DRCrowder

I find it odd that none of our M5 apologists wanted to talk about this comparison that improviz linked to in another thread. Does this mean that in real world testing the E55 is faster to 200km (since the E55K is the fastest of the 55K cars)

Link to SL55 vs E60 M5




**Edit: the title was supposed to be a question, not a statement.

skratch77

I read somewhere that the m5 did the ring in 7.53 I wonder what the m6 and m6csl will do it in.

Why dont we wait and see what a final production car that some person owns and not a test car does it in. then we can compare.

That time is not right theres no way bmw spent the last 6 years making a new m5 be slower than the old one around the ring.

Improviz

Auto Motor und Sport (same German mag which tests all of these cars around the 'ring using Horst von Saurma as the pilot) tested it at 8'13", one second slower than the SL55's 8'12".

Acceleration data was also a virtual tie:
0-xxx............SL55.......E60 M5
0 - 40 Km/h...1,4 s.......1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h...2,2 s.......2,3 s
0 - 80 Km/h...3,1 s.......3,5 s
0 - 100 Km/h...4,3 s.....4,5 s
0 - 120 Km/h...5,6 s.....5,9 s
0 - 140 Km/h...7,1 s.....7,4 s
0 - 160 Km/h...9,4 s.....9,2 s
0 - 180 Km/h...11,2 s...11,6 s
0 - 200 Km/h...13,8 s...13,8 s

M5 did get a better time around Hockenheim, which I would expect: it is a shorter track, where weight differences are amplified compared to the longer 'ring.

Click here for the comparison:

Belmondo

Wow, somewhere, than it is definitly true.

M&M

Well that would be fine & well as proof if the self-same most respected mag in Europe hadn't actually tested the E55. Fortunatly they have tested the E55 in many tests & comparo. Here's an E55 T tested by SPort Auto 7/2004:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amgt2004-1.htm

Test in sport auto 07/2004
Gewicht 2046 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,6 s

Here's a Brabus tuned E55 with 530hp:

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

Belmondo

I'll take this time slip from the track done by person fron the forum over your bull s hit, buddy. THte y must have been running that E55 in reverse in that magaine. I'm sure there will be 5.0 sec from 0-60mph for hte new E60 M5 somewhere once M5 showes up for sale. THe notion that E55 is slower than MB states while E60 M5 is faster from what BMW claimes is just a tipical BS coming from you. Someone should make you eat all hte bull s hit you make up/post. Some people are still waiting for you to show up at hte track with YOUR M3. Where are you ?

M&M

Belmondo you're an intelligent dude, right? Are you calling Sport Auto bull****? Then this whole thread is bull**** 'cos the source of all track-challenge's numbers is .... guess what? That's right Sport Auto, the most most respected car magazine probably in the world.

ALlso Einstein, that E55 is fast, no doubt. But you know you can't compare times from different continents. BEsides the fact of continental drift, you have totaly different surfaces & conditions. How much difference can it make. Well Autocar tested the E55 1/4 mile at 13.0 but they use a dusty airfield. A person with a college degree will agree with me that you gotta' test the cars at the same time on the same surface with the same driver. Under such conditions (as autocar, Auto Zetiting, Sport Auto have found), the M5 is 0.3-0.4 faster over the 1/4 & 0.7-1.0 faster to 124mph.

And what's with the peronal attacks. Someone posts a link & I post more links FROM THE SAME SOURCE!

DRCrowder

nice try

1. car in the first test is about 200kg's heavier than a us spec E55

2. stock for stock man, who knows what they did to that car to make it run those crappy #'s

have a great day =)

amdeutsch

Care to explain how that is supposed to factor in. Is the contintental drift in the same direction as the race? Would this therefore imply that if the drift is opposite you get quicker times because you get a shorter distance.

>> versus <>

M&M

Dr, think about your logic for a minute. You want to accept Sport Auto's test of the SL55 & discount the same mag's tests of the E55. So one can just 'choose' which test to use or not to back up your argument. That's great. I 'choose' to use the Auto Zeiting test where the M5 did 4.2 to 62.8mph & was a full second faster than the E55 to 124mph.

M&M

OK so know I'm going to play a trump card that's going to throw this whole argument on its head. Here's the same mag's test of the CL65. Let's see the brainpower & deductive reasoning start working when you play MErc vs MErc.

Remember this is the same mag testing at the same location with the same drivers using the same technoques running the same fuel, etc. The only difference is the conditions on the day.:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/cl65amg2004-1.htm
Test in sport auto 08/2004
Gewicht 2109 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s

So, if I'm hearing correctly you guys are claiming that the E55 is faster than a SL65. You see how this comparing tests can go around in circles? The only valid tests are those done head to head & the M5 is quicker. HEre's the head-to-head-same-day test of M5 vs CLS55:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/cls55amg2004-1.htm
Test in ams 23/2004
Gewicht 1960 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 130 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,5 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e602004-1.htm
Test in auto zeitung 23/2004
Gewicht 1820 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

If anyone wants to doubt the source, well its the same source as the orginal link that started the thread - Sport Auto.

Have a nice day.

moa4r

even though this became yet another idiotic e55/m5 thread and

look at the times in the first post (comparison between sl55 and new m5)

the accelation times are almost the exact same, the sl beat the m5 by exactly 1 sec on the Nuerburgring and the m5 beat the sl by exactly 2 secs on the Hockenheim so exactly how does that show that the E55 (not even the car being compared) is faster than the m5?

enzom

Great. More magazine racing. I haven't personally seen any same day comparison of the M5 and E55. I did read a British magazine comparison of the CLS55 and M5 (Car?) a month or so ago, and the cars were pretty much dead even in straight line acceleration. In fact, I think the CLS was a bit quicker to certain speeds.

But the true test is how owners do. When the M5 finally ships out, and customers take them to the strip, we will see what the car can do. Our E55's are here in our garages. We have taken them to the strip. I am not alone in running times that were better than the quickest tested times for an E55 in US magazines - showroom stock. And those magazine times are damn quick to begin with.

When an M5 owner runs a 12.1 @ 120 mph, then we can make comparisons. I have a feeling that M5 owners will be dissappointed to have waited so long for a car that can't walk an E55. And this from a guy that had two E39 540's that he loved.

M&M

MoA4R, you hit the nail on the head. A 500hp SL55 (the one that was tested) is hardly the same car as the E55. But hey, their E55 must have been sick so let's use that test as gospel.

Enzom, there have been 2 head to head tests. The one you are referring to was veen until 60mph, but the M5 was 0.7 faster to 124mph.

SA also did a head-to-head as you can see & the M5 was 1.5 secs faster than the CLS55 to 124.

I doubt the M5 won't be able to walk the E55. Its simple matter of power to the wheels in the racing rev-range & power to weight ratio.

blando

So how does continental drift factor in?

DRCrowder

That is NOT an US Spec E55 it is 2045kg's vs. 1835kgs. You think that's fair?!?

I'm not trying to make this a bickering match, I just wanted to prove my point, to myself, that when you all were posting "estimates" that beat the E55, and we disagreed and you told everyone here to have an open mind that you would never do the same in return.

So I posted the comparison of an 55K and E60 same track, temps and barometric pressure listed and are similar to see if you follow your (Merdath, Skratch and M&M) own advice and "keep an open mind". You don't.

The proper response would be "The 55K won (or tied to 200km) for that specific comparison, but the E60 is so new, and unfamiliar to the test drivers at this point they can't be getting their best times. I wouldn't get all excited about this one because I am sure that the next comparison to a 55K could easily swing to the BMW side. I feel confident that with this rivalry, BMW wouldn't release this car if they can't call it 'the fastest 4 door production car'" (Skratch tried a half-@ss version of this but blew it by saying he "read" that it did the ring in 7.53...... yawn...)

But none of you do that, you dismiss a valid test because you don't like result and then show the tests from cars 400+lbs heavier saying that is the same thing. If you're going to do that, be sure to get Car and Driver, Road and Track and MotorTrend tests that ALL have the E55 12.4 - 12.5 1/4 mile and a 4.2 - 4.3 0-60

I hope you realize that your credibility is now compromised.

I am on the M5 list @ Main Line here in PA because I can’t decide which car will be the best for me , and I want to own the best. That’s open minded.

I'm not going to let this turn into a 5 page argument, where I keep posting links to facts since asking any of you to be open minded would be an effort in futility. I got what I wanted out of this, thanks =)

M&M

Geez dudes, the continentral drift comment was a joke Cracking myself up here trying to figure out what you guys are thinking.

Dr, fair enough. But, correck me if I'm wrong, didn't Autocar get 12.3 @ 119 for the M5 on the airfield they use. And Us mags often test up 0.5 faster than Autocar & the German mags. German mags use 2 people in the car & full tank of fuel. More or less real world conditions. Autcar's surface is pretty dusty (E55 got 13.0 there due to the ridiculous traction on the day).

So if the European mags are getting 12.3-12.5 for the M5, I'm willing to bet the US mags with their special testing surfaces will get some VERY impressive times. But hey, I could be wrong so let's wait & see.

DRCrowder

To be honest, I hope they do. If the M5 comes in at high 11's @ 120ish and handles as well as is expected, then it'll be a car worth owning.

Improviz

Basically, what he does is troll the Internet, seemingly full time. He trolls here, and in the Audiworld forums using multiple accounts, and has been doing it for years (read my links below for proof).

All he does is make dubious claims and/or post data showing a point, then when confronted with data showing his claims are illogical, contradicted, or flat-out false, he'll either make lame excuses, attack the messenger, or change the subject. Click here for a prime example of his dubious logic and dishonest & evasive tactics:

*And* he lies like a rug, as I showed here and here:

In this thread, it is quite amusing to see him on one hand accusing people of cherry-picking data to support their argument, while himself doing the very same thing.

Witness his ridiculous test numbers for the CL65. He knows fully well that this test was a fluke; indeed, I have shown him, in this thread, that Auto Motor und Sport tested the SL65 significantly faster than this, and it weighs more with the same motor:
Auto Motor und Sport's test of SL65:

Test results:
0-100 km/h: 3.9 seconds (the fluke CL65 took 3.9 to get to 80!)
0-200 km/h: 12.6 seconds (the fluke CL65 took 13.8)

Road & Track tested the SL65 in this month's issue. Results:
0-60: 4.0
0-80 (128 km/h): 6.0
0-100 (160 km/h) : 8.3 (9.8 in the CL65 fluke test)
1/4: 12.0@122.8

Motor Trend tested the CL65:
0-60: 3.8
0-80: 5.9
0-100: 8.5
1/4: 11.8@120.9

Clearly, the CL65 test he's quoting was a fluke, or was run with the parking brake on.

As to Auto Motor und Sport's comparison of the E60 M5 and CLS55: a video of their test (which, again, I provided to M&M in another post, so he is aware of its existence) shows that the two are a lot closer than he's claiming--with a pro at the wheel of the M5: Translation of Auto Motor und Sport's test video: right click, save as... . Also note that AMS picked the CLS55, NOT the M5, as the overall winner.

Motor Trend also compared the new M5 against the E55, and estimated that the E55 is faster. Results:

Finally, Autocar did a highway run with a CLS55 against an E60 M5. Results:
in a rolling-start race from triple digits to rev limiter, M5 could not close gap with CLS55: (click here for complete article)

Typical M&M. Absolutely ignores the plethora of test data presented to him on prior occasions which shows his data to be suspect, then accuses others of cherry-picking.

But what else would you expect from a career troll? He has been trolling in the Audiworld forums for nearly four years now, and has as of late decided to grace us with his presence. He's not interested in the truth or honest debate, only in pissing people off. Strange...we get so many Bimmer owners here doing this...one can only conclude that the superior cachet of the Mercedes brand really sticks in their craw.

Belmondo

I remember him posting someone elses videos here from all over the internet and challenging anybody to show up at hte track---as soon as two guys poped up in hte same location as he is this clown vanished. To this day two guys with C32,s and C55's are are looking for him.
Improviz--you spend way to much affort on this dufus.

MBAMGPWR

M&M=

M&M

Actually I'm the one that beat 2 different C55's at 2 different venues with a stock M3 & have the videos to prove it. Who wants to see the video again. Impro, you dying to see my video again?

Anyway, that's off topic. So this CL65 was a fluke. So what if I say the SL55 in the test was also a fluke. 2 seonds faster than a tuned E55 to 124. I guess the tuned E55 was also a fluke 'cos it was so slow.

Anyway, Impro, answer me this one question? In the AMS test you refer to where the reults were close, whch car was faster. Though so, man. Thanks for mentioning it. tied to 60, but M5 0.7 faster to 124.

And in Autocar's test was it not the same. Thanls again for not mentioning that. Also you say the M5 couldn't close the gap. But wait, what;s this? Is this not the same mag that said the M5 PULLED 15 CARLENGTHS TO 150 ON AN E55? So wise-guy, you can't have your cake & eat it. If you want to accept what Autocar says about the CLS55, then you have to accept what they say about the 15 carlength gap.

LAstly, Auto Zeiting chose the M5 over the CLS55. As did Autocar. Have a nice day.

amdeutsch

Was that with the tektonic plates shifting or without? Oh, I forget; this time the rotational forces of our planet came into play as well. :p

M&M

Hey Belmondo, after that Impro-super-man posted a link askinf all C32/55 owners in the area to rock up & challenge me. I even challenged the self-proclaimed fastest C32 in the land to rock up. Well no-one rocked up & I went to the track withou them. Want a link? BTW did I mention the C32 that went to the track did a 15.0 average & 14.8 best 1/4 mile?

Improviz

You've already admitted that you weren't stock when you did this, as can be seen by reading the associated thread. And as I pointed out: you resort to your first favorite technique: change the subject.

The only problem is that I've provided three tests backing up the CL55, to your zero showing the SL55 was a fluke. Technique number two: only M&M's data is valid, no matter what the weight of any contrary evidence presented.

That may be, but it also shows that the numbers you posted, which you claimed was taken from this very test, were absolutely, totally FALSE. Both 0-100 and 0-200 figures are shown in the video, and the CLS55 numbers are nowhere close to those presented by you earlier.

Proof of this claim? Given that we routinely see bone stock E55's running in the mid-to-low 12's, (latest example: SGC, running a 12.1 bone stock; see his thread on main page if you doubt), I find your claim highly suspect, given that to pull 15 carlengths would mean the M5 is running low 12's to high 11's. And since the same mag stated, in an article that I've seen and posted links for, that the M5 couldn't outrun the CLS55 in a high-speed rolling-start race, and the CLS's Cd is *worse* than the E55's, and that both cars weigh the same, have the same engine/driveline/gearing, it seems highly implausible.

I haven't seen the 15 carlength article. I have seen the no gap article. I have also seen Auto Motor und Sport's data showing a 0.7 split to 150, which in no way, shape, or form would be 15 carlengths, but would rather be a virtual tie.

Autocar gave both cars five stars, so whoopee...not a crushing blow, but a subjective opinion. And Auto Motor und Sport chose the CLS55, as can be seen by viewing this video: if you like letting other people make your choices for you, then I guess the M5 is the car for you! And if you're into cars that look like the Batmobile, and score poorly in crash tests, it's the obvious choice!

Thank you for proving my point about the techniques you use, btw!!