E400d 354bhp merc

Author
Discussion

Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
theboss said:
I think BMW have lost their way somewhat by omitting the higher output diesels from the UK range. I can understand them deciding it wasn’t worth selling the 550i here for the handful ever shifted but I see loads of 335d and 535d on the roads. Good to see MB filling the gap.
Yep.

It does appear now that in diesel technology rather than BMW leading the way Merc is followed by Saudi and BMW coming up last.
Take petrol engines too and the E63 trounced the BMW M5 (needing a bigger engine and still lower power) then when the new RS6 comes out it could be a mere 2.9v6 mega turbo engine.

BMW are falling being and essentially relying on an M5 engine that first saw light in 2011. Merc instead had the 6.2v8 followed by the 5.5v8 bi turbo and then a couple of iterations of the hot vee 4.0 V8 bi Turbo.
Latest M5 will keep the same sort of power plant for this generation which means the base engine in production forwhat 12-15years... not great.
Might be the same basic engine, but it drives very different to the last gen. And at 600bhp, it's not left wanting and even more likely in the M8.

Also not sure the E63 'trounced' the M5?

Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Exige77 said:
Trounced ? roflroflrofl
To buy new
261bhp v 354bhp 36% more power is like night and day.

The 535d trounced the 530d in the F10 which was a much smaller gap so this beast really does the business
You were taking M5/E63 though.


Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
aponting389 said:
Welshbeef said:
Yes latest M5 has 575bhp latest E63 has what 612bhp from a smaller capacity.

What am I missing?
the facts?

E63 563bhp
E63s 604hp

M5 592bhp
M5 Competition 616bhp
And
4.0 v 4.4ltr

Taking standard models the power per ltr is
Merc E63 140.75bhp/ltr
BMW M5 135.55bhp/ltr

So the Merc produces 5.3% more power per ltr - maybe trounced is a bit strong but beaten/lost is fair.
Yes, because bhp/litre is the most critical metric for a sports saloon laugh

(and mine has 173bhp/litre...so it trounces both an M5 AND E63...??)

dme123

4,440 posts

127 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
The Latest 5 series E class and A6 are so similar in every practical way. These are mile munching barges period.

Could you post a formal link from say Eco/Autocar/Car/Driven etc which compares the 3 and outs the BMW ahead of the field
You would need to be some sort of mutant with cocks for hands and feet to drive the A6 and not notice how much less enjoyable it is to drive than an E-Class, or a 5 series. If all you want are "toys" and nice knobs to stroke then yeah they are all much of a muchness, in which case do What Car have forums?

Magazine reviews are practically worthless, every test declares "all our advertisers are winners! Hurrah!" and have for decades now.

Welshbeef

Original Poster:

35,143 posts

136 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Ares said:
Yes, because bhp/litre is the most critical metric for a sports saloon laugh

(and mine has 173bhp/litre...so it trounces both an M5 AND E63...??)
In terms of technology it is - it’s a superior value given very similar end outputs. It’s not like comparing a nitro RAdio controlled car to a Shelby 427 is it. They are apples with apples.
Advertisement

Shiv_P

1,479 posts

43 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
yonex said:
I’d rather have a lower powered BMW. which is actually half decent to drive, than the latest ‘thing’ from Audi/Mercedes.
The Latest 5 series E class and A6 are so similar in every practical way. These are mile munching barges period.

Could you post a formal link from say Eco/Autocar/Car/Driven etc which compares the 3 and outs the BMW ahead of the field
What i've watched on youtube is that the A6 is put ahead of the field albeit slightly!

MrGTI6

971 posts

68 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
And
4.0 v 4.4ltr

Taking standard models the power per ltr is
Merc E63 140.75bhp/ltr
BMW M5 135.55bhp/ltr

So the Merc produces 5.3% more power per ltr - maybe trounced is a bit strong but beaten/lost is fair.
Are cars judged solely on their power output per litre? If so, then surely the A45AMG is better than both of the cars mentioned above.

Getting lots of power out of a smaller engine is easy, but a higher specific output often results in increased stress on the engine and worse drive-ability.

It just seems like a really bizarre and trivial thing to obsess over.

Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Ares said:
Yes, because bhp/litre is the most critical metric for a sports saloon laugh

(and mine has 173bhp/litre...so it trounces both an M5 AND E63...??)
In terms of technology it is - it’s a superior value given very similar end outputs. It’s not like comparing a nitro RAdio controlled car to a Shelby 427 is it. They are apples with apples.
You are funny. So my little £65k Alfa is 20% better than a M5 or E63 because it has a greater bhp/litre?

And that Lamborghini Aventador must be utterly st, it barely makes 100bhp/litre.

Welshbeef

Original Poster:

35,143 posts

136 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Ares said:
You are funny. So my little £65k Alfa is 20% better than a M5 or E63 because it has a greater bhp/litre?

And that Lamborghini Aventador must be utterly st, it barely makes 100bhp/litre.
It’s a metric.
Given SIMILAR engine size the E63 punches harder than the M5 hence my tongue in cheek point of a nitro RC v a Cobra 427.

yonex

12,969 posts

106 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
It’s a metric.
Given SIMILAR engine size the E63 punches harder than the M5 hence my tongue in cheek point of a nitro RC v a Cobra 427.
'E400d 345bhp merc'

The E63 is a different car completely to the M5.

Pointless thread is pointless.

Exige77

3,190 posts

129 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Ares said:
You are funny. So my little £65k Alfa is 20% better than a M5 or E63 because it has a greater bhp/litre?

And that Lamborghini Aventador must be utterly st, it barely makes 100bhp/litre.
It’s a metric.
Given SIMILAR engine size the E63 punches harder than the M5 hence my tongue in cheek point of a nitro RC v a Cobra 427.
It’s a metric that used to be used on highly stressed NA cars but not really appropriate for FI motors of today.

Think Honda S2000 or Ferrari 458.



Welshbeef

Original Poster:

35,143 posts

136 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
yonex said:
'E400d 345bhp merc'

The E63 is a different car completely to the M5.

Pointless thread is pointless.
Can we get back to the main point - why are Audi and BMW not delivering the large exec big derv.

I think it’s great one of the top car makers are ploughing ahead giving the public options + of course as they are offering it in other countries it’s spreadibgvthe R&D costs over a larger number of units.

Alex_225

3,060 posts

139 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
Alex_225 said:
My daily/motorway car is an old 3.2 six cylinder diesel with a remap. That has some hefty torque and I think it's an excellent engine albeit typical old diesel noise. My other half has a CLS350 with the V6 diesel which is smooth, quiet and actually a real pleasure to drive.

I can imagine this E400 would make an excellent cruiser, designed to cover plenty of miles with effortless overtaking and decent fuel economy.
The CLS 350 petrol is even sweeter than her CLS 350d, and roughly 10% worse off at the pump, and remember, the pump is around 7% more expensive with the black handle too, so real world fuel costs are peanuts.

Don't get me wrong, the diesel is great, but in a 'luxury' German motor the petrol does make it feel even more special, smoother and more refined when cruising around and faster, more exciting and nicer sounding when having fun.
What put both of us of a bit with the 'smaller' V6 engines was her previous car which was an SL350 so 270bhp V6 petrol. Lovely smooth engine, refined and fairly nippy but unless you revved it right up it never felt really fast. The 23mpg (sub-30 on a run) didn't really justify it's performance. By contrast her CLS does 35mpg+ only 220bhp but 260lbs of torque vs nearly 400lbs was the most noticeable difference.

I have a CLS63 do I'm fortunate to have the option of a V8 anyway. She's happy with the way her 350 diesel goes and it being relatively inexpensive to run.

Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Ares said:
You are funny. So my little £65k Alfa is 20% better than a M5 or E63 because it has a greater bhp/litre?

And that Lamborghini Aventador must be utterly st, it barely makes 100bhp/litre.
It’s a metric.
Given SIMILAR engine size the E63 punches harder than the M5 hence my tongue in cheek point of a nitro RC v a Cobra 427.
So my little 510hp sports saloon our punches the 560hp E63 sports saloon....?

Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Exige77 said:
Welshbeef said:
Ares said:
You are funny. So my little £65k Alfa is 20% better than a M5 or E63 because it has a greater bhp/litre?

And that Lamborghini Aventador must be utterly st, it barely makes 100bhp/litre.
It’s a metric.
Given SIMILAR engine size the E63 punches harder than the M5 hence my tongue in cheek point of a nitro RC v a Cobra 427.
It’s a metric that used to be used on highly stressed NA cars but not really appropriate for FI motors of today.

Think Honda S2000 or Ferrari 458.
It's a metric used in Top Trumps and schoolboy wet dreams.....

Ares

7,683 posts

58 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Welshbeef said:
Can we get back to the main point - why are Audi and BMW not delivering the large exec big derv.
'abort....abort...." laugh

....and they are. BMW have two 400bhp diesel SUVs.

Welshbeef

Original Poster:

35,143 posts

136 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
Ares said:
Welshbeef said:
Ares said:
You are funny. So my little £65k Alfa is 20% better than a M5 or E63 because it has a greater bhp/litre?

And that Lamborghini Aventador must be utterly st, it barely makes 100bhp/litre.
It’s a metric.
Given SIMILAR engine size the E63 punches harder than the M5 hence my tongue in cheek point of a nitro RC v a Cobra 427.
So my little 510hp sports saloon our punches the 560hp E63 sports saloon....?
0-100mph 8.1 for your Alfa.
https://fastestlaps.com/models/alfa-romeo-giulia-q...

0-100mph 7.7?for the E63 so yes your punching - don’t you see that?
https://fastestlaps.com/models/mercedes-benz-e-63-...

cerb4.5lee

10,767 posts

118 months

Monday 11th February
quotequote all
This new engine does interest me because I have the old(read rough) V6 3 litre diesel in a GLC350d. The old V6 does feel torquey but at only 250bhp it feels a little under powered for the kerbweight in the GLC.

I'm pleased that this new engine is being offered with some meaningful BHP at last, and the numbers do look impressive for sure. Mercedes have decided to go back to a straight six too.

ZX10R NIN

12,986 posts

63 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
For me if I was looking for an estate of this size I'd be buying the E Class especially vs the BMW 530d, that minute price difference of £90 means the BMW wouldn't get a look in.

yonex

12,969 posts

106 months

Tuesday 12th February
quotequote all
dme123 said:
You would need to be some sort of mutant with cocks for hands and feet to drive the A6 and not notice how much less enjoyable it is to drive than an E-Class, or a 5 series. If all you want are "toys" and nice knobs to stroke then yeah they are all much of a muchness, in which case do What Car have forums?

Magazine reviews are practically worthless, every test declares "all our advertisers are winners! Hurrah!" and have for decades now.
Exactly.