That's the time it takes the new Mercedes E63 AMG to accelerate to 62mph. THREE POINT SIX SECONDS. My benchmark 'very very fast' car is the Ferrari Enzo, which is only 0.1 seconds faster according to Evo's data. Absolutely incredible! For how long will family saloons continue to get faster and faster? In ten years time will E-classes be doing the 0-62 in a Veyron matching 2.5?

Updated January 10, 2013 at 2:41 PM

--

Entirely pointless

That is pretty impressive actually (if you can get impressed by 0-60 times).

The Enzo was built around 2002 so that's 10+ years ago. But it is impressive. Shame it's quite an ugly front end.

Edit:

Updated January 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM

--

If there is an emergency, please call 999.

I'm among the first to admit 0-60/0-62 times aren't overly relevant, but the concept of a two-ton block of saloon or estate moving that quickly is just silly. Incidentally, I reckon the E63 is the most fun to drive in its class too. Cool car.

Dog Wagon version please.

I would love to see it put on track alongside a supercar with similar figures and see how it gets on. Ferrari 458 maybe or an Aston V12. Come on Evo thats got to be worth a few columns!

--

Cheese it

Isn't that time for the 4 wheel drive version only?

1) 0-60 (or 0-62) times are never that significant because a large part of the performance is up to the skills of the driver (or the electronics with more modern cars) to manage traction
2) is that fair to compare an official manufacturer figure with a tested one?

If comparing manufacturer's figures, in the current Ferrari range only the non-sports models, the California (at 3"8 ) and FF (at 3"7) are beaten by those 3"6 (claim for the 458 is 3"4).

So a sports flagship model is beating the Ferrari that are not defined as particularly sporty.

Not to say that 3"6 is bad - it's actually very good, but implying that based on this figure a Mercedes sedan has better performance than a Ferrari is far-fetched sensationalism.

One cannot compare a taxi manufacturer with Ferrari. End of

Updated January 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM

--

Pilouil
Citroen C3 1.4 HDI 69.0424 bhp

Bunta said...

Dog Wagon version please.

absolutely, now that will be awesome. I think the new RS6 is quoting similar performance figures.

It is amazing that these are more economical too

pilouil said...

1) 0-60 (or 0-62) times are never that significant because a large part of the performance is up to the skills of the driver (or the electronics with more modern cars) to manage traction
2) is that fair to compare an official manufacturer figure with a tested one?

If comparing manufacturer's figures, in the current Ferrari range only the non-sports models, the California (at 3"8 ) and FF (at 3"7) are beaten by those 3"6 (claim for the 458 is 3"4).

So a sports flagship model is beating the Ferrari that are not defined as particularly sporty.

Not to say that 3"6 is bad - it's actually very good, but implying that based on this figure a Mercedes sedan has better performance than a Ferrari is far-fetched sensationalism.

One cannot compare a taxi manufacturer with Ferrari. End of

I think you may have misread a little. What Pete is saying is that the Merc is fast as fvck.

--

If there is an emergency, please call 999.

that is too insane.

--

Pain don't hurt

pilouil said...

If comparing manufacturer's figures, in the current Ferrari range only the non-sports models, the California (at 3"8 ) and FF (at 3"7) are beaten by those 3"6 (claim for the 458 is 3"4).

So a sports flagship model is beating the Ferrari that are not defined as particularly sporty.

A Ferrari California and an FF not 'sporty'?

--

This ^

Dr.(tbc) Alex said...

pilouil said...

1) 0-60 (or 0-62) times are never that significant because a large part of the performance is up to the skills of the driver (or the electronics with more modern cars) to manage traction
2) is that fair to compare an official manufacturer figure with a tested one?

If comparing manufacturer's figures, in the current Ferrari range only the non-sports models, the California (at 3"8 ) and FF (at 3"7) are beaten by those 3"6 (claim for the 458 is 3"4).

So a sports flagship model is beating the Ferrari that are not defined as particularly sporty.

Not to say that 3"6 is bad - it's actually very good, but implying that based on this figure a Mercedes sedan has better performance than a Ferrari is far-fetched sensationalism.

One cannot compare a taxi manufacturer with Ferrari. End of

I think you may have misread a little. What Pete is saying is that the Merc is fast as fvck.

No, to be fair, Evo have publicised that it is faster than a Ferrari FF, which over one particular metric, it appears to be.

That must be a seriously impressive launch control to propel a front engined rear wheel drive saloon to 60mph in that time with "only" 577hp. Unless it was in fact the 4WD version that is not available in the UK?

--

Share your car adventures.
www.auto-journals.com

Real life with cars

Dr.(tbc) Alex said...

I think you may have misread a little. What Pete is saying is that the Merc is fast as fvck.

I was actually also referring to evo's title (which reads "Merc e63 AMG faster than a Ferrari")

--

Pilouil
Citroen C3 1.4 HDI 69.0424 bhp

Big Black E-Class muscle car from Mercedes that is quicker than your average Ferrari. It will never happen?

Stop Hammer time...

Probably the most irrelevant statistic available for a car.

A measure of tyre technology and traction control. Woohoo...
It's not as if it's ever worth attempting to replicate if you have an ounce of mechanical sympathy.

When Evo ran one of its first issues based on this with the Brabus and Ferrari F40 it pretty much put me off the magazine.

Updated January 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM

--

Impreza WRX STi Spec-C V-Limited Toshi Arai Edition/ GTR/ Panda 100HP Pandamonium/ Insignia CDTi 160

pilouil said...

Dr.(tbc) Alex said...

I think you may have misread a little. What Pete is saying is that the Merc is fast as fvck.

I was actually also referring to evo's title (which reads "Merc e63 AMG faster than a Ferrari")

Yep, an attention-grabbing headline it is. Which is exactly the point of headlines. And comparing manufacturer-claimed 0-62s, it's factually correct.

Sisu said...

Big Black E-Class muscle car from Mercedes that is quicker than your average Ferrari. It will never happen?

Stop Hammer time...

Excellent reference

--

In my day we called that medicine.

I see the CLS is getting the same performance upgrades (according to AMG Ger). It also states 4MATIC - so, are these times for the AWD version and not the UK one?

--

Cheers,

Ian

My focus was turned from BMW M to Mercedes AMG products after the introduction of the w211 E55 AMG Kompressor (although I prefer the e92 M3 to the C63 AMG thanks to manual-box). It had so much more usable performance than e60 M5 and with a smooth shifting auto you could actually drive it in town also. The performance figure of 3.6 to 60 is plain crazy for a rwd saloon and I think it is as nice to hower down home from the work as an E220 CDI with TAXI-sign on the roof, although if you want to go mental during the trip, it has one or two party-on tickets at its pocket, which you can´t say about the diesel-engined 4-cyl model. And having heard the earlier AMG-models, I think they have managed to make it sound a little better than f10 M5 from Bavarian Muscle Works

Updated January 10, 2013 at 5:11 PM

--

-Those who drive as fast as they can are MUCH less famous than those who drive MUCH faster-
-Ahvenisto Circuit Finland-