And Impro, not that I need to prove anything, but if you read Autocar for a while you will notice that they kee complaining about the "dusty surface" which is an airfield. In fact read the review where they tested the M5. They got 12.8 WITHOUT USING LAUNCH CONTROL. THey left foot braked, They said the traction was so bad that LC would cause the tyres to go up in smoke.

Anyway, they tested the E55 & got 13.1 at the same place so I'm sure the E55 also had traction issues there. Obviously I can't prove any of this. Nor do I care to. The point is the M5 was faster on the same surface & trapped 4mph more.

It's been fun but I'm out of here. I have posted actual test results from actual magazines. Chimp, you keep projecting what the E55 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the E55 REALLY did in the tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.

 

In other words, you're just blowing ignorant nonsense as usual, as I suspected.

Which can be taken with a grain of salt, given the results in all other mags...just like the 12.8 they ran in the M5, eh loser? Btw, I have searched for this 13.1 in the E55, and haven't been able to locate a scan, and Autocar's website has only one test of an E55, the estate--not the salon. Can you please link this Autocar 13.1 second E55 test or post it? I'd like to read it.

No, it hasn't, because as you are so fond of pointing out: they were tested on different days.

Why did you start this thread projecting what the M5 would do based on the M6? WTF??

The same magazine tested the M5. They got 13.8 to 124. So why did you use M6 data when you started this thread?

Here is their test data for the M5.
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm
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

Note that ALL FOUR M6's for which you provided test data were faster to 200 than the M5; the first one got there in 12.8 seconds, the second got there in 13.2, the third got there in 13.1, and the fourth got there in 13.0.

So, to use your very own argument: WTF?? Why did you use the M6 data? Oh, because it's faster, and because it's OK for you to use data from the M6 to establish performance for the M5, but not OK for me to use the SL55 to illustrate the performance potential of the E55.

And why are you twisting things around as usual? Point was, again since you're too much of a moron to grasp it, that when ***I*** used the SL55 data to illustrate the E55's potential, you claimed it was **wrong** for me to do it, and yet you felt perfectly justified in using the ***M6***'s data to illustrate the ***M5***'s potential in starting this thread.

THAT is the point of debate. I'm NOT going to let you twist this around and evade by resurrecting a previous argument. Your hypocrisy and dishonesty were exposed repeatedly, and that was the intent--not to let you worm your way out of it by your time-tested technique of changing the argument when you're busted, nailed, and cornered.

And I notice you had no comment on your moronic, false assertion that the Cd of the M5 and M6 were the same, when BMW's own website lists the M6 at 0.26 and the M5 at 0.32--a marked difference. Lying out of your *** as usual.

 

Another lie. Here is their test. It says NOTHING about a "dusty airfield", or even an airfield! In fact, despite your numerous, patently false assertions to the contrary, it plainly states that the vehicle was tested on a track:

Oh, yeah, they don't use a track, that's obvious.

I did. Obviously, you didn't. No "dusty airfield" mentioned.

As pointed out previously: this test isn't on their site, but if you can find a copy, I'd love to read it. Do you have one you can scan?

Test results for the M6 ,which you were using to project what the M5 would do.

And how hypocritical art thou? Let me count the ways:



Hypocrite, you keep starting threads wherein you project what the M5 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the M5 REALLY did in tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.



And judging from the caliber of your posts, I'd say you knock yourself out quite often.

 

finally!! Cya

 

oh my god -_- just let it go........

excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!

anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)

 

Are you sure it was a new M5? My understanding is that they are still months away from our shores.

 

Hey Chimp, I'm not predicting what the M5 will do. It's been tested. It's faster than the E55.

ANd the M6 IS faster than the M5. I never said otherwise.

 

M&M you are trolling here too? man you really need some help. Get a life you f****ing Looser! you need to get ban.

 

476bhp vs 507 bhp......u r thick

 

I have owned many BMW and like them too. Just remember, the W211 E55 is 4 years old already and not much slower than the new M5. It is possible for MB to embarass BMW in short order. Then BMW will play catchup and the game goes on. You take it too seriously. Lighten up and have some fun. Don't troll but participate and maybe you will be more welcome.


Rgds,
Norm

 

Talking about tests, it has been tested that the M5 is significantly slower than the RS6+:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=55987

In fact, the new M5 is actually slower than the Cadillac CTS-V from 10-160km/h and the Volvo S60R, Cadillac CTS-V, RS6+ and VW GTI all beat the new M5 from 10-80km/h.

Anyway, all these tests don't make much sense after awhile, at the end of the day, it depends on ones needs.

Not that the M5 is a slow car, but it definitely belongs to the track more than the street.

 

As a former BMW fan (owner of a M540 6spd, 528 sport, M3) and a BMWCCA race crew I have to agree that the new M5 and M6 look like aborted Japanese Transformers. It looks as if at any second they will morph into robots or *******ized hovercraft. It's like looking at a bride of Frankenstein with breast implants grafted on the neck. Yuk

 

Not in any head-to-head 1/4 mile test I've seen, namely because there IS no head to head 1/4 mile test. The E55 has been tested at 12.3 here stateside, and I seriously doubt that the M5 will be significantly faster than that, if any.

Insofar as the time to speed numbers you keep posting: wow. You act like it's some moon-launch-like feat of engineering that a brand new car with 500 rated horsepower and seven gears tested a bit faster in time to speed than a three year old car with 469 horsepower and five gears.

As pointed out to you previously: this is entirely due to its having two more gears. As I've also pointed out to you before, a less-than-one second margin of victory to 125 mph means that the two will be pretty much even-steven in a 1/4 mile race. We'll see how things stack up when the new AMG seven speed auto comes out.

Boy, you guys really are sore about having gotten *****-slapped by the E55...your little small ***** fragile egos can't handle getting slapped around, can you?

You never said it was either. You implied that they're the same speed, despite data plainly showing the M6 was faster, until someone ELSE (reggid) pointed out that the M6 is faster.

No, you never said it wasn't faster than the M5, lol....you just started this thread, which is entitled "M5 faster than SRT10 Viper", using the M6's acceleration numbers. In the lone piece of M5 data you posted in the original post, the Viper was actually tested *faster* to 100, 9.59 to the M5's 9.71, which put the lie to your original claim. Which is why you hypocritically used data from another car, the M6, to try and establish the M5's acceleration, hoping nobody would read your original chart too closely, even though it plainly showed that the Viper accelerated faster.

But that just goes to show, as does the other lies I've busted you in in this thread (the dusty airfield lie, the Cd of the M6 and M5 being equal lie, etc...oh, and then there's this Autocar test you keep citing of the E55 running a 13.1, which as I pointed out does not appear on their website....I've asked you to post it it four times now, and you've ignored me each and every time...where is it?

Also, you claimed that the Italian magazine which tested the M5 at a 12.7 also tested the E55 slower. Can you offer any proof of this claim??

For obvious reasons, I don't take anything you say on its face any more, and so would like to see hard data backing up these two claims. We all saw what happened with the "dusty airfield" claim, after all....

 

Imp, you acting like a kid man. Why don't you just accept that the M5 is faster than the E55? Like you said, it has more horsepower, less weight & 7 gears. So it should be faster. No rocket science required.

But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.

Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.

 

Please keep this promise ("...I'll just keep quiet & wait for that.")...I guess we'll here from you next year then. I can't wait.

Don't let the troll door hit your @ss!

 

Who is complaining the M5 has 7 gears? Can't you read? He is saying the M5 is quicker partly because it has 7 gears?

relax, no one is doubting the M5, it is definitely faster than the E55 but stop stating the obvious mate.

And just exactly how many times have you eaten your own words with the time you post in here?

I can't wait to see you eat your words AGAIN when the new E AMG comes out. We'll start posting M5-bashing in M5 forums.

 

Once again....still arguing...

You guys are ...

Use you logic...how can BMW which is main competitor of Mercedes, make NEW M5 slower the 3 year old E55K???

NEW stock M5 is faster then stock E55K and that is the truth!!! Why some 55K owners cant admit IT

There has been a thread before when an owner of BOTH cars admitted, that the higher the speed the faster M5 (m5 was not fully broken in) over E55K...speaking from experince...Stop this BS...

New E63 will be as fast or faster then E60 M5 and it will continue forever...

 

Now the other question is will tuned M5 be faster then Tuned E55k?

FLAME ON BROTHERS LOOOL

 

I for one am glad the M&M put this info on here. Just for the record I have had 2 '04 E55s and I now have a CLS55. My $ vote has gone to MB in the past. I am also considering the M5/M6 as I am 1st and 3rd respectively on the waiting list. You guys need to grow up and stop being insulted by the fact that there are cars faster than the AMG cars we have. I love my CLS. It is a great car in every respect, but that doesn't mean that the M6 won't eat my CLS for lunch. I will most likely pass on the M5 and just wait for my M6 to hit. THe look of the 5 series is the reason. I also prefer the interior of my CLS over the 5 series, but I like the interior of the 6 a lot more.

I like seeing the comparisons...it is entertaining and interesting.

The fact that those tests took place at the same time as the other cars in the comparison holds more weight than all of the speculation. What are you all so afraid of??? Time to grow up and stop taking this **** personally.

 

Come on guys. We all know that the M5 will ultimately be faster in cases where both drivers are experts at launching their cars. We also all know that in 99% of street races the end result will be driver dependent and could easily go to the torque-rich monster E55.

 

Please heed your own advice. Come back next year when the M5 is released and track tested by owners.

 

Best pissing contest I have ever seen. We should all just sit back and be thankful we have the means to be able to drive any of the cars mentioned here.

 

It's easier said than done. I highly suspect most M5/M6 fans who argue for their merits here on a Mercedes board actually do not own or even plan to buy any of these cars in the near future.

 

It's not even that...people throw up crap on the forum on comparisons that aren't valid, wrought with incomplete information or misleading info, then feign disrespect when a forum member counterpunches...All most rationale people here expect is compare apples to apples without making fallacious extrapolations.

Wait till an actual comparison of the two cars are done head to head under the same conditions and controls. Then all the spec heads can **** at each other all day long. I love my cars and feel lucky to have what I have...No amount of copy and paste magazine spec head can rain on that parade, especially when I can turn off the computer and actually sit in my ride and drive it, while copy and paste boy is still scanning/typing away.

Peace.

 

Where is the Autocar article you keep citing wherein an E55 was tested at 13.1? As pointed out previously: they do not have the article on their website. I'd really like to read it.

I'd also like to see the Italian mag which you claimed tested the E55 slower than the M5, which they tested at a 12.7...can you also provide a scan or link to one for this as well?