500e vs e350

[Guest]

So a few weeks ago I came across this video on youtube.
2007 E350 vs 1994 500e.

[youtube]8cS543DnWmo[/youtube]

When i clicked the video at first, I was thinking : What a joke.
There's no way an e350 could even come close to a 500e. Well i watched the video and it appears that the 7 speed automatic E350 took the victory.

After watching the video i was thinking thats BS! Since i saw that video a few weeks ago, ive been determined to hunt down an e350 just to prove this video wrong. (I have a 93' 300e 2.8L)

Last night I was just heading home after going for a nice cruise down the highway when i pulled up to a red light on a quiet road. I was literally the only guy on the road. About 5 seconds later, i look in my rear view mirror to see a new 2011 E350 pulling up to the light next to me.

I glanced over quickly and thought i saw an older guy driving with his wife in the passenger seat, so at this point im thinking theres no way he's going to race me.
Regardless of what i thought, as the light turned green I hammered the pedal down and did a quick (its not really quick in a 300e 2.8l) 0-60.

I then put the brakes on a little bit to let the e350 recover and catch up to me. To my surprise it didn't take him much time to catch up as he flew by me going 80+.
At this point, i knew what i had to do.

I gave it some gas and ran him down once he put his brakes on to slow down. Now its just me and him cruising side by side at about 45 mph with open road running out.
He acted first and floored his little 3.5l v6. Right after, I floored my even smaller 2.8L inline six.
By the time i even got going he was already about 10 feet ahead of me.

Surpisingly, (to myself and the e350 driver) by the time we hit 75 i was passing him up. 75-90 it just got even worse.......for the e350. I just kept on walking on him until i eventally let off at about 95 or 100.

Surely if my 194hp 2.8l can outrun an e350 a 500e can too. After that I would be surprised if a 2011 e550 could even keep up with a 500e.
I wish i got it on video but i wasn't expecting the e350 to actually go at it.

That race was surely the most unevenly matched race ive ever won.

My 194 hp 2.8l vs a 268 hp 3.5l.
My 4 speed slopbox vs his 7 speed auto.
I'm guessing my 300e is a little bit lighter than his e350, but i also had my buddy in the front seat. So weight wise i think the cars were about even.

 

[gerryvz]

Well, it depends whether he was an E350 Bluetec (210HP) or E350 gasoline (268HP). A gasoline E350 can hit 0-60 in under 7 seconds, which is probably 0.75+ seconds more than a 500E. So things being the same, I'd say that a stock E500E could "take" a stock E350 gasoline car. He had about 75 more HP than you did (don't know torque ratings) but well-driven, you could definitely show him a thing or two. Good work anyhow !!

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[036]

What a coincidence.
Some time ago i was having fun filming a very fresh 350 CLS on hihgway.
I was driving onehanded, gearbox was on "E", so i´ve done it just on 4th gear.
Otherwise it would be very thin....
( don´t mind a sountrack- just had some zapping through my old CD´s )


[youtube]si8CWPXIYew[/youtube]

 

[Guest]

I don't know how to identify an e350 vs a bluetec one, but when i pulled up to a stop sign after we raced i looked over and it turned out to be a kid i know, so i can ask him and figure it out.

It was a coupe though and i didn't think they made the bluetec for the coupes?

I think the new e350's lack the torque a little bit though, maybe 240tq or something like that.
I've only got 199 torque so the e350 still has 40 torque on me assuming it is 240.

 

[gerryvz]

LOL - your "preview" on the Youtube Video .. that's a typical Dutch Anhänger from hell you see on the Autobahn, towed by a small car and going maybe 80-90 km/hr.

 

[gerryvz]

It would say BLUETEC on the right side of the trunk if it was a diesel engine.

 

[Guest]

Well, it depends whether he was an E350 Bluetec (210HP) or E350 gasoline (268HP). A gasoline E350 can hit 0-60 in under 7 seconds, which is probably 0.75+ seconds more than a 500E.
Gerry

Well a 500e with 1st gear start and ASR defeat should get 0-60 in about 5.5s.
Most of what ive seen says about 6.1s 0-100 kph, so 0-60 mph is probably a few tenths less, maybe 5.8 or 5.9.
First gear and asr defeat should also shave off a few seconds from 0-60.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg7m-zejvyg

That one seems pretty damn quick.
He floors it at :01 seconds and hits 160kph (100mph) at not even :13 seconds into the video. So he probably did 0-100mph in the 11.5-12 second range.

In the video description it says he's a member on here, id like to know this guys 1/4 mile times.
But it was 50 degrees fahrenheit when he did that 0-180, and here in Texas we don't get those temperatures very often.
We get the sea level advantage though. This past winter i probably got some 0-60s in the mid to upper 7s with my 300e 2.8l, which is pretty fast for a 2.8

 

[Christian_K]

Hi Zach,
well a gasoline E350 W211 is quick, this seems to be true. A very good friend of mine test-driven it, he is a BMW E39 540i driver and he said that it feels the E350 could beat his 540i (he hasn't tried it though).
If it could beat a good maintained and good running 500E is another question of course.

The Video you posted in your last post was uploaded by me. The user was from the old 500E Forums (500ecstasy.com), he showed the result after he installed a 2-way custom exhaust with 2x 100cell metal catalytic converters, to show that the car is now accelerating faster than before.

Based on the Video i counted 5.5 Seconds to 100kph, which is 62mph. Most 500Es make it in 5.8-6.1 seconds to 100kph according to a stop-watch and the speedometer. So yes this car is quick, really quick.

Other 500E which is quick is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puY-bSfLCy0
Or the probably best known Video on YT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBZLsEMth-Y
This ones for a E500 without WOT also pretty quick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDFhqZ1nsmQ

 

[gerryvz]

Indeed, most any E500E can do 0-60 MPH in 5.9-6.1 seconds, stock. I'd expect a Euro car (with the full HP rating and probably fewer options and thus less weight than a "loaded" US car) perhaps to get 0.1 second below this, so 5.8-5.9 is probably correct for a non-US car.

5.5 seconds is much too low for a stock car. Christian is 100% correct.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[036]

Bone stock without kats

[youtube]DLsDmT_X1ko[/youtube]

 

[gsxr]

+1 with Christian and Gerry. I'll add that the performance figures quoted are primarily achieved at sea level... if you live at higher elevations (particularly above 3-4k foot) the car will be a bit slower. It also depends on the particular car... a 93-up model with a 92 LH module will be a bit quicker than any stock E500E. <flame suit on>

 

[gerryvz]

... a 93-up model with a 92 LH module will be a bit quicker than any stock E500E.

I've always thought that a 93-up model with a 92 LH module would be the same in terms of speed as .... a 1991 or 1992 model.

Other than WOT enrichment, what changes introduced would make a 1993+ model with a 1992 LH box installed, faster than a "stock" 1993+ model? This is new information if this, is indeed, the case.



Cheers,
Gerry

 

[Christian_K]

I've always thought that a 93-up model with a 92 LH module would be the same in terms of speed as .... a 1991 or 1992 model.

Other than WOT enrichment, what changes introduced would make a 1993+ model with a 1992 LH box installed, faster than a "stock" 1993+ model? This is new information if this, is indeed, the case.



Cheers,
Gerry

Different/better camshafts ;-)

 

[gsxr]

I've always thought that a 93-up model with a 92 LH module would be the same in terms of speed as .... a 1991 or 1992 model.

Other than WOT enrichment, what changes introduced would make a 1993+ model with a 1992 LH box installed, faster than a "stock" 1993+ model? This is new information if this, is indeed, the case.

There are indeed other differences on 93-up models. At a minimum, the camshafts were a different profile, and the lifters were ~25% lighter. The pistons & rings were redesigned but I don't think that will affect horsepower significantly. (??) There are a few other misc items as well.

I'm working on collecting enough data to present my findings in a separate thread, with dyno graphs, but so far I've got enough empirical data to make the claim that there is indeed a measurable difference. I have data on valve lift for the 93-up camshafts, but I need to pull a valve cover and get lift data on the 92 camshafts. MB doesn't publish lift specs (only open/closing in degrees) so I had to measure lift via calipers. I'm also not quite sure which changes have the most affect on power delivery, or if all the little things just added up.

Note that in stock form, all years should be *very* close in output... but the 93-up is capable of pushing a few more ponies when modified with the early LH. Nothing drastic, of course, I'd estimate 7-10hp at best (to be validated soon on the dyno).

 

[Christian_K]

Together with the 25% lighter lifters, they changed the valve-springs from double-design to single-conical design.

EDIT: Back to Topic.
I have found something interessting at Mercedes-Benz Germany regarding W212 E350...:

W212 E 350 BlueEFFICIENCY From 03/2009 to 09/2009 had 272HP(DIN) and 360NM (DIN), 0-100kph (0-62mph): 6.5Seconds!
W212 E 350 CGI BlueEFFICIENCY From 09/2009 until now has 292HP(DIN) and 365NM (DIN), 0-100kph (0-62mph): 6.8Seconds!

Now if 6.5 Seconds isn't any close to the 500Es specs, then i don't know....

 

[gsxr]

Together with the 25% lighter lifters, they changed the valve-springs from double-design to single-conical design.

Correct! I forgot about that too. I'm not sure if there is any power difference just based on valve springs though. I figure the lightweight lifters are probably worth some power, but not sure about springs. Swapping cams & lifters is much easier than swapping springs... ugh, pulling 32 retainers, and hoping not to drop a valve into a cylinder... not fun!

 

[gerryvz]

OK, I appreciate those running changes (some of which I was aware of, others not). But the rated specs for the 1991-2 and 1993-4 cars, at least in the US, generally reflected the lower HP on the later models primarily from the elimination of the WOT enrichment. I guess I am questioning just a bit the actual additional power generation from these running mods on the US cars.

IMHO the modifications may well (as with the open and closed-deck blocks) may be less for additional HP generation and more for cost savings. This is particularly true as we all know that the post-1992 MBs (certainly 1994 and 1995 W124s) across the board pretty much were cheapened from earlier models in terms of some design and materials aspects. It's just the first time I've heard this type of "spin" put on it from an E500E perspective. The conventional wisdom was that the reduction in HP on US models to 315 for the 1993 and 1994 models was due to the LH FTE elimination.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[gsxr]

MB factory docs claimed the 93-up changes were for increased fuel efficiency, but I wouldn't doubt that cost savings might have been a factor as well. Regardless of claimed power, I've got a pile of acceleration data showing the '92 motors make slightly less power, when using the same '92 LH module. The real proof was dropping in a '92 engine into my '94 car - same chassis, same everything else, just different motor. When I get the dyno graphs I'll start a new topic...

 

[Rudy]

+1 with Christian and Gerry. I'll add that the performance figures quoted are primarily achieved at sea level... if you live at higher elevations (particularly above 3-4k foot) the car will be a bit slower. It also depends on the particular car... a 93-up model with a 92 LH module will be a bit quicker than any stock E500E. <flame suit on>

can u guys image how much fun it is to run the car 400m below sea level at the Dead Sea here
a w e s o m e !!

 

[Christian_K]

I think for the 500E to E500 Models in W124, probably power-loss due to WOT-Enrichment removal would have be bigger than ~10NM and ~6HP (DIN), and as a try to compensate for that without raising compression like they did on the E420, they "improved" the mentioned things in the WOT-Less E500s -> Camshafts, lifters, valve-springs, piston-rings, etc.

I mean you see it clearly on the E420s, when you plug-in an early 400E LH-Module with WOT in a late 11:1 E420, you touch the 300hp (DIN) mark. Thats ~20hp more due to WOT.

 

[Guest]

Indeed, most any E500E can do 0-60 MPH in 5.9-6.1 seconds, stock. I'd expect a Euro car (with the full HP rating and probably fewer options and thus less weight than a "loaded" US car) perhaps to get 0.1 second below this, so 5.8-5.9 is probably correct for a non-US car.

5.5 seconds is much too low for a stock car. Christian is 100% correct.

Cheers,
Gerry

Well I would think if you have the ASR defeat and 1st gear start you could easily do 0-60 in under 5.5seconds, especially in the proper conditions.
Its just like the quoted 1/4 mile for a 500e is 14.2@100, but Justin did it in 13.8 @103 bone stock.

If you put some wider high performance tires with the ASR defeat it should grip pretty well, and id imagine could certainly do 0-60 in under 5.5.

Also in the video i posted of the 500e going 0-180 kph, the 0-62mph time is 5.5s, so 0-60mph is probably 5.3.
And in that video he did 0-180kph in about 14 seconds. Thats 112mph in the same time most 500e's can do the 1/4 mile @ 100ish.
He must have more upgrades than just exhaust?

 

[gerryvz]

In my experience, ASR defeat and 1st gear start don't really add anything to the 0-60 nor the quarter-mile. I have both and it didn't make any measurable/material difference in dozens of drag-race runs I have done. I am telling you, there is no way that a STOCK US or Euro-spec E500E can do 5.5 seconds 0-60. TRUST ME.

My best time with a stock E500 (1994 LH unit) is 14.1 seconds. This is very very repeatable for pretty much any stock car in good condition. Many others here on the board have drag-raced their STOCK E500Es and I don't believe anyone else has obtained a sub-14.0 time with a stock car.

By the way, I obtained the 14.1 second time in the quarter-mile on stock wheels with stock Michelin Pilot Sport tires (not drag radials), with the air let out to approximately 22 PSI on the rear tires.

Please trust me when I tell you that a stock US-spec E500E will do 0-60 in the range of 5.9-6.1 seconds and the 1/4 mile in the range of high 14.0-14.2 seconds, generally in the 98 MPH (and sometimes 99 MPH) range. My best time with nitrous is 12.89 seconds at just over 108 MPH.

Case closed, argument done. I know this because I've owned my car for 8 years, and raced it at the drag strip more than a few times.

Cheers,
Gerry

 

[gsxr]

Its just like the quoted 1/4 mile for a 500e is 14.2@100, but Justin did it in 13.8 @103 bone stock.

I've equaled that myself, but remember that both Justin and myself were running in full battle mode to get those times - fuel tank on reserve, trunk totally empty (no spare tire, jack, tools, etc). And it took multiple attempts on different days to get the optimum results due to ideal weather conditions. Not exactly how the car mags do testing. Yes, a 500 can run that fast, but not under normal conditions on the street with the spare tire, gas in the tank, and so on. When I was running ~13.7 @ 103 at sea level in my modified E500, the 0-60 times were 5.5-5.7 seconds, again due to reduced weight (back seat was also removed). This was with the '92 LH module, btw, stock wheels, gears, etc. In normal street trim the 0-60 times are right in the 5.9-6.1 second range that MB published.

And in that video he did 0-180kph in about 14 seconds. Thats 112mph in the same time most 500e's can do the 1/4 mile @ 100ish. He must have more upgrades than just exhaust?

Don't put a lot of emphasis on apparent performance from videos of speedometers. The speedos are not exactly accurate to begin with, and if the tires are worn or the wrong size, it can make it appear faster than it really is. Dragstrip time slips, or accurate data from a real performance computer like Vbox or RaceTech AP22/AX22 is far more realistic and reliable. There is no way any 5.0L can hit 110mph in 14 seconds without serious power adders like NOS or forced induction. That's equal or faster than most 6.0L 124's!!!! A typical E500E hits 110mph in 16-18 seconds, and usually on the slower end of that range if stock. Trust me.

http://www.w124performance.com/docs/dra ... _AP-22.txt

http://www.w124performance.com/docs/dra ... _AP-22.txt

 

[gerryvz]

To clarify - when I say "stock car" above, I mean as Dave says a normal car with gas in the tank, etc. just as one would drive it on the street.

I do not consider a "battle mode" (lightened/optimized) prepared car -- even with no engine/induction modifications -- to be a "stock" car for drag racing purposes.

 

[gsxr]

To clarify - when I say "stock car" above, I mean as Dave says a normal car with gas in the tank, etc. just as one would drive it on the street.

I do not consider a "battle mode" (lightened/optimized) prepared car -- even with no engine/induction modifications -- to be a "stock" car for drag racing purposes.

I agree 100%.

That's why when I reference my best times in "battle mode", I always specify that the car was lightened, and any other mods done. Pulling the entire back seat and trunk contents takes almost 200 lbs off the car, and the fuel tank on reserve is approx 140 lbs less than a full tank. That's a 340-lb total difference, which has a significant effect on acceleration performance. This is the primary difference between a 14.1 @ 100mph and a 13.7 @ 103mph.

Also remember that those uber-cool 17/18/19-inch wheels & tires we all love almost always weigh more than the stock 16's. Sometimes a LOT more. This alone can translate into 2 tenths / 2 mph at the dragstrip, or the rough equivalent of ~15hp! If you wanna go fast, use the stock wheels/tires, or super-lightweight aftermarket wheels with the lightest performance tires you can find. If you can drop 5-10 lbs per corner of rotational weight, you'd be amazed at what this will do to your timeslips. Just make sure you're sitting down when you get price quotes on those 19-lb HRE forged wheels.

For the record, all my quickest/fastest runs have been with stock 16" wheels and worn tires (at the wear bars). The worn tires alone save 3-4 lbs each compared to new. I believe Justin's best times were also on the stockies. All these little tricks add up to some impressive numbers, but like Gerry said, this ain't how I drive the car on the street!!

 

[Guest]

Well you're also not taking into consideration some of the advantages of some newer aftermarket rims.
Most of the new polished rims are going to allow for better airflow and increased aerodynamics. Probably lead to a lower Cd (coefficient of drag), but then the increased width will add back to the Cd.

In addition, mesh rims will allow more air to cool the brakes down, probably decreasing a few feet in the 60-0 stopping distance.
Although wider rims will add some Cd and potentially weigh the car down, it will hook up much better and eliminate a decent amount of wheelspin.

Pirelli Pzero's or any other Z rated "AA" traction tire will increase the grip greatly over the stock tires.
In addition, lowering the car will also reduce wheelspin and lower the Cd while probably taking off a few lbs off the stock weight.

Between a lowering kit, wider, lighter, stickier tires, 1st gear start and ASR defeat i see no problem in a 500e doing 0-60 in 5.5s and a 1/4 mile time around 13.9s.

I've never owned a 500e so I wouldn't know for sure, but it seems do able to me in the proper conditions.

 

[gsxr]

Between a lowering kit, wider, lighter, stickier tires, 1st gear start and ASR defeat i see no problem in a 500e doing 0-60 in 5.5s and a 1/4 mile time around 13.9s.

lowering kit does not improve acceleration to 60mph
wider tires does not improve acceleration
lighter tires does improve acceleration
stickier tires only improves accleration if there are wheelspin problems
1st gear start does not improve acceleration (car already starts in 1st at WOT)
ASR defeat does not improve acceleration
Cd has practically zero effect until beyond 100mph or so

I've never owned a 500e so I wouldn't know for sure, but it seems do able to me in the proper conditions.

You might consider that people who have owned them for years, and raced them, might know more about the capabilities than someone who has never owned one. Just a thought. And if you read my post carefully, I stated that my modified/lightened E500 did manage a 5.5 second 0-60 pass, at sea level, but most definitely not in street trim.

 

[gerryvz]

This thread is getting .... well ..... quite laughable.

 

[T-500]

I think you guys should meet. Zach lives in Houston, too.

 

[Guest]

Ill explain my reasons why I believe a 13.9s 1/4 mile and 0-60 of 5.5s are possible.

So Gerry, your fastest 1/4 mile was 14.024 seconds.
Installing a lowering kit won't make a huge difference in the 1/4 mile so lets just say it makes it .024s faster, just to get some easy numbers. I think it would even make it slightly faster than that, not much though.
So now with a lowering kit thats a 14s 1/4 mile.

I'm sure you got some wheelspin off the line, even the slightest wheelspin can slow you down maybe .05 to .1 seconds in the 1/4 mile. Lowering kit and wider tires will eliminate most if not all of that wheelspin.
So being generous ill say now your at 13.95 seconds.

ASR defeat and 1st gear start won't make a noticeable different (feel wise) but exact time wise it should be a little faster. But im guessing you already have both of those mods.

Now, if you have a lighter rim/tire setup, and then fill the tires with nitrogen, you can probably drop .15 seconds.
Now, your quarter mile is 13.8 seconds with basically only the cosmetic mods. In the best conditions, on a low tank of gas, you could probably do a 13.7, if not a little bit better.

Those numbers arn't exact as they are all estimates, but my point is, these "cosmetic" mods can actually cut down 0-60 and 1/4 mile times a little bit.

EDIT:
Feel free to disagree, because maybe those numbers are completely ridiculous. So, if you're going to disagree and you feel like calling me out for being wrong, just please give me a reason.
If you give me a good reasoning why those are ridiculous i can consider it and maybe change my mind, but if you just say "thats ridiculous, your an idiot", then ill just be in denial and ill never learn.

 

[gsxr]

Did you not read my posts that said I've already hit your theoretical targets...? It's not ridiculous, just not possible in normal street trim (or, in bone stock form). And the numbers will vary a bit depending on the modifications done.

 

[gerryvz]

This now-ridiculous, Captain Ahab thread does not warrant further comment.

I think you guys should meet. Zach lives in Houston, too.

No need to meet.