Thanks for the honest feedback although, the CLS65 would probably come with an upgraded suspension and brake package so it may not just be on a straight-line basis that the CLS65 destroys the new M5. BTW, I'm in the opinion that the new M5 will be a quicker and faster vehicle than the current E55 model.

 

i ve copied and pasted every post after banishment douchtav ill be happy to post. i call on you to post one of my post/replys where i acted any differently than anyone there. THIS IS THE FOURTH SUCH TIME. so you calling a member here "IGNORRANT" is ok??? wont you please just go away. surely you could spend more time helping your country shield dictators illegal accounts and such.

 

The E has the aerodynamic advantage.

 

Why would I go away Peter? I am not doing personal attack on anyone, as opposed to yourself and numerous other members are doing on me.


Shield dictators illegal accounts

Please, I just had to laugh. You are doing a stereotypical mistake it w<s along time ago Ive heard: mixing up the Kingdom of Sweden with the neutral country outside the European Union: Switzerland.

Glad I dont need to use any words againit anyone here you just prove in your own words your knowledge about history, georapghy, physics etc.

For the record.: Sweden does not produce quality watches en masse, have bank immunity and the capital is not Geneva. Sweden does however produce excellent world-class bearings, cell phone nets, Vodka etc.

 

[QUOTE=Gustav]Why would I go away Peter? I am not doing personal attack on anyone.QUOTE]

really?

you call us "ignorrant"

sweden, switzerland, whats the difference. who cares.

youre criteria for banning people

[QUOTE=Gustav]I removed members from my site after they were engaged in discussions with personale attacks on other members. I strive for a positive climate, and whoever who does not like that is free to not join my site. Endless debates with members who refuse to see other posts and is in additoon to this behaving rude I see as contributos to my site.QUOTE]

so engage in self regulation, abusing this forum and ban yourself. but our much appreciated super mod refutes your own words.

[QUOTE What you are saying then is that freedom of speech/thought/press is a valuable commodity as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Is that not a contradiction? How can you have one without the other? Your very own statement about "positive" is confusing. You seem to value it by your participation in these discussions but yet you want to control it and impose your definition as you see it. You afterall are in on these threads defending your positions. That seems to be of great value to you or you would not continue. This is positive for all concerned. But yet you want to reserve that right in your arena and categorically state that this would not be permitted if you were in control. It would also seem that requests for information/clarification are squelched by you but on this board you yourself are asking for it and are receiving it.QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Gustav]Maybe because I refrain from namecalling.QUOTE]

no you dont. nor do you post or reply to supposed banable offenses.

[QUOTE=Gustav]Hello and interesting way of conersation. I ban people who dont behave and adhere to the rules. That is flaming and personal attacks. You fit that criteria.QUOTE]

please take your own advice.

[QUOTE=Gustav] Ultimate kill. SL55 vs M5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At last

Guess who wins


http://www.bmwm5.com/movies/m5vssl55amg.mpg

more here:

http://www.bmwm5.com/vbulletin/show...&threadid=31224
__________________
www.bmwm5.com QUOTE]

this is a heavily modded car against a stock sl55. and through 4 pages there is no reply by you. isnt that enciting? flaming to be more correct???

 

The video was and his hosted by me. I received it by mail.

 

so what? you posted it here simply to post a flame as evidenced by YOUR statement and smileys.

 

Impro-man, can I ask you a question. All this talk of the superfast SL55 & CLS55 & whatever. These cars have different rear-end, cD, weight, etc. WHy not just use the damn E55? Is there any reason you keep avoiding using those tests? Sport Auto has tested 3 of them. I will ignore the E55 Estate as the weight is higher (not much though). Here's the stock E55, which was a second faster than the E55 Estate. So we know this one was fast.

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm



Test in sport auto 01/2003
Gewicht 1944 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
===============
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

Here's a Brabus E55K. Chip, pulley + exhaust. POwer is 530hp & 575lb/ft.

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/brak82003-1.htm



Test in sport auto 8/2003
Gewicht 1975 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
================
0 - 200 km/h 14,5 s

As you can see it is 0.3 faster than the stocker to 60mph, & 0.6 seconds quicker to 100mph & 0.7 quicker to 112.5mph. Most of the damage against the stock car seems to be under 112mph. After that I think heat soak gets to it as the cooling is not designed for this type of power.

I've also seen it on an RS where the chipped car gets on higher boost through the 2nd & long 3rd gears & heat builds up with the higher boost. Then the heat build up causes the car to lose out in 4th gear. Anyway, a boosted car does its damage in the mid-range as at high rpm most aftermarket chips run back to stock boost.

I'm not sure about an E55 but on an RS6 which boosts 0.8-0.9, an MTM chip boosts 1.3-1.4bar from 3000-5500. After that the chip runs the boost back down to 0.9 to redline. No use trying to force boost on a car where the hardware limitation of small turbo's can't flow it at high rpm. I believe roots type SC's will be the same.

But in the mid-range the chipped car will make loads of power & torque more & pull a gap on the stocker. Now here's the M5's times from the same mag. I could use other mags like Auto Bild that got faster times, but I think its fair to use the same mag.

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm

Supertest in sport auto 12/2004
Gewicht 1844 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
================
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s

As you can see the M5 is significantly quicker than the stock E55. I know Improviz is going to come with his time to distance speeches, but there shouldn't be a huge disparity there. And any that there is should be in favour of the M5 as in theory it should be better from a stop.

NOW, against the pulley'd 55, the M5 runs pretty even to 100mph, & 112.5. But after that it seems the heat soak issue & M5's high rpm power take over.

Hope to have a civilised discussion on this.

 

Those numbers are fast, M&M. But I don't see it as significantly quicker than what we are actually running with our actual cars. If I run through the traps at 12.06 seconds at 188 km/h, that's pretty close, isn't it? In fact, I was probably at 180 km/h sooner than 11.6 seconds.

That's why these magazine tests mean little to us. That's why we continue to wait for the car to hit our strips. For that matter, these magazine tests should mean little to you. If Gustav's M5 with three passengers and a driver can run to 100 mph 6/10ths faster than Auto Bild and its much lighter car, then what is the value of the magazine?

 

Good data. This is the best data you can get to compare two stock cars, there simply is no better source. The fact is, if you're not going to believe the data in SportAuto, you're going to dispute any data anyone presents from any source.

If you want to do the physics calculations, you can determine the relative distance of each car to the other pretty accurately. According to this data, the E55 and M5 are neck and neck at 120 kph, or 5.9 seconds. At that point, the M5 pulls away at a steadily increasing rate to a 6-7 carlength lead by 200 kph.

 

Enzom, I hear what you're saying. But Sport Auto testing technique is full tank of pump gas & a passenger to handle the V-box GPS equipment in an unprepped surface. Also they leave the tyre pressures stock & don't cool the car. Also the V-box starts timing as soon as the car moves. At a strip there is the roll-out factor that gives you 13" (or so) before you unbreak the beam & the clock starts.

Surely an M5 would also go faster on 2 gallons of fuel, no passenger, lowered rear tyre pressures & fronts overinflated, icing the manifold, race fuel, sticky surface prepped with VHT, roll-out, etc? Isn't it wiser to rather compare the M5 to the E55 Sport Auto tested using the same techniques? Dunno' maybe I'm seeing it wrong but I like to compare cars tested using the same techique & same timing equipment.

 

I understand what you are saying. I really do. But based on my actual experience, I don't find magazine tests to be illustrative of real world conditions. I am talking about well respected car magazines against my actual experiences with the cars that I have owned and the cars that I see (and read about) at the strip. And I am talking about cars that are generally not as quick as the magazine tests, as well as cars that are significantly quicker than the tests, like the E55 appears to be, regardless of the procedures used in the tests.

If the comparison was of two cars on the same day at the same facility using the same procedures, then it serves a COMPARATIVE value - even if the numbers are generally slower or faster in the "real world". The tests you cite are not same day tests. I don't know if they were at the same facility, what DA, etc. That is why it is of limited value, even if conducted by the same magazine. It suggests something, but it doesn't prove anything. There are probably magazines that have tested the M5 and it has proven slower than the E55. I discount those as well. I just don't like treating magazine tests as gospel. And I would say the same thing about the separate tests even if more magazines tested the E55 to be quicker than the M5's they tested. My distaste for magazine tests doesn't change based on the result.

All of this will be finally settled (hopefully) in the fall. Or sooner if someone in Europe can find a drag strip and post time slips. When the M5 gets here, I am sure that people will take it to the strip to see what it can do. Then this will be put to rest. And if it is faster and quicker, then great. It just gives AMG something else to shoot for. Remember, without the E55, the M5 would not be the car that it is, and vice versa.

For the record, I race with the same pump fuel that gets me to work. I don't touch the front tire pressure. I've found that icing the intake is of limited value, and hot-lapping showed a small decrease in mph, maybe .5 mph. Plus, two gallons of gas is way too little. You need at least a 1/4 tank to get weight over the tires. In fact, I actually did better with a 1/2 tank than I did when the reserve fuel light came on. Go figure.

 

Its gonna be hell on wheels I just hope they put a chassis on it that can make use of all the HP in more that straight line. After what I have learned the CLS body is much more involving to drive so probably it will do just fine

Will they use the same engine as in the SL65 ?

The SL65 did not manage to take use of the extra power over the SL55 on the ring, not that it matter for you US guys probably.
The SL55 was actually a tiny bit faster, that shows that to improve on a fast car takes more than just extra HP, when you also add weight as in the case of the SL65.

But it is an amazing car that I would love to try out.

BTW on a long long upwards streetch on the Ring the SL65 hit 167 mph, funny enough exactly the same speed as the M5 on the same spot. Exit speed on the turn leading to the straight was on the SL65 77 mph and on the M5 81 mph so the SL65 did manage to increase the speed more than the M5. ( on a side note the M5 had then been bouncing on its speedlimiter for a few seconds...)

The SL65 did the ring in 8 min 14, 2 sec slower than the SL55 and and 1 sec slower than the M5. Prette even steven if you ask me and extremly fast.

 

I believe the engine in the CLS65 will be that of the SL65. Just like how the E55 engine is the same with the SL55. The difference is going to be in the tuning and pulley setups. The CLS65 should have LSD and better suspension than the standard CLS55. Although, MB will soon be offering an optional sports package for the CLS55 which provides stiffer suspension, LSD, bigger rotars and composite brake pads. At the end of the day it doesn't matter which car is faster (M5, E55, CLS65, etc.), but which car suits each individuals preference. I personally would get the M5 but the wifey wants another MB so I guess we will settle with the CLS55.

 

youre right, the ring means nothing here but i appreciate the tone of your post. simple, straigh-forward, the m equaled the sl on a particular piece and was faster [m], on an exit, thanks. its the way dou...i mean gustav, doenst do it and he can learn alot about posting info on different cars to a website forum of a different car.

 

I'd like to see it here in the US too. But, it doesn't matter that the tests were conducted in Europe vs here. The car exists and a comparison test was done.

 

I think it does matter, actually. Just as an example, what if the launch control on the M5 is detuned as it is on the M3? What if compliance with CA's stricter emissions standards requires some further tweaking. What if the bad experience with NHTSA frontal crash tests on the regualr 5 series causes BMW to add some additional structural supports (weight) to the front of the car. Who knows. Maybe it changes. Maybe it doesn't. I have no idea.

 

Donno...but, you would think whatever restrictions apply to the M5 applies to any other car also.

 

Wrong and wrong. Force=mass*acceleration. This holds true whether the body is in motion or not. Less mass with same force = more acceleration. Try taking a physics class.

As to aerodynamics, you're totally wrong (which seems to be a trend); the E55 has a superior drag coefficent to the SL55.

From Mercedes: E55 Cd: 0.27

From Mercedes: SL55 Cd: 0.30

Nice try, but totally wrong.

Have you? Were your tests instrumented? Didn't think so. Do you have any instrumented tests from 200 up? Haven't seen any yet, but if you do, please post them.

Congratulations! This claim has now taken the mantle of the most incredibly ignorant and monumentally arrogant statement I've seen yet in this forum. I believe I know my father, and you don't. And he told me to tell you you're an arrogant, snotty Swede who is unworthy of the title of "moderator".

The problem is that you don't seem to have any qualms about quashing others' freedom of expression on your own forum while simultaneously taking advantage of your right to practice it here.

I.e., as I said: you are a first class hypocrite. Thank you for admitting it.

Perhaps that might be because here trolls like you are tolerated, while in your forum people are banned by your decree whenever they do not please his majesty.

 

Yes, the SL55 is heavier and has a poorer Cd, so it would be poorer from a roll. It has better launch traction, however, due to being heavier and having wider tires. Illustrates my point: that if SL55 can hang with more weight and poorer Cd, E55 should be just fine.

Is there any reason why you're not reading my posts? I did cite E55 test data, dummy....click here to see my first post in this thread:

Hello? Earth to M&M...anyone home??

Fine job of ignoring the point. The point is that with only 0.8 separating the cars from 0-125, *and* with the well-known fact that in these tests the M was taking full advantage of its launch advantage, which it would not have in a rolling start, the M is not enough faster in time-speed to have the time-distance advantage being claimed.

I will make this easy for you. Can you please point me to one comparison test, anywhere, where two cars tested 0.8 apart from 0-125 mph were tested more than a tenth or two apart in a 1/4 mile race, if even that? We already saw that in two previous examples I cited, cars which were two full seconds apart at this speed ran in one case identical and in a second case 0.2 apart 1/4 mile times.

Here are more. Car & Driver, August 1999. Camaro SS, Pontiac Trans Am, Mustang GT.

1/4 mile time:
Camaro SS: 13.9@103
Pontiac Trans Am: 13.9@103
Mustang GT: 14.6@98

0-130 mph time:
Camaro SS: 24.6
Pontiac Trans Am: 22.8
Mustang GT: 31.8

Facts: SS ran 1.8 seconds slower to 130 than Trans Am, but the two tied in 1/4 in time and trap speed. Mustang was 7.2 seconds slower to 130 than SS, and 9 seconds slower to 130 than Trans Am, but was exactly 0.7 slower to 1/4 mile than both. The M5 and E55 are 0.8 seconds apart at 125.

Car & Driver, October 1999 BMW M roadster vs. Honda S2000.

1/4 mile time:
S2000: 14.4@98
Boxster: 15.0@93

0-130 time:
S2000: 24.1
Boxster: 28.2

Fact: cars were four full seconds apart at 130, but only 0.6 apart at 1/4 mile. The M5 and E55 are 0.8 seconds apart at 125.

December 1999. Mitsu Eclipse GT vs Toyo Celica GT-S
1/4 mile time:
Eclipse GT: 15.4@91
Celica GT-S: 15.7@90

0-120 time:
Eclipse GT: 30.7
Celica GT-S: 35.7

Fact: cars were five full seconds apart at 130, but only 0.3 apart at 1/4 mile. The M5 and E55 are 0.8 seconds apart at 125.

September 1999: Mercedes C43 vs BMW M3

1/4 mile time:
C43: 14.6@99
M3: 14.6@95

0-130 time:
C43: 29.2
M3: 33.2

Fact: M3 was four full seconds slower to 130 than C43, but tied it in 1/4 mile. The M5 and E55 are 0.8 seconds apart at 125.

FACT: M3 AND E55 ARE 0.8 SECONDS APART AT 125. THIS IS FAR CLOSER THAN THE EXAMPLES CITED IN THIS POST. ERGO, TO STATE THAT THE M5 WILL BE NOTABLY FASTER IN 1/4 MILE IF AT ALL IS WISHFUL THINKING.

Yes, as anyone can see by reading the examples above.

Show one example where two cars 0.8 apart at 125 were tested appreciably different in a 1/4 mile race. Put up or shut up.

 

I can't believe you go through all this effort when I have already said many days ago that the difference on the 1/4 mile will be only 0.2-0.3. SO basically I'm agreeing with you.

We were talking about 0-125mph, which none of these cars do over the 1/4. After you cross the line the gap will widen to 0.8 at 125 & the keep getting wider. But on the 1/4 it will be close.

 

Slowly backing away from your claims...don't you recall the following message you sent me?

This means that when tested in the US, the M5 will run an 11.9 to a 12.0, right? You're sticking to this?

Care to hazard a guess on what its trap speed will be as well, oh great prognosticator?

Oh, and you ignored my earlier request, so here it is again (Gustav and/or Erik, please feel free to do the same): would you care to cite one example from anywhere where two RWD cars tested at 0.8 apart at 125 mph were 0.3-0.4 apart at the 1/4 mile? Just one would be great...really. Got one?

I'm waiting....

 

What has 0-125 got to do with the 1/4 mile? E55 traps 115 & M5 119. So they are nowhere near 125 over the 1/4 mile. They would need a longer stretch to reach to reach those speeds.

 

the m5 traps pretty damn fast but the times over the 1/4 will be quite close, its just that the m5 will be pulling away (or gaining) when they cross the line, the trapspeed says it plain and simple.

Improviz i don't think people are claiming that since the m5 is quicker to 200kph by 0.5-1sec that the same will eventuate in the 1/4. Incase people don't understand the difference between time to distance and time to speed bare in mind that it is possible for a car can be slower from 0-100kph but be infront of a car that records a faster 0-100 time.

I've done some quick SS calcs using numbers from a few euro mag sources and those numbers show the m5 at about 12.4-12.6 at approx 117-118mph. So the m5 will at worst hang with the 55's in the 1/4.

Improviz do you agree that the M5 can be faster both from a dead stop and roll, unless everyone here agrees that it can be then there is not much point argueing what the margin will be.

 

Heres a test from a MOTOR mag in Oz (same day, test equipment and driver)
SL55 E55
0-100km/h 4.90sec 4.81sec
0-400m (1/4mi) 12.90 @111.7mph 12.94@111.9mph
0-1km 23.32 @142.3mph 23.26@ 144.6mph

not much difference between the two