I am excited that I may soon have the opportunity to upgrade from my 2010 E550 to a 2010 E63.

Would very much appreciate the input from all of you who have owned/driven both if there is any good reason not to do it.

Although the majority of its use will be short commutes, it's is ok with me that the mileage stays low, and I will definitely take it out on weekend trips and around town as much as I can.

My main concerns are:

1. How bad is the actual mpg, particularly in city driving (LA traffic . . . ugh) with mostly normal driving habits and sporadic days of spririted driving;
2. How often do you have to fill the tank of the AMG vs. 550;
3. How much more expensive to maintain AMG over a 550;
4. Is extended warranty available for AMG?; and
5. Is the handling of the AMG that much better than a 550 sport (550 has a lot of body roll).

Thanks very much for your help.

 

Long distance driving is better for car. Ideally, if I can drive it around 70 miles a day, it will be great. However, I'm fortunate enough to live only 3 miles from my workplace (hardly any traffic but only around 45mph limit). Still, I usually get around couple hundred miles every weekend of 80+mph highway cruising to Chicago. No experience with 550. So with that info:

1. I'm getting a surprising 19mpg overall. On highway speed, I even get up to 22mpg at times.
2. It's probably good for around 400miles/tank. No sure about 550.
3. Not sure how much more expensive. However, keep in mind ie budget $2500 for brake job recommended around 20K miles.
4. Yes, go for CPO cars. My coverage is for full 7 years/135K miles. Make sure to l around for extended coverage. I bought my warranty from a place in TX. However, there is also a dealer in CA with the same price.
5. Steering response is noticeable different per all major automotive and consumer magazines. Obviously the same goes for handling. Yes, the new 550 has good engine specs, but you can't beat the handling in an E63 when compared to a 550.

Okay, let others with experience in E550 give you more info.

 

2500 brake job at 20k?

 

Had a 2010 E63- my thoughts
[*]How bad is the actual mpg, particularly in city driving (LA traffic . . . ugh) with mostly normal driving habits and sporadic days of spririted driving;

15 mpg- N/A engine when driven spiritedly sucks gas
[*]How often do you have to fill the tank of the AMG vs. 550;

Not sure what the capacity was but basically the amount of gallons times 15 mpg...
[*]How much more expensive to maintain AMG over a 550;

I did two oil changes- thats it and sold it with 10k miles
[*]Is extended warranty available for AMG?; and

Im sure it is. Not an expert here.
[*]Is the handling of the AMG that much better than a 550 sport (550 has a lot of body roll).

The 2010 AMG was one of the first AMGS to get the steel springs up front and keep the soft airmatic in the rear. It was the best handling E class AMG made at the time.

 

That's what I had read on either this forum or benzworld forum when I was doing my research on how much things are going to cost. That gives me an idea before purchasing because I don't like to get surprises. Knowing it also gives me an idea if I can really afford it or not. Maintenances on high end cars like these are all going to be high.

I have heard people were surprised by the maintenance cost of GTR, thinking it's going to be cheap because it's a Nissan. They have obviously overlooked the fact that expensive parts are due to the fact they are race-derived parts--they are obviously not cheap. You can't expect to have those type of performance using parts from Tercel.

Here is something else which lead me to stay with the N/A rather than the new force-induced engine. Many discussion mentioned concern over the bi-turbo being relatively new and not having enough track record. While I have confidence over AMG's engineering prowess, it is obviously that things with more parts are more likely to fail. Thus it is well know that turbo engines tend to have more problems than N/A. Obviously, the turbo for the M157 is all the way on the inside of the engine. So should one or both of them fail, it means the removal of the entire engine out of the car to do the repair. Obviously everything is still new now so I doubt there is going to be many problems. But you sure don't want to get caught with the problem when the warranty is up. If you are keeping the car only a few years, it's not going to matter. However, I likely will keep this car for well over 5+ years. That also explain the reason why for the same price of a E63, you can also get a few years old S65. Sure all of us would like an S65. However, you will notice most of them get dumped right before the warranty is up, because no one wants to get caught having to repair a failed bi-turbo AMG V12.

My adage is: "If one cannot afford maintenance for something, one really cannot afford it in the first place." It applies to all things in life; Unless one is looking for a garage queen. This car is my daily driver.

 

How bad is the actual mpg, particularly in city driving (LA traffic . . . ugh) with mostly normal driving habits and sporadic days of spririted driving;


If MPG is important to you make sure you don't start looking at a 2012 TT in search of the supposedly better fuel economy. I've got 2,400 miles on my 2012 non-PP. Only tracked MPG twice because it's not a priority. At about 500 miles (when I was taking it easy during the break-in) I got 13.4 mpg. Now at 2,400 miles I'm up to 13.7 mpg. I do not use the eco button because of the annoying hesitation when taking off from a start. Like I said, I'm glad it's not a priority.

 

I just bought a 2010 E63 in March and I drive about 250 miles a week half city and half highway. Depending on how I drive the best MPG I've achieved is 18.5 and the worst was 16.5. I've gotten close to 20 MPG on a highway trip. But I didn't buy it for it's fuel economy

 

Eco mode doesn't apply to my model year. However, I would have done the same and turn it off. Can you imagine the amount of wear and tear with all that starting. It's well know that engine gets more than 70% of its wear from starting and grinding to a halt when stopped, when there is no oil on the cylinder wall.

Yes, don't consider AMG, whether the N/A or TT, or similar cars if you are worrying about fuel economy. For me, it wouldn't bother me even if the the current gas price double. Remember, the rest of the world is pretty much paying triple of our current gas price.

Oh, I forgot to mention something in my earlier post about getting a used car. It's very important to remember even if you can get a heavy discount on a used car, it doesn't mean the maintenance will be at a discount. Maintenance cost is the same regardless. Many people found they can score a deal on a used Ferrari, only to realize afterward the hard truth about maintenance.

 

I feel it impossible that Mercedes and other car manufacturers that are now using this start stop function would use it if it would cause harm to the engine.
They must have found a way to make out safe and efficient.

Regardless yes it is annoying especially in start and stop traffic

 

As far as the extended warranty goes, Mercury Insurance Group offers them on many AMGs. You can quote your vehicle at www.extended-vehicle-warranty.com and also download sample certificates so that you can review coverage details.

Michelle
auto-POM
800.724.8141 ext. 6

 

Thanks all.

This is very useful information and much appreciated.

 

The start-stop function obvoiusly wouldn't hurt the engine if you plan to re-bore the engine in the distant future. However, I just don't see how all that metal-metal grinding can possibly not cause any wear on the cylinder wall, unless there is poor fitting by the piston rings in the first place. Oh, and the starter obviously has a finite lifetime. I'm sure all that starting is going to wear out the starter, too. Of course, the additional stress on the battery to restart so many times. Again, I would just turn off the whole eco thing if I were you.

Good info about insurance. Of course, the trade-off with non factory warranty is all the fine prints associated with it and whether something is approved or not approved when something happens. Still, it's worth look into.

 

In a city like NYC, you're getting 12/13 tops because of all the stop an go. In LA, where there is probably more stretches between lights (albeit your traffic sucks) you may get a bit of a bump, may 13-15 but thats it. OH and btw, thats in C mode. Drive it in S/S+/M and your miles will dip b/c you'll be starting in 1st gear. Max on a tank....you'll never, ever get 400. You might get close if you run the engine to bone dry and then have it towed, but in my experience, you can get 350 if you're careful on the pedal (all freeway driving), maybe 375 if the freeway you travel is completely flat. highest average i hit was 21.9. Never got any higher than that.

 

all the eco talk led me to some googling: although it's a short read, and possibly
corporate propaganda (lol).....it's still something.....

http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-9...0-0-0-0-0.html


copied sample:
The starter motor (starter) has also undergone thorough modification: it is now designed to cope with eight times as many starting procedures, ensuring that it will last a car's lifetime in continuous urban driving involving frequent auto-starting. In addition, the on-board electrical system is supported by a second battery.

 

Good info. Of course, the system is "virtually" unnoticeable by most driver. So it is still noticeable. Thus the wear and tear of the starter and additional demand on the battery are obvious as I had mentioned. So for those of you who are deactivating eco all the time, the good thing is the starter will likely never need replacement in its lifetime. The best thing is you guys have an extra battery, since this car is an electric hog; moreover, starting issue due to dead battery is likely almost nonexistent since it will be extremely rare to have both batteries fail at the same time.

Hey, I got room next to the spare. I sure can use an extra battery.

 

ECO stop start does not involve the starter. Engine management determines which cylinder is in the optimal firing position, with an air/fuel charge already in place. That cylinder gets "lit" , and engine fires up immediately, and you are back in action. No way can starter provide the instantaneous ignition needed when your foot goes from brake pedal to the go pedal. regards, Tom

 

Good info. I wonder why they cannot use the same technology to start the car every morning, since it sounds more efficient that way.