BMW 5 Series v Mercedes-Benz E-Class 2011 Comparison

At first glance, these two wagons have much in common: they come from fierce head-to-head rivals and both represent the entry point for their makers’ executive-class wagons.

They also have similar sized diesel engines, coming from brands that dominate the industry’s technological pointy end, and to prove it, they’re side by side in spearheading the engine downsizing trend...

It’s about here that we reach the fork in the road. For closer inspection reveals these two are as different as they are similar. The Mercedes-Benz E250 CDI heads off into comfy family tourer territory, while BMW's M Sport optioned 520d heads more into the realms of driver satisfaction.

Launched locally in 2010, the E250 CDI lopped about $30K off the entry price to the E wagon. That made it an important car for Mercedes-Benz. That said, it still doesn’t bring the fight right through BMW’s front gate, with a remaining $15K price difference. That’s a lot of money even in the $100K realm in which these models sit. Is it justified?

Let’s start up front. Benz’s 2.1-litre, 150kW twin-turbo direct-injected diesel puts an astonishing 500Nm to tar through a standard 7G-Tronic seven-speed auto transmission. But while its peak torque band sits low, it’s also exceptionally narrow – from 1600-1800rpm. That reveals its priorities: it’s designed to keep you within that band in the name of fuel efficiency. On that count, it delivers, consuming just 5.6L/100km combined while giving off just 145g/km CO2.

Over our urban-only week with the car, we managed high-7s and low-8s without effort. They’re still remarkable numbers, all the more so for the small engine's ability to haul the large wagon -- 1845kg (plus us and our stuff) -- from 0-100km/h in 7.8sec.

The BMW’s 135kW 2.0-litre turbodiesel is an altogether different animal. At 380Nm on paper, it’s considerably less torquey but it pleads several different kinds of mitigation. Firstly, that peak torque sits in a wider band – 1750-2750rpm. Secondly, its state-of-the-art ZF auto transmission gives it an eighth ratio (It’s a beautiful transmission, intuitive and quick on the shift though it's lamentable that neither car has paddles to make the most of their powertrains’ considerable abilities). And thirdly, at 1715kg, the BMW mill is carrying a fair bit less car.

At 8.3 seconds 0-100km/h for the 5 Series there’s half a sec between them but it doesn’t feel it. Like most non-AMG Benzes, the E is not given to overt displays of athletic prowess; the BMW in contrast feels quicker and more agile, more palpably sporting.

BMW claims combined fuel consumption of just 5.3L/100km for the 520d, with emissions of 139g/km.

If there’s a caveat on the good news about the BMW, it’s in the palpable lag when you take off too hard; go easy off the mark and you’ll be rewarded when the blower spools up. As always with oilers, the highlight lies in rolling acceleration and with all those cogs at its disposal, it’s never far away from its economy sweet spot.

The quality of each car’s drive reflects differing target markets. Our test BMW had the marque’s new, softer ride calibrations as a no-cost delete option with the M Sport package -- which normally retains the old, harder settings. Notwithstanding that, the Benz still has the better spring-damping balance for most family buyers, even with the sports suspension upgrade that comes standard with Avantgarde spec. As soft yet strong as premium toilet paper, it absorbs even the most abrasive Aussie tar with a quiet composure that’s placed the E at or near the top of its class for years.

Where the BMW comes into its own is at the wheel. While the gold goes to Stuttgart for ride, Munich snatches it back for handling. Where the E's wheel feels a bit light, the 5’s steering is beautifully weighted and pin sharp for a car of its size. Self-levelling rear suspension means the 5 Series loses little on the road with a decent load astern. But it’s noticeably noisier underneath than its rival, thanks to those stiff-walled run-flat tyres.

The cabins reflect the cars’ differing priorities, too. Particularly with the BMW in M Sport guise, with its sports seats up front, its proliferation of black – by which I mean the roof lining – and its narrower, more raked glasswork.

Ergonomics are first class in both cars, although most will be more impressed by the BMW’s electronic park brake than the Benz’s American style foot-pedal. Many might also be pleased to see BMW has gone mainstream on cruise control switching, ditching the dedicated stalk behind the indicator wand in favour of simpler wheel switches.

The 520d’s chunky leather M Sport wheel has a tactile quality missing in the Benz. The seating reflects the wider differences between the vehicles, too. The BMW’s M Sport front seats skew towards snugness; the Benz’s towards big-bum comfort.

While the 5 is adequate in the rear, the E wins on room for legs, hips and shoulders, although middle passengers in both pay the price of RWD via the transmission tunnel and a harder (effectively higher) middle seat. Those with younger children will appreciate the fold-out integrated boosters in the E’s rear seats, an $1100 option.

Each car boasts a decent standard kit list including leather upholstery, climate control, bi-xenon headlamps with auto switching, rain-sensing wipers, satnav and parking beepers front and rear. The BMW adds head-up display and Bluetooth audio streaming (though why they persist with that space-hogging phone cradle in the centre glove box is anyone’s guess).

The option packs in our test cars bumped up the cost of each considerably. In the Benz, the $6200 Vision 2 package adds a glass sunroof, keyless entry and ignition, an electric tailgate and Harman Kardon Logic 7 surround sound – digital/analogue television, DVD audio and video, MP3, USB and iPod compatibility.

The BMW’s $7900 M Sport package added lingerie and makeup paint on the outside, roof rails, 18-inch alloys, sports seats, interior trim upgrades and sportier suspension (normally, anyway – delete it at no cost if you prefer the softer settings). Its audio input is a bit more sensible, using Bluetooth instead of the glovebox cables upon which Benz insists.

Out behind, BMW’s dual hatch-tailgate arrangement makes life easier for shoppers by allowing you to raise just the rear window or the whole tailgate. Benz offers a pair of fold-up rear-facing (occasional) seats and electronic tailgate closing. Both offer good, useable cargo space expandable into the rear seating area via split-fold backrests.

On safety, both bear badges synonymous with industry leadership. High crash safety scores are a given in this territory. Beyond that, the array of safety gear goes beyond the usual antilock, stability control, brake assist, seatbelt pretensioning and the like. While the BMW has six airbags – front, side, curtain – the Benz takes this up to nine with side airbags for rear seat passengers and a driver’s kneebag. Suffice to say, if providence deems you worthy of a crash, there’s few better place to be.

Is there a better car here? Predictably, that depends on where your priorities lie. For space, comfort and extra seating, it’s the Benz. For a little less space, plenty of comfort nonetheless and more fun at the wheel, it’s the BMW.

For economy, it would take a miserly sort indeed to quibble over three tenths in a car of this size. Either one is good for Sydney to Melbourne on a single tank.

It doesn’t, however, take a tightwad to quibble over a price gap of $15K in cars meant to be going head to head. With dollars in mind therefore, we'll opt for the BMW...

Read the latest Carsales Network news and reviews on your mobile, iPhone or PDA at the carsales mobile site