Negative review of e55.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, Ohio & Tampa, Florida
99 Corvette, 04 BMW M3 (Wife's car), 04 Mercedes E55.
Originally Posted by corgiman
I have to add that I've had the opportunity to cruise at 100+ for an hour or so in my E55 and the car was rock solid. This is after all, MB's forte.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 974
Likes: 1
From: fremont, ca
04 E55
Originally Posted by HarveyKorenzo
You dont believe that "someone" let him test drive their brand new E55 for a few hours and bash it around as he described?.. what is so hard to believe about that?.. LMAO
I do let my friend borrow my car from time to time. What is the big deal with that?
Last edited by krispykrme; Dec 22, 2004 at 07:47 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
From: Chicago, IL
Real Cars
Originally Posted by alx
3. the car's accelleration might be stellar in your books, but marcus (for example) can tell you that it is far from what people with tuned cars are used to. speaking of supras- i bought my 94 back in 94 brand new and later i was prolly one of the first people ever, anywhere to have a single t88h conversion. and no, a 900hp supra is not a sports car. take it to the autox and you will find out quickly why it is not. it is a tool to chase busas, but that is another story...
First off, a car's performance at an auto-x course is not determination of it's sports-car-ness. A good friend of mine, Andi Baritchi , placed 4th in the One Lap of America with his privately funded (the guy is in his mid 20s) '98 Supra Turbo. The car can do wonders on the road course - it's a GT car, not a Miata.
Secondly, the fact that you had the first T88H conversion really doesn't mean anything, because Supras have evolved so far since 1994 it's ridiculous. With stand-alone ECUs, the new Garrett lines of turbos, cooling upgrades, new manifolds, tires, suspensions, etc - they are simply different animals. The HP you made with a T88H, a 72mm turbo, now takes a 64-66mm turbo to do - and you'll have a much fatter torque curve as well.
-m
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 253
Originally Posted by W210
I think you need to test drive another sample as it seems like there is something seriously wrong with the E55 you drove.
The E55 is dead solid at high speed. The bad handling and high speed instability seem to indicate incorrect tire pressure or alignment issues.
The E55 is dead solid at high speed. The bad handling and high speed instability seem to indicate incorrect tire pressure or alignment issues.
the one i drove was with less than 10k miles and appeared to be in very good shape (no curbed rims, even tire wear, etc.). but i assumed that something was not right with its high speed stability. hence my comment that i was surprised when it started wandering. marcus- i hear you. my setup was light years away from what the current state of tuning is for the 2jz i imagine. still- a big turbo with > 0.9 ar is just that- a recepie for jekyl and hyde driving characteristics... not exactly suitable for technical driving. but you get my point.
alex
few cars
Last edited by alx; Dec 22, 2004 at 10:06 PM.
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Long Island
1995 Ferrari Spider, Porsche 911 Turbo,01 Hayabusa, 01- E55
Did he say the car wasnt solid at high speed? i dont think that was the point anyway. The point is, with that air suspension- which makes it so comfortable while cruising, turns all marshmallowy when, for example, you change lanes quickly at 100+. Normally this wouldnt be a criticism, but when MB clearly slots this car in as an alternative to the M5 and RS6, it becomes a huge problem. I agree, I picked it myself because it was on the luxurious side, but I feel they went too extreme. And with AMG promoting it as 'performance like no other' cmon, thats just bs. they should have a disclaimer that says 'only in a straight line'. cuz thats easy, 60's muscle cars did that.
The brakes do stop amazingly well, but what about the feel? or should I say, what about the lack of feel. Its a known fact, read any mag, that's always there no.1 complaint-along with the SL and SLR. Those stupid electric brakes, eveybody who knows cars, hates them.
Its a great, fantastic, wonderful car. it fits me just slightly better than a cayenne or M5 so I recently put my down payment on an '05.
But I only wished it was more AMG and less mercedes.
ps. as for the cayenne, it does 165mph, thats faster than every single audi, bmw, and mercedes.
The brakes do stop amazingly well, but what about the feel? or should I say, what about the lack of feel. Its a known fact, read any mag, that's always there no.1 complaint-along with the SL and SLR. Those stupid electric brakes, eveybody who knows cars, hates them.
Its a great, fantastic, wonderful car. it fits me just slightly better than a cayenne or M5 so I recently put my down payment on an '05.
But I only wished it was more AMG and less mercedes.
ps. as for the cayenne, it does 165mph, thats faster than every single audi, bmw, and mercedes.
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Long Island
1995 Ferrari Spider, Porsche 911 Turbo,01 Hayabusa, 01- E55
my 01 e55 had the same cushy suspension problem at high speeds. However I easily solved that with a set of spring and shock adjusted to full stiff. After that, the car was transformed. No M5 (or even 996) could get away from me on the highway. Even the braking distances and stability improved. Best $1000 i ever spent!
p.s. I have them for sale (under 10k miles) if anyone is interested. Also my custom exhaust too.( lightened the car 50lbs and was louder on full throttle)
I am skeptical about my soon to be delivered 211. I only hope someone offers a coil over swap package (like they have for the rangerovers)
p.s. I have them for sale (under 10k miles) if anyone is interested. Also my custom exhaust too.( lightened the car 50lbs and was louder on full throttle)
I am skeptical about my soon to be delivered 211. I only hope someone offers a coil over swap package (like they have for the rangerovers)
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
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
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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
2000 W210 E55->2003 R230 SL500->2004 W211 E55->2007 997TT+2007 E63->2010 GLK350->2012 E550 4matic
Originally Posted by Autostream
Did he say the car wasnt solid at high speed? i dont think that was the point anyway. The point is, with that air suspension- which makes it so comfortable while cruising, turns all marshmallowy when, for example, you change lanes quickly at 100+. Normally this wouldnt be a criticism, but when MB clearly slots this car in as an alternative to the M5 and RS6, it becomes a huge problem. I agree, I picked it myself because it was on the luxurious side, but I feel they went too extreme. And with AMG promoting it as 'performance like no other' cmon, thats just bs. they should have a disclaimer that says 'only in a straight line'. cuz thats easy, 60's muscle cars did that.
The brakes do stop amazingly well, but what about the feel? or should I say, what about the lack of feel. Its a known fact, read any mag, that's always there no.1 complaint-along with the SL and SLR. Those stupid electric brakes, eveybody who knows cars, hates them.
Its a great, fantastic, wonderful car. it fits me just slightly better than a cayenne or M5 so I recently put my down payment on an '05.
But I only wished it was more AMG and less mercedes.
ps. as for the cayenne, it does 165mph, thats faster than every single audi, bmw, and mercedes.
The brakes do stop amazingly well, but what about the feel? or should I say, what about the lack of feel. Its a known fact, read any mag, that's always there no.1 complaint-along with the SL and SLR. Those stupid electric brakes, eveybody who knows cars, hates them.
Its a great, fantastic, wonderful car. it fits me just slightly better than a cayenne or M5 so I recently put my down payment on an '05.
But I only wished it was more AMG and less mercedes.
ps. as for the cayenne, it does 165mph, thats faster than every single audi, bmw, and mercedes.
But then, it's not a real Porsche in my dictionary anyway.
Taking that thing at high speed with such high centre of gravity is absolutely crazy, I don't worry about lane changes, I was more concerned with the simple hold-on-to-your-steering-tight as the shape was extremely unfriendly dealing with crosswind above 100mph.
I rather go 180mph in a delimited AMG than going 140mph in the Cayenne.
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Long Island
1995 Ferrari Spider, Porsche 911 Turbo,01 Hayabusa, 01- E55
I think you are being a bit biased. OF all the suv's out there. Only the porsche was truley designed for high speed. All porsches put performance before luxury, unlike MB.
Its the only truck I never feared it actually would tip over if I banged a turn hard and fast. The suspension lowers so much at high speed that its center of gravity is very car like. Performance wise- its an amazing truck. if you want something to complain about, try the styling- i'd give you that.
I havent actually driven it above 100, but I took it through a Porsche factory autocross (here):
http://autostreamfilms.com/cgi-bin/l...ms-Cayenne.mpg
and it felt just like a 911turbo on stilts.
I admit, its a little apples and oranges (cayenne - e55) but for someone like me who wants a big high performance car, the cayenne is truley astounding. a bit ugly, but amazing. Its even more amazing off road. Its kinda like a rangerover and m5 rolled into one. Too bad awd would ruin my drifting fun.
Its the only truck I never feared it actually would tip over if I banged a turn hard and fast. The suspension lowers so much at high speed that its center of gravity is very car like. Performance wise- its an amazing truck. if you want something to complain about, try the styling- i'd give you that.
I havent actually driven it above 100, but I took it through a Porsche factory autocross (here):
http://autostreamfilms.com/cgi-bin/l...ms-Cayenne.mpg
and it felt just like a 911turbo on stilts.
I admit, its a little apples and oranges (cayenne - e55) but for someone like me who wants a big high performance car, the cayenne is truley astounding. a bit ugly, but amazing. Its even more amazing off road. Its kinda like a rangerover and m5 rolled into one. Too bad awd would ruin my drifting fun.
Last edited by Autostream; Dec 22, 2004 at 11:12 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
2000 W210 E55->2003 R230 SL500->2004 W211 E55->2007 997TT+2007 E63->2010 GLK350->2012 E550 4matic
Originally Posted by Autostream
I think you are being a bit biased. OF all the suv's out there. Only the porsche was truley designed for high speed. All porsches put performance before luxury, unlike MB.
Its the only truck I never feared it actually would tip over if I banged a turn hard and fast. The suspension lowers so much at high speed that its center of gravity is very car like. Performance wise- its an amazing truck. if you want something to complain about, try the styling- i'd give you that.
I havent actually driven it above 100, but I took it through a Porsche factory autocross (here):
http://autostreamfilms.com/cgi-bin/l...ms-Cayenne.mpg
and it felt just like a 911turbo on stilts.
I admit, its a little apples and oranges (cayenne - e55) but for someone like me who wants a big high performance car, the cayenne is truley astounding. a bit ugly, but amazing. Its even more amazing off road. Its kinda like a rangerover and m5 rolled into one. Too bad awd would ruin my drifting fun.
Its the only truck I never feared it actually would tip over if I banged a turn hard and fast. The suspension lowers so much at high speed that its center of gravity is very car like. Performance wise- its an amazing truck. if you want something to complain about, try the styling- i'd give you that.
I havent actually driven it above 100, but I took it through a Porsche factory autocross (here):
http://autostreamfilms.com/cgi-bin/l...ms-Cayenne.mpg
and it felt just like a 911turbo on stilts.
I admit, its a little apples and oranges (cayenne - e55) but for someone like me who wants a big high performance car, the cayenne is truley astounding. a bit ugly, but amazing. Its even more amazing off road. Its kinda like a rangerover and m5 rolled into one. Too bad awd would ruin my drifting fun.
And for me at that price, it needs another 50 horses to be a worthy candidate. If you compare the Cayenne to the E55, the latter is just so much faster. The Cayenne reminded me of my old E55 which is not slow, but nothing compared to the current E55.
I do agree with you, it is quite ugly, but at least it doesn't have iDrive and the interior looks functional.
Last edited by W210; Dec 23, 2004 at 03:37 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 253
Originally Posted by ricky.agrawal
Have you driven an X5?
I think you'll find that it's a much more nimbler and well planted SUV/SAV/whatever the hell you call it then the Cayenne.
Autostream: Have you seen the Dodge Magnum?
I think you'll find that it's a much more nimbler and well planted SUV/SAV/whatever the hell you call it then the Cayenne.
Autostream: Have you seen the Dodge Magnum?
)few months back i was on the market to replace my 4.6is so i went and testdrove a cayenne turbo and the x5 4.8is. i could not put them through their paces, but my feel was that except straight line accelleration up to about 100, the cayenne was inferior to the 4.8is in every aspect. handling/steering/brake feel. not to mention that the cayenne is not very pleasing to the eye where the 4.8is looks just like it is supposed to look. the 4.8is is the closest you can get to the e39 m5 feel and be "on the second floor"
here is the quick comparo i wrote for 4.6is vs. 4.8is- complete with gtech readouts..... if anybody cares:
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46852
alex
few cars
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by alx
handling/steering/brake feel. not to mention that the cayenne is not very pleasing to the eye where the 4.8is looks just like it is supposed to look.
alex
alex
For you that may be so.
I was pulling into public garage and there was black clean PCTurbo parked-----looked amazing, after parking my car I went by just to look at it. There were only a few cars parked on the top open floor of the garage and hte C Turbo was parked across 2-3 parking rectangulars . Looked just like it suppose to look.
Sorry Speedy Gonzales but you can have another 10 write ups on X5 and I would still take hte C Turbo.
THere is a reason $90k CTurbos are numerous on the road while there are zero 4.8is on the road at least were I am. I could say that whoever is in hte market for a $90k SUV preffers CTurbo to 4.8is.
If your "write ups" are logical, true and unbiased, why would anybody buy CTurbo that is not pleasing to the eye with bad handling/steering/brake feel and cost close to $90k over X5 4.8is that is everything a SUV should be for much less?
If you want to talk about "not pleasing to the eye" where is your write up on how fugly new 7's, 5's and z4's are? CAn you provide me with a link please?
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Once again here is my write up . I think the Ax fellow is nothing more than a biased BMW forum member with predictable conclusions towards anything non BMW.
His PCTurbo conclusions above are simply loony. A quick search without even test drive and you will learn that X54.8is does doesnt have it to 100mph or to the max speed versus CTurbo. 4.8is loses badly to Turbo yet this clown claimes that 4.8is is stronger to 100mph.---- truly crazy.
Lets see from car and driver :
"BMW has raised the bar yet again, replacing the 4.6is with the 2004 4.8is, but the company doesn't bring the stones to outdo the Turbo; it's the same formula as the 4.6is—slightly more displacement, the same massive 20-inch wheel-and-tire combo, and nearly every X5 4.4i option now standard."
BMW X5 4.8is Not the quickest, but it makes second place seem okay.
CTurbo 0-62mph in 5.6sec versus
BMW 4.8is 0-60mph in 6.0sec.
CTurbo is MUCH faster to 62mph than 4.8is is to 60mph.
BMW 4.8is has hte performance of Infinity 2003 X45 --not PCTurbo. Turbo is a head above 4.8is even though it is 20K more.
His PCTurbo conclusions above are simply loony. A quick search without even test drive and you will learn that X54.8is does doesnt have it to 100mph or to the max speed versus CTurbo. 4.8is loses badly to Turbo yet this clown claimes that 4.8is is stronger to 100mph.---- truly crazy.
Lets see from car and driver :
"BMW has raised the bar yet again, replacing the 4.6is with the 2004 4.8is, but the company doesn't bring the stones to outdo the Turbo; it's the same formula as the 4.6is—slightly more displacement, the same massive 20-inch wheel-and-tire combo, and nearly every X5 4.4i option now standard."
BMW X5 4.8is Not the quickest, but it makes second place seem okay.
CTurbo 0-62mph in 5.6sec versus
BMW 4.8is 0-60mph in 6.0sec.
CTurbo is MUCH faster to 62mph than 4.8is is to 60mph.
BMW 4.8is has hte performance of Infinity 2003 X45 --not PCTurbo. Turbo is a head above 4.8is even though it is 20K more.
Last edited by Belmondo; Dec 23, 2004 at 01:31 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 253
Originally Posted by Belmondo
Sorry Speedy Gonzales but you can have another 10 write ups on X5 and I would still take hte C Turbo.
THere is a reason $90k CTurbos are numerous on the road while there are zero 4.8is on the road at least were I am. I could say that whoever is in hte market for a $90k SUV preffers CTurbo to 4.8is.
If your "write ups" are logical, true and unbiased, why would anybody buy CTurbo that is not pleasing to the eye with bad handling/steering/brake feel and cost close to $90k over X5 4.8is that is everything a SUV should be for much less?
If you want to talk about "not pleasing to the eye" where is your write up on how fugly new 7's, 5's and z4's are? CAn you provide me with a link please?
the e60 m5 is borderline but is growing on me. we will see i guess.. if not- the car goes on ebay.
alex
few cars
Last edited by alx; Dec 23, 2004 at 01:23 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 253
Originally Posted by Belmondo
CTurbo is MUCH faster to 62mph than 4.8is is to 60mph.
Yeah dude 4.8is is quicker to 100mph I believe you
however, i little voice tells me that at speeds over 100 it might not be much faster- its top speed is 165 and the 4.8is top speed is 155 (both unrestricted), but the cayenne has 100hp advantage... which should translate to more than 10mph higher top speed even for aerodinamically dirty suvs.
but yes, the bottom line is that the turbo is faster in a straight line. but even on paper it handles worse- it stops, turns and slaloms worse than the 4.8is. as i said- matter of priorities.
and no, i am not a biased bmw-fan. i had/ have plenty non-bmw cars in my stable. but i give credit where credit is due.
alex
few cars
Last edited by alx; Dec 23, 2004 at 01:39 PM.
Super Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
From: Monroe, Louisiana
SL 65 AMG and E63s AMG
Alx,
I have been reading the proceedings and being an enthusiastic E55 owner I have to agree with many of your points. I think that MB has leaned toward the luxury market more than the sport market. I also think that both the BMW and MB will find buyers.
I wanted a family car to replace my E500. The E55 was available to fit the bill. It reminds me of the cars that learned to drive in in the 60's only much faster. I wanted an unfettered automatic transmission and ultimate comfort. It also happens to be one of the quickest cars on the market.
My point is that I don't take offense to others pointing out the E55 flaws because I actually wanted exactly what I got, warts and all. I go drive my Vette or M3 if I want to drive a sports car.
I have been reading the proceedings and being an enthusiastic E55 owner I have to agree with many of your points. I think that MB has leaned toward the luxury market more than the sport market. I also think that both the BMW and MB will find buyers.
I wanted a family car to replace my E500. The E55 was available to fit the bill. It reminds me of the cars that learned to drive in in the 60's only much faster. I wanted an unfettered automatic transmission and ultimate comfort. It also happens to be one of the quickest cars on the market.
My point is that I don't take offense to others pointing out the E55 flaws because I actually wanted exactly what I got, warts and all. I go drive my Vette or M3 if I want to drive a sports car.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 974
Likes: 1
From: fremont, ca
04 E55
Originally Posted by Belmondo
For you that may be so.
I was pulling into public garage and there was black clean PCTurbo parked-----looked amazing, after parking my car I went by just to look at it. There were only a few cars parked on the top open floor of the garage and hte C Turbo was parked across 2-3 parking rectangulars . Looked just like it suppose to look.
Sorry Speedy Gonzales but you can have another 10 write ups on X5 and I would still take hte C Turbo.
THere is a reason $90k CTurbos are numerous on the road while there are zero 4.8is on the road at least were I am. I could say that whoever is in hte market for a $90k SUV preffers CTurbo to 4.8is.
If your "write ups" are logical, true and unbiased, why would anybody buy CTurbo that is not pleasing to the eye with bad handling/steering/brake feel and cost close to $90k over X5 4.8is that is everything a SUV should be for much less?
If you want to talk about "not pleasing to the eye" where is your write up on how fugly new 7's, 5's and z4's are? CAn you provide me with a link please?
I was pulling into public garage and there was black clean PCTurbo parked-----looked amazing, after parking my car I went by just to look at it. There were only a few cars parked on the top open floor of the garage and hte C Turbo was parked across 2-3 parking rectangulars . Looked just like it suppose to look.
Sorry Speedy Gonzales but you can have another 10 write ups on X5 and I would still take hte C Turbo.
THere is a reason $90k CTurbos are numerous on the road while there are zero 4.8is on the road at least were I am. I could say that whoever is in hte market for a $90k SUV preffers CTurbo to 4.8is.
If your "write ups" are logical, true and unbiased, why would anybody buy CTurbo that is not pleasing to the eye with bad handling/steering/brake feel and cost close to $90k over X5 4.8is that is everything a SUV should be for much less?
If you want to talk about "not pleasing to the eye" where is your write up on how fugly new 7's, 5's and z4's are? CAn you provide me with a link please?
It's not demand that the driving the visibility of 4.8is. It's simply supply is much more limited on the X5 4.8is.
I found his write up more than logical and unbiased. I would tend to agree that this board is biased and illogical.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 974
Likes: 1
From: fremont, ca
04 E55
Originally Posted by alx
read what i wrote. the cayenne is faster to 60, 100 and in the 1/4 - no doubt.
however, i little voice tells me that at speeds over 100 it might not be much faster- its top speed is 165 and the 4.8is top speed is 155 (both unrestricted), but the cayenne has 100hp advantage... which should translate to more than 10mph higher top speed even for aerodinamically dirty suvs.
but yes, the bottom line is that the turbo is faster in a straight line. but even on paper it handles worse- it stops, turns and slaloms worse than the 4.8is. as i said- matter of priorities.
and no, i am not a biased bmw-fan. i had/ have plenty non-bmw cars in my stable. but i give credit where credit is due.
alex
few cars
however, i little voice tells me that at speeds over 100 it might not be much faster- its top speed is 165 and the 4.8is top speed is 155 (both unrestricted), but the cayenne has 100hp advantage... which should translate to more than 10mph higher top speed even for aerodinamically dirty suvs.
but yes, the bottom line is that the turbo is faster in a straight line. but even on paper it handles worse- it stops, turns and slaloms worse than the 4.8is. as i said- matter of priorities.
and no, i am not a biased bmw-fan. i had/ have plenty non-bmw cars in my stable. but i give credit where credit is due.
alex
few cars
Esepcially when you are criticizing the all mighty god like E55 on this forum. I have been on this board for a year now. All i can say is that you can't state any kind of complaint here against the god E55. Anything you say that is truthful will be twisted around and claim as B.S. or lie. There are a few owner here that is more than willing to treat E55 for what it is ( a fast cruiser). And are more than willing to admit that E55 is not perfect. But you are barking up the wrong tree.
m5board is a much better board to stick around. simple as that.
Just watch, how quickly this thread will turn.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Originally Posted by Vetluver
Alx,
My point is that I don't take offense to others pointing out the E55 flaws because I actually wanted exactly what I got, warts and all. I go drive my Vette or M3 if I want to drive a sports car.
My point is that I don't take offense to others pointing out the E55 flaws because I actually wanted exactly what I got, warts and all. I go drive my Vette or M3 if I want to drive a sports car.
As for the original topic... I love Top Gear, but the show has an extremely heavy anti-MB bias and love for English cars. They aren't shy about admitting it either.... despite all the problems and criticsims they had of the AM Vanquish S, they still picked it over the 575 b/c of the "intangible" factors... i.e. they are proud Brits.
Last edited by Sleestack; Dec 23, 2004 at 02:06 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Arizona
2015 C63 AMG 507
My .02........
Having equal seat time (over 7000 miles) in both the CTT, and 05 E55, I can agree and disagree with many of the posts here.....
The Cayenne Turbo is the best high speed handling SUV on the market right now. Porsche engineering, power, and adjustable suspension make this the case. At over 100mph, it is rock solid on freeway turns, lane changes, etc. It out accelerates any SUV, except possibly the upcoming 25th anniversary G55 which will have the 113 kompressor engine, which is not even available yet. Though, handling will still go to the CTT. The CTT has a number of items that I miss, dual tip controls up and down on each side of the wheel, better ergonomic and function of steering wheel controls, etc. I loved mine for the 3 months that I owned it, got rid of it when my wife came home with an H2. Which leads me to my dream car-E55!
The E55 is not a track car, it is the most affordable luxury/sport sedan on the market right now. Yes, the BMW's out handle it, but it is far from a pig at any speeds that I have encountered. Lane changes at 120 are effortless, over that, I have not needed to change lanes (and this is with the OEM contis) Wait till the PS2's go on :v My limiter may be off, or the speedo, but I did 160 last week, ROCK SOLID, fastest I have ever been in a car, and loved every second of it. Brakes are incredible, though didnt use them at that speed, tipped down to 4th to slow a bit. This car is like Frankenstein in a Tux! I bought it in Colorado, and drove the 1000 miles home, incredibly comfortable. Though I wish it had tip controls like the CTT, other than that, no complaints yet after 7300 miles.
Again, just my opinion.
Thanks,
Dave
Having equal seat time (over 7000 miles) in both the CTT, and 05 E55, I can agree and disagree with many of the posts here.....
The Cayenne Turbo is the best high speed handling SUV on the market right now. Porsche engineering, power, and adjustable suspension make this the case. At over 100mph, it is rock solid on freeway turns, lane changes, etc. It out accelerates any SUV, except possibly the upcoming 25th anniversary G55 which will have the 113 kompressor engine, which is not even available yet. Though, handling will still go to the CTT. The CTT has a number of items that I miss, dual tip controls up and down on each side of the wheel, better ergonomic and function of steering wheel controls, etc. I loved mine for the 3 months that I owned it, got rid of it when my wife came home with an H2. Which leads me to my dream car-E55!
The E55 is not a track car, it is the most affordable luxury/sport sedan on the market right now. Yes, the BMW's out handle it, but it is far from a pig at any speeds that I have encountered. Lane changes at 120 are effortless, over that, I have not needed to change lanes (and this is with the OEM contis) Wait till the PS2's go on :v My limiter may be off, or the speedo, but I did 160 last week, ROCK SOLID, fastest I have ever been in a car, and loved every second of it. Brakes are incredible, though didnt use them at that speed, tipped down to 4th to slow a bit. This car is like Frankenstein in a Tux! I bought it in Colorado, and drove the 1000 miles home, incredibly comfortable. Though I wish it had tip controls like the CTT, other than that, no complaints yet after 7300 miles.
Again, just my opinion.
Thanks,
Dave
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Vetluver
Alx,
My point is that I don't take offense to others pointing out the E55 flaws because I actually wanted exactly what I got, warts and all. I go drive my Vette or M3 if I want to drive a sports car.
My point is that I don't take offense to others pointing out the E55 flaws because I actually wanted exactly what I got, warts and all. I go drive my Vette or M3 if I want to drive a sports car.
While on hte subject of "flaws" did you have a chance to read an article about M5 where it states that you can use launch control only once every 45minutes?? After one lunch M5 needs 45 minutes to come down, get back inshape, be able to do it again. And that car only has aprox 380lb of torque, while E55 can launch all day long.
How big of a "flaw" is that to be able to use launch control once every 45 minutes?
The "flaws" he pointed out actually what made you want hte car, I'd like to know if being able to use launch control every 45 minuts has the same attraction.
I'd love to read a review where someone states this flaw of me being able to use lunch control only once every 45 minutes is what made me buy hte new M5.
Everything he stated can be summed up in on sentence-----E55 is a unresponsive pig, PCTurbo is ugly with poor everything but straight line performaance . But than 'little voices" tell him that PCTurbo may not be faster after 100 even in a stright line and so on and so on.
"little voices" tell me the dude needs LASIK Eye Surgery to see
beyond his nose.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 974
Likes: 1
From: fremont, ca
04 E55
Originally Posted by Belmondo
While on hte subject of "flaws" did you have a chance to read an article about M5 where it states that you can use launch control only once every 45minutes?? After one lunch M5 needs 45 minutes to come down, get back inshape, be able to do it again. And that car only has aprox 380lb of torque, while E55 can launch all day long.
How big of a "flaw" is that to be able to use launch control once every 45 minutes?
The "flaws" he pointed out actually what made you want hte car, I'd like to know if being able to use launch control every 45 minuts has the same attraction.
I'd love to read a review where someone states this flaw of me being able to use lunch control only once every 45 minutes is what made me buy hte new M5.
Everything he stated can be summed up in on sentence-----E55 is a unresponsive pig, PCTurbo is ugly with poor everything but straight line performaance . But than 'little voices" tell him that PCTurbo may not be faster after 100 even in a stright line and so on and so on.
"little voices" tell me the dude needs LASIK Eye Surgery to see
beyond his nose.
How big of a "flaw" is that to be able to use launch control once every 45 minutes?
The "flaws" he pointed out actually what made you want hte car, I'd like to know if being able to use launch control every 45 minuts has the same attraction.
I'd love to read a review where someone states this flaw of me being able to use lunch control only once every 45 minutes is what made me buy hte new M5.
Everything he stated can be summed up in on sentence-----E55 is a unresponsive pig, PCTurbo is ugly with poor everything but straight line performaance . But than 'little voices" tell him that PCTurbo may not be faster after 100 even in a stright line and so on and so on.
"little voices" tell me the dude needs LASIK Eye Surgery to see
beyond his nose.
Launch control needs time to cool down the clutch, simply because launch control allows driver to dump the clutch at 4000 RPM. Something which none of E55 can do, since its an automatic.
Launch control does not really allow the car to accelerate faster, in fact it actually hurts the acceleration number as the tire would not be able to sustain the grip. Any magazine has not able to come up with best acceleration number using launch control. All launch control does is simply gives you the wow effect with buring tires.
380lb of torque? So what. The truth is that M5 is faster on the top end and as fast as E55 in 0-60. Last time i check M5 pulled nearly 1 second ahead of CLS55 in 0-200, which is about 11 car length. So does torque in this case really matters? With excellent gear setting, M5 is simply faster.
Next time come up with more valid comment than idiotic "Lasik comment". That's why this board really s u c k s. Never makes valid point except twisted idioitc response.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,634
Likes: 14
From: Houston, Texas - USA
2009 C63 AMG
KK,
Launch control means it will accelerate at its most optimum using clutch burn out. Its a trick used in F1, where they can accelerate at maximum tire adhesion. To say that launch control only allows you to do burn out is totally wrong.
Launch control means it will accelerate at its most optimum using clutch burn out. Its a trick used in F1, where they can accelerate at maximum tire adhesion. To say that launch control only allows you to do burn out is totally wrong.
