a E55 W211. When I fully accelerate from standstill, my ESP lamp is flashing like hell. When I turn ESP off, the ESP lamp is still flashing when I fully accelerate from standstill and tire grip isn't the best resulting in a horrible tire squeeking noise.
So maybe AMG should have installed at least a limited slip differential on the E55.

From my experience, the E55 clearly outruns a stock(!) 996 Turbo at speeds over 125-130 mph but below 125 mph, performance is practically the same with a little advantage for the 996 Turbo if the asphalt isn't too sticky.
If there is one thing I hate on my E55, it is the ESP.
Same applies to my wife's SLK32. The ESP on AMG cars seems to be horrible.