Down to 3 E500s - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dcraig · #31 12-18-2002, 02:55 PM

OK, thanks, I didn't know that..

Quote:

So, in other words, it would still pull you.

If you read the earlier post you would see that the tangle with my friends SL500 was that whoever got on it first, would pull away. That's what it comes down to, the driver.

Yes, .4 given everything being equal.

Craig

need2speed · #32 12-18-2002, 08:46 PM

Hey, hey, hey...now guys

I always thought this forum was about respect, not who's got the biggest whatever. I'd respect a well cared-for Yugo over some trashed, un-loved grocery-hauling Mercedes.

Everyone is passionate about their choice of cars because they care for them and about them. This discussion need not get out of hand like a certain ML versus G-wagon thread did....

Unless it's all in good fun

zr one · #33 12-18-2002, 11:34 PM

the 500e...germany
the 400e...mexico??

id take the 500e even if the 400 was supercharged,turbo charged ,or anything else you want to do to it.
but thats just me

Dcraig · #34 12-18-2002, 11:42 PM

Can anyone finalize that Mexico story? The VIN indicates that the car was built in Germany.

Craig

need2speed- It is all in good fun

. Everybody knows I want an E500, I'm just not in the position to shell out the big $$ for a great example and I won't compromise and get one that's less than perfect.

zr one- So would I.

#35 12-19-2002, 12:07 AM

I was wondering if anyone can confirm if the 400e had some assembly work done in Mexico, not that it means anything bad since it's still MB parts in the car.

I got this "assembled in Mexico" bit from an unconfirmed source also, any truth in this?

This could be an interesting discussion if no one takes things personally, I've always been interested in the differences in the E420 and the E500.

Quote:

I feel that 400E's are 300E's with a V8, where the 500E is a totally different car Since I do not buy cars very often, I felt that it would hold up better, over the long haul.

Hello Tom,

I don't think any of the two cars will hold up better than the other and the E420 is closer to the E500 than it is to the E320, it has a similar engine bay as the E500 with the same battery in the trunk layout.

Also from the E Class owners book by Stu Ritter

Quote:

Fitting this engine prompted larger front and rear brakes with vented rear discs, modified steering and suspension systems, and structural revision in the engine compartment and driveshaft tunnel

If that's a 300e after those mods, the E500 is no different.

I agree of course that the E500 is a better car.

Daesun · #36 12-19-2002, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dcraig
It is all in good fun

Agreed.

I believe that you are indeed evenly matched with an SL500. But keep in mind that a 500E will pull an SL as well.

ESVIC · #37 12-19-2002, 02:10 PM

How about a E500 and 500E?...Is it basically the same performance?

Dcraig · #38 12-19-2002, 02:21 PM

Again, 'pull' is a difficult term to use. At .4 sec to 60, the 'pull' is very slight. Less than 1/2 of a second. If you mean dead even 0-60, yes it will beat the E420.

To me, 'pull' refers to pulling away from. In a dead heat, they would be very closley matched. Some E500's are slower and some E420's are faster. There are so many factors.

Daesun- Lets find a track.....

Craig

Daesun · #39 12-19-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ESVIC
How about a E500 and 500E?...Is it basically the same performance?

Legend has it that the '92 500E, with its slightly higher hp/tq ratings and more aggressive fuel management, is actually faster than its '93 and '94 counterparts. On the flipside, the '94 has variable intake valve timing that gives it a flatter torque curve, so it's a tossup. Only one way to find out...

Ultimately, after an EPROM chip, the year shouldn't matter much, as even a '93 or '94 will go into open loop at WOT (i.e., fuel dump at full throttle, bypasses air sensor, no longer adjusts fuel delivery to achieve lambda), which is part of why the '92 had a power advantage.

DCraig, I think the track is a lovely idea. I've been meaning to get out there anyway and see what sort of times I can produce. Oh, and I use "pull" to describe any sort of advantage. In other words, as long as one car is accelerating quicker than the other, and hence widening the gap (or closing it, depending on how the race started), it's "pulling" it. Of course, it could be pulling it slightly, or pulling hard, or just plain sucking its lights out.

In your case, I agree that a 500 would pull you SLIGHTLY. It certainly wouldn't be a stomping.

Michael · #40 12-19-2002, 03:58 PM

Daesun/All,

In the interest of accuracy, ALL M119 motors (regardless of year) have variable valve timing on the intake side

FWIW I, too, use the term "pull" when one car pulls away from another, irrespective of the rate of departure. For example, a new C32 "pulled" me on the main straight at Lime Rock (those little cars are FAST!); even though he probably only got a car length on me, like it or not the car "pulled" me fer sure

Dcraig · #41 12-19-2002, 04:11 PM

OK, I have re-defined my idea of 'pull'

Daesun- Is your car is completely stock.

Craig

suginami · #42 12-19-2002, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael
Daesun/All,

In the interest of accuracy, ALL M119 motors (regardless of year) have variable valve timing on the intake side

FWIW I, too, use the term "pull" when one car pulls away from another, irrespective of the rate of departure. For example, a new C32 "pulled" me on the main straight at Lime Rock (those little cars are FAST!); even though he probably only got a car length on me, like it or not the car "pulled" me fer sure

Man, that is amazing! I can't believe a C32 can pull away from a 500E. Blows my mind.

If a C32 will pull away from a 500E, what would a C43 do? Just blow right on by you?

Dcraig · #43 12-19-2002, 05:32 PM

I read somewhere that the C32's are faster than the C43's. Is that correct?

Craig

Michael · #44 12-19-2002, 05:34 PM

Well, look at the numbers - a C32 makes 349 HP, and weighs 3,540 lbs (each HP hauls around 10.1 lbs); a 500E makes probably the same HP (though is rated at 322 HP) but weighs 3,850 or so (11 lbs/HP). Now, a C43 makes 302 HP, and weighs 3,448 lbs (11.4 lbs/HP) so I'd think a 500E and a C43 would make for a real close race!

Anybody around here wanna run?

Daesun · #45 12-19-2002, 05:39 PM

Michael - I stand corrected. I read somewhere that the variable intake valve timing was new for '94 and resulted in a flatter torque curve. I'll see if I can dig up the reference.

Dcraig - My car is almost, but not quite stock. I have K&N filter elements and an EPROM chip. I suspect my ratings to be in the neighborhood of 330 hp and 364 lb/ft, although I have no dynos to support this. I also have a custom audio setup which adds considerable weight, so my power gains may have been offset by that.

suginami - You underestimate the C32. It has a 0-60 time under 5 sec and runs the 1/4 mile in the low 13s. It will pull a 500E or C43 with no problem. As far as 500E vs. C43, it's very close, but the general concensus around here is that the lighter C43 will get the jump off the line, but the 500E will catch up and pass at higher speeds.