Pbglas

I was looking through the back pages of the most recent Motor Trend and noticed the the E55 had a speed of 66.5 mph for their slalom. Out of curiosity, I looked at the '02 M5. Its speed was 67. Given the range of numbers for various cars posted the difference does not appear to be much, although I am not sure I understand well the intricacies of measuring handling.

Why do I frequently hear on this board that the E55 falls well below the M5 in handling?

EDWARD CONROY

Others here would know the technicalities of it all far better. I've read about non-linear steering, too much electronics in the braking and steering(can't forget braking ability and feel into corners when talking handling ability and characteristics). Weight distribution is also a big factor in handling. I had a 3 series car and test drove the current generation M5. There's no doubt that BMW concentrates most of all on producing well balanced cars with superb handling ability and feel. So many of the posts I've read here are about various cars strengths and faults, bragging and bad mouthing. The common thread is that we're all looking for the perfect car and it doesn't exist because perfect is having what you want and we want it all. LOL The hard part, proven by the endlist list of cars we've all had or plan on acquiring, is loving what you have and appreciating its strengths and accepting its faults. But how boring that would quickly become. My perfect car? A 911 all wheel drive Cabriolet Turbo with Tiptronic, a back seat comfortable enough for 2 adults on a long trip, heated seats and steering wheel, and the best auto sound system in existence.

jkrutch

I guess Edward Conroy and I think a lot alike since I always find myself agreeing with his posts. The perfect car seems to be so easy to do, yet no one has built it. I realize this is very subjective, but I think most of us on here fall into the same niche. We want a comfy sedan with all the creature comforts with sports car acceleration, handling and braking. Good looks and superior build quality as well.

The E55 comes so close...drop 500lbs from the weight and put some real rubber on the car to allow it to handle as it should. This will also imporve grip in straight line and limit the annoying electronic intervention.

Give us a choice of 3 gearboxes...Manual, SMG type and auto. Allow the suspension to truly be adjusted to what is really comfort, sport, and "competition". For me, a little more agressiveness in the styling...so offer an optional sport styling package. (Like Porsche offers an Aero-Kit for their cars) Something to truly differentiate the E55 from the other E class cars.

I think the new M5 will be closer to what I think is perfect...I wish MB was reading this. Afterall, how can a "supercar" (SLR) offer the same tranny as a Buick???

Pbglas

The SLR and Buick share a transmission?

Has anyone tried or asked AMG about wider rear tires? What is the downside?

jkrutch

I was speaking figuratively...A $400k "super car" shouldn't have a 5 spd. auto tranny like a Buick. That's why the Porsche tiprtronic in the 911 Turbo sucks as well. I had one for 2 months and dumped it for my current 6 speed.

What a joke!

S55inPA

hey guys,

i just got my road & track in the mail.
in the back the M5 is also quicker in the slalom.
but....the 0-100 times and the 1/4 mile times
the E55 just eats it up. this coming from a
guy who just bought a new M5

Pbglas

I think my initial message is being misunderstood. I was not remarking on the E55 being slower in the slalom but rather the difference being prehaps negligible. I was wondering why so much fuss is made of such a slight difference.

S55inPA

pbglas,

i have no idea.
i don't think i would visually be able to tell
if one car was going 66 or 68 mph.
even if i were the one doing the driving i probably
could not tell the difference. well look at it this way...
it gives M5 owners something to hang our hat on while
your looking at us in your rearview mirror

EDWARD CONROY

Late last year I test drove a 2000 M5. Having loved my lowly 325IS, the M5 was a joy to drive. And I like the styling. But my wife doesn't drive a stick. I just couldn't be selfish enough to spend that kind of money for a car only I would drive. If it had been an automatic it would be in my garage right now. Just didn't care for the new 5 series look, so I stayed with Mercedes and we're enjoying the E55 a lot.

Pbglas

Edward C., could you corroborate that while the M5 might handle better, the diference with the E55 is not all that much?

I did not buy the M5 for much the same reason as you. I would not want to drive a stick anymore. I drove sticks only for over 15 years. With a problem with my right arm, I never learnt to get the most out of them.

RS-Kicker

Some things can't be measured.

Things like feeling...

vraa

On a scale of 1 - 10 they can Just messin!

Pbglas

I am not ready to concede that feeling can never be measured. May be not adequately now.

But I understand that is not where you were going.

Objective --- or near objective --- measures are useful precisely because of the unreliability of `feeling.' I got a much greater sense of involvement and feeling of speed and manouverability in a Mitsubishi Evo than in bigger cars going faster. There is a delightful thrill to the Evo. There is also a great feeling to a go-cart. But would I want it when I was doing somehting mundane --- like going to work?

There is place for the Evo like feeling. But there is a place for objective measurment as well. And it seems that in terms of hte latter, hte difference is small.

mikE55

I agree with others that handling has a lot to do with driver "feeling", but that can be very subjective. However, you can't just look at raw numbers either, because it's the total package that counts. And if it's raw numbers you are after, you should also look at skidpad and braking, because these are also part of the overall equation. Skidpad and braking are areas that the new E55 has not done exceptionally well in. Not bad by any means, but dissapointing given the fact that the old E55 was actually better in those two areas.

But speaking of subjective handling feel, Road&Track in their March 2000 test actually rated the old W210 E55 as the better handler vs. the M5. Gave the E55 "8.5" for handling, while the M5 got an "8". The E55 also out braked the M5 in that test, and they both pulled .90g's on the skidpad. R&T stated "The E55 is a real surpise on the track... ...its chassis is more balanced, exhibiting less understeer than the M5".

So for the new E55, I had hoped it would be tops in all categories, but I think its heavier weight is its main handicap. It's absolutely tops in speed, looks, luxury and image though.

Pbglas

I agree and stand corrected. What really matters is feeling.

The skidpad figures are disturbing. Down .05g. How much is the weight difference between the 210 and the 211. I would have guessed less than 100Kg.

Has anyone tried putting fatter tyres on it?

mikE55

The W210 E55 is about 3700 lbs and the W211 E55 is about 4200 lbs, 500 lbs (225 kg) can make quite a difference. The M5 is about 4000 lbs.

There's much to be said about the feeling of a light weight sports car. Take the Miata for example, out gunned by just about everything out there. Yet it took Autocar's Best Handling Car Award, even beating out the 911 GT3! (Probably why you enjoyed the EVO so much, it's quite light compared to the E55.)

Pbglas

MikE55, I had not realized that it was 4200 lbs.

But if you scaled up everything, intuition would suggest things would remain the same. That is why one might want wider tires.

mikE55

C&D and R&T both listed the W211 E55's curb weight as 4200 lbs(with no driver), even though MB's website says it's 4087lbs (maybe for a stripped base model).

Yeah, others have suggested that the Conti's on the new E55 may not be the best tires. The old E55 had wider tires and Michelin Pilot Sports (as did the M5).

stephens

Both C&D and R&T tested the same car from memory, they also probably received the same, incorrect press pack. At the time of the tests the weight for US spec cars was still unlisted.
The weight of the E55 is 4087lbs which includes fuel, driver and luggage, it is an EC mandated manufacturer standard for weight measurement.

AMG Fan

On the street, both the E55 and M5's suspension can't be pushed to their limits. On the track, the M5 will handle a bit better.

Pbglas

Is that how `unladen weight' is defined?

BTW do you know why the E55 weights 100 KG's more than the E500 whihc weighs less than the E320?

mikE55

The NA 5.5 AMG engine is heavier than the 5.0, the Supercharger adds even more weight. Add the beefed up supension, brakes and wheels, and that all spells more weight.

Don't mean to start a weight debate here, but R&T's Aug. '03 0-100-0 issue tested the new E55 again and listed the "test weight" as 4390 lbs. So if MB's claimed curb weight of 4087lbs is true, it must be for a car with no options and no driver (every driver's weight will be different anyway, so that can't be included in curb weight). Either way, the E55 is one heavy beast. But it's still the heavy weight champ of the world, with a killer knock out punch!

Bones

The kompressor on the E55 makes up most of the increased weight on the E55 over the E500. The incresed weight of the E500 over the E320 is probably due to the larger V8 of the 500 over the V6 of the 320.

Pbglas

Thanks MikE55 and bones.

The E500 is shown as being slightly lighter than the E320. That confused me.

I also had not thought a supercharger can weigh even a 100 lbs, let alone 100 Kg.

I thought also the weight distribution front rear was something like 53/47. I am guessing the E500 is similar. Then what is putting the weight on the rear. Notice no spare in the E55.

Pbglas

Wouldn't skidpad performance be sort of included in slalom?

Also did the E55 not win someone's 0--100--0 tests?