HLG600

Improviz, just because I think you are ****-obsessive who places too much weight in his internet forum reputation (I'm just playing with you) doesn't mean I wont discuss something that has come to my attention which I have overlooked in a quick reply to a thread.

My term paper (the one you kept me from working on ) is done! I can relax for a short while, and discuss something I love very much.

Now, the soft launch has come to my attention. But this next link is also one to take a look at because it is a timeslip Rauch posted. According to the post, he played with his tire pressures, with 45 psi up front and 32 psi in back - which was his explanation to the 60' time.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...%2F4+mile+time

Discuss.

Improviz

....congratulations on finishing your term paper. However, I've got better to argue what is, and is not, possible in an M5 on street tires launching at 2,000 rpm with you. If you believe it, fine. I say it's bull****, and can't be done as described.

And the thing is, I've driven the M5, raced the M5, beaten the M5, and my car isn't a high-12 car. Further, none of the *other* E39 M5s at dragtimes.com managed to score better than a 2.1 60'...which won't make any difference to you because you know nothing about how significant the difference is between a 2.1 and a 1.89, or else you wouldn't be trying to make such a stupid argument in the first place.

But as you demonstrated in defending SL Brabus even after I caught him red handed posting a forged time slip in a made up story about a track excursion, you are both intellectually dishonest and gullible in the extreme.

So believe whatever you want, but I've got better things to do than to get into another multi-page bull**** festival with you, your pretzel logic, non sequiturs, and evasions.

So I won't.

blackbenzz

I cut consistent 1.7 60's with Toyo RA1's and no power breaking AMG's have the torque the BMW's lack so you get out the hole real quick. Only problem is traction. Even when I tried launching at 1200rpm the tires break loose.

HLG600

I was just teasing you dude.

Anyway, I spent a few minutes searching on M5 Board and found the link correlating to the dragtimes.com post. Although the launch RPM seems odd, there is a good amount of evidence supporting this run. Improviz, I believe you have jumped too quick to call bull**** on this guy. The slip is legitimate, even down to the number on it matching the number marked on the blue M5, as seen in the photos.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31288

Would this be the "extraordinary evidence" you seek?

HLG600

Oh man, did I just have a great laugh. Apparently, a member on M5 Board with the user-name Improviz_CLK55 posted and congratulated the man whose time is posted on dragtimes.com (links all over this thread).

Now, we have a member on MB World with the user-name Improviz who just happens to drive a CLK55 AMG. Coincidence? I think I'll let the readers decide this one.

Improviz, correct me if I am wrong, but are you calling bull**** on the same guy you congratulated?

Improviz

Not really, unless you can somehow establish that there weren't drag radials mounted up on that car, or other mods....

Further, after already having been faked out by SL Brabus' phony timeslip and defending him afterwards, I suppose that the thought wouldn't occur to you that a timeslip with the number "032" on it and a photo of a car with "032" written on it with grease paint, which can be bought at any auto supply store, does not exactly constitute ironclad evidence that this particular car is, in fact, the car that ran that slip.

Moving right along:

Let the readers decide? Wtf, dude....it's not like I ever denied this is me, and in fact have posted in these forums links to posts I've made in that forum, so you can stop with the half-arsed conspiracy theories.

Indeed I am. When I wrote that in May 2003, 3.5 years ago, I didn't have as much experience w/M5's as I do now. Live and learn....and yes, I'm saying that a 1.89 second 60' time in a stock M5, on stock tires, is not possible. Unlike you, I'm actually capable of changing my mind when confronted with strong evidence, i.e. racing, and driving, M5s.

But if as you maintain the M5 is, stock, a high 12 second car, then by golly, if cool can set up the race with the M5 and the SLK55, well, gee, that M5 oughtta be right there with it, right? So, we shouldn't expect the SLK55 to pull away from it or anything, then, yes?

Now, as I said before: if you want to buy into this, fine...you've demonstrated in previous threads that you're ready to buy into a lot of other silly stuff (like SL Brabus running with an E63 in a car with 100 less (rated) horsepower, for example, in the thread where he produced this forged timeslip).

I don't.

HLG600

Conspiracy theories? Dude, I was being sarcastic. 99% of my comments on this message board are good-humored in nature. I was joking with you before.

The irony in this one. So you initially congratulate the guy who made the run, yet now call bull**** on him...fair enough. I just find this whole thread amusing, that's all. The slip is authentic. You say it is not feasable, yet the data is there to show it. Also, it is not as if Rouch came to the track and banged out 10 consequtive high-12 runs. No, he only managed to pull it off after 9 tries in the 13-second range. Was this dicussion about the likelyhood of a high-12 time, no. Carl inquired whether a high-12 was possible in an E39 M5 and the proof is right before us. Also, Rouch does not appear to be a troll in any way; I am saying this from the several posts of his I read. He appears to be an enthusiast who just took his car to the strip with hopes of nailing his target time.

Surpising considering the rpm at launch? Sure it is. Then again, a good deal of practice to get the perfect launch and overcome a few tenths is not quite the same exaggeration as Enzo's being gunned down by the average Corvette.

HLG

HLG600

Nice! Scapegoating threads which have nothing to do with the documented time of an E39 M5 running a QTR in the high-12s!

Improviz

Scapegoating? I don't think that pointing out, accurately, that you were dumb enough to buy into SL Brabus' bull**** LACR race story hook, line, and sinker, i.e. that SL Brabus, whose car is rated at 400 horsepower (by Brabus) ran 0.1 seconds slower than a 500 horsepower E63 in a 1/4 mile run, a run which, were it not totally fabricated, would have been the fastest run of any E63 in the USA to date I might add.

Yeah, I see that all the time: two cars, both of which weigh the same, one of which has 100 less horsepower, running 0.1 apart in the 1/4 mile.

So no, it isn't scapegoating; it is illustrating a point, namely your rather remarkable credulity and willingness to believe things which are, shall we say, somewhat less than credible, and to stick to this belief regardless of facts which are presented to the contrary.

As I said: if you're right, then the SLK55 will not pull the M5, as both are high-12 cars, bone stock. Right? The M5 won't get pulled, but rather will run right there with the SLK55. So we can sit back and wait for the results to come in. I'm sure that when they do, you'll be willing to reconsider your position, and admit you're wrong, if by some miracle the SLK55 should actually pull the M5.

Right?

Oh, and as to the M5's time being "documented": sure. Youbetcha. So here, just for you, is "documented" proof that I ran a 14.1 @ 97 in a bone stock 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix, the non supercharged V6. Now, I know this is waaay faster than that car was tested at in all of the world's mags, but trust me: it's true! And you can take it to the bank, 'cause you read it on the Internet!! Nosirree, I'm not making this up or fabricating it, no sir, not me!! I really did it!!! Trust me!!

HLG600

Oh no, did I hurt someone's fragile ego?

Tell me, where in the SL Brabus thread is the M5 mentioned? Let me spare you a long response...nowhere. And yes, it is scapegoating. I am arguing against you and you fight back with attacking my credibility. The other thread is irrelevant to the M5, yet it is the backbone to your attack of me. Dictionary.com - look up scapegoat. It might help.

Personally, I would rather post a thumbs-up than dissect someone's post on a messageboard becuase what someone posts doesn't hold much weight beyond entertainment value.

For instance, in the W124 E Class forum, a member posted that the W124 E500 would outrun the R129 SL600. Rather than come out and argue this in a back door smaller-community section of the forum, I just read it, enjoying the link provided, and moved on. Even if someone posted in kill stories about a W124 500 "smoking" and R129 600, my comments would be pleasant and my discussion peaceful. But if it was oh, let's say a 2001 CL600 owner saying he outran a CLK55, I would bet you would be ALL over him defending your "status" here.

Back on track with the M5:

Well, well. The great data man Improviz choses in a surprise move to disregard the data presented to him. Hmm...who would have thought?

Is it really that difficult for you admit that facutal evidence (the timeslip, gentlemen!) has proved you wrong. Or is just that you won't allow yourself to accept that it was me who presented this evidence to you.

Improviz

No, but it sure looks like my pointing out your gullibility hurt your feelings.

I know the definition of scapegoating, and you're about as far off the mark as you can be. I'm pointing out that you're a sap who stakes out a position, and refuses to change your mind, no matter what the evidence, and cited your gullible acceptance of an SL Brabus running 0.1 slower than a car with 100 more horsepower as evidence.

This is not "scapegoating" in any sense of the word: it demonstrates that you're extremely gullible and credible, as can be seen by your idiotic argument that M5s are high 12 second cars.

Bull****. You spent multiple posts arguing with AndrewAZ about how an SL600 like yours could run with an M3. You spent multiple posts arguing about what a great guy SL Brabus is after he got caught lying to the entire forum, posting a forged timeslip, and fabricating a story of his going to LACR and running 0.1 slower than a fictional E63 when the track was not even open. You, who now assail me for "ignoring data", spent multiple posts arguing with me that Brabus cars were producing their rated horsepower, even when I produced multiple examples of respected publications testing AMG cars with *far* less rated horsepower as fast as or faster than Brabus cars with between 50 to 100+ more supposed horsepower. And, last but not least, you are arguing with me now about the M5 being a "bone stock" high-12 car!! So, not only are you gullible, but you are extremely hypocritical.

And it certainly is amazing that then, the data counted for nothing, but now, the data counts for something--the one data point you want to pay attention to, that is, not the multiple data points showing other results, etc.; as usual, the multiple data points showing that you're wrong should be ignored, and the one which you believe showing you're right, even though you admitted the launch sounds like , is The Gospel, the Way, the Truth, and the Light.

So, if we have a dozens of data points showing the M5 to be a low-to-mid 13 second car, and one, which consists of a timeslip, no video, supposedly produced by an M5, in an unverifiable state of tune, shod with unverifiable tires, well, by golly, what other possible logical choice could there be but to ignore those dozens of data points, and accept only this one??

Gee, how could anyone look at this evidence and come to any other possible conclusion?

It makes perfect sense, in the World of HLG600.

Again: you have done exactly the same thing, when you went after AndrewAZ for posting his M3 would trash an SL600. You went after me for providing documented evidence that AMGs with far lower rated horsepower routinely beat Brabus cars with far higher rated horsepower. Your defense then: I should ignore what the tests say, and call Brabus! Yup, that's the way to get accurate info: call up the manufacturer, who has a vested interest in the data, and ignore the test results of automotive publications, who do not.

And that's a funny point, come to think of it; I posted multiple tests from multiple publications showing that Brabus cars were obviously not producing their rated horsepower, and were being soundly beaten by AMG cars rated at as much as 100 less horsepower than the Brabus cars. I provided documentation to show it. So what did you do? Argue for well over a dozen posts that I was wrong, even though the data clearly show that in case after case after case, Brabus cars with far more supposed horsepower were being outaccelerated by AMGs with far less rated horsepower.

Funny how then, the data, which again was a collection of road tests from multiple respected automotive publications from all over the world, was not good enough to sway you, but a timeslip and a photo of a car with a matching number on its windows, which anyone could reproduce with grease paint, constitutes ironclad proof that the M5 is a high-12 car bone stock.

Again: you could convince yourself that day was night if you wanted to believe it. One data point from an anonymous Internet user trumps all of the other road tests of the M5 showing it to be a low-to-mid 13 car. One time slip at dragtimes.com trumps the others showing 2.1 or higher 60' times.

And of course, even the fact that this 12.8 "bone stock" time is the same as what another driver posted for a supercharged M5 wouldn't dissuade you, nor would the fact that no road test, of any publication in the world, ever, has the M5 in the 12's.

So I, who *own* a low-to-mid second 13 car and have run multiple M5s, have driven M5s, have launched M5s, have seen the 60' times they'll pull when launched at 2,000 rpm, am supposed to ignore what the road tests say, what I have seen other drivers do, what I've experienced driving the car and racing the car in my own, and basically ape your credible, gullible behavior and accept just this one guy's claim?

Sorry.

And btw, you're evading again: I asked you a question. Please answer. You believe the M5 to be a high-12 car stock, right? So therefore, if we have a meet at a strip with some M5s and run them against SLK55s, they'll hang with them neck and neck, right?

Right?

Right?

Answer.

This is almost comical. Really. Far from refusing to accept "evidence", I am accepting what the preponderance of the evidence shows. Rather than refusing to look at data, I am looking at what all of the road tests to date have shown. Rather than blindly, gullibly accept a timeslip by one guy on the Internet, I am drawing on my actual experience with M5s, running them from rolls and from standstil, never losing.

The fact is that it is not me who is ignoring at evidence; I am looking at what the preponderance of the evidence clearly demonstrates. It is you who is ignoring all contrary evidence, and, just as you did in the Brabus thread, and in the thread where you defended SL Brabus after his being caught in a forgery and a fabrication, you are twisting, turning, and evading.

HLG600

Let me make this very, very simple. You can dispute the theoretical impossibility of an M5 running a 12.861 QTR all you wish. However, it has been done, and was documented. Is it likely and common for a stock E39 to nail a QTR in the high 12s? Of course not. But, it is possible, and has been proven - the run was fairly well documented on M5 Board. Utilize whatever formula you believe is needed, it won't make a differnce sir. The legitimate slip is still here. My point has been made.

I am done with you.

Improviz

Sure it is, dude...and you just go right on believing what you want to believe, as is your custom, facts be damned. Because as I showed earlier with my Grand Prix example, and as you learned but still refuse to learn from with the SL Brabus forgery example: just because something was posted on the Internet doesn't make it true. People make stuff up to impress the credible.

I could go to the strip this weekend with one of my buds in a Z06, let him run a mid 12, get his slip, write the numbers on my car w/grease paint, snap a pic of the car at the strip with the numbers, and to you this would be ironclad "proof" that a bone stock CLK55 would run a mid 12, despite the fact that no mage has ever tested one this fast, etc., etc....

Great.

Some of us have a higher standard of proof.

blackbenzz

I can run a 6s 1/4 mile and have the time slip to prove it!

Thericker

I found later that it could very well be that Carl, had traded paint so to speak w/original arguers in question.....= none of my business my bad....

Having said that I've never been to the strip, would like to some day but will see...I don't really pay much mind or did I know what older M5's run at the track till now, besides maybe the latest M5 since there was such controversy over the results w/E55Komp guys...

Anyhow....I ran 1 of these older M5's after I 1st got (bone STOCK down to the paper air filters) my C6, didn't think much of it since it was older and I pretty much OWNED him on multiple freeway rolls, (thus I didn't bother reporting about it here until now) we were on the 405 south heading toward San Diego, (Visiting a girl I met out there) so he comes flying up weaving in an out of very light traffic gets directly behind me (w/multiple other lanes open) & of coarse instigates me to drop it into 2nd and I just literally watch him turn into an ant in my rearview....

I'd slow down to 70 ish he'd catch back up & want to go again, I obliged him, I found this to be extremely fun (My new ride & all) no honks, I even let him get the jump on the next 2 runs to see how My C6 fared at catchup?

Couldn't tell age or anything about driver, thing was silver w/blacked out tints, very sharp looking, maybe lowered w/stock bmw wheels (that's all I remember was like 7-8 months ago)

Same results just whoopass!! anyway I report this now because.... I see the comparison beetween old M5 v. SLK55, I also ran & slightly beat a forum members SLK55 from here (I think his handle is "Falco") (freeway roll-ons) I had CAI, & cat-back at this time....

So, I realize my comparison would be useful at this time to this thread, M5 in this thread was either moded, or a factory freak end of disscussion...(If time slip is actually legit!)
My C6 is Auto and obviously a mid to high 12' sec car the older M5 was nothing more than amusement for me, anyone have one here?

No-way is the older M5 hanging w/SLK55

I'd be glad to meet in LA to re-create the carnage..... Carry on gentlemen

tee_tz

Hmmm... interesting.

All I can say is, a 2007 SLK55 vs. 2003 E39 M5, 0-60MPH the SLK55 SHOULD win, I mean it's a brand new car, and it's lighter weight, it's been stuffed with power, but the M5 could certainly win (they are both rated at 4.9 secs) and I wouldn't be very surprised. I've never driven the SLK55, so I'm just basing my information from the numbers.

Nonetheless, I don't know what M5 drivers you guys have been racing but when I drove the M5 (E39), I left a lot of cars (that thought they can compete) in the dust. 400HP helps alot when you're on the highway.

Also, not necessarily with the SLK, but BMW's M's have better handling than Mercedes AMG's, therefore, when it comes to competing on a track, a non-modded M5 vs. a SLK55, it'd be a tight race - but everything being equal, I'd put my money on the M5, if not for the HP and other leading performance advantages, then simply for the manual transmission.

I guess we're all entitled to opinions, that's mine.


And by the way, why are we comparing OLD cars to NEW cars, I mean you're talking about an engine that was made like 10 years ago... Why don't we talk about that new BMW ANIMAL (E60).


Tee_Tz.

Improviz

Which numbers are those? Certainly not road test numbers...all three of the major US mags have tested the SLK55 substantially quicker than the E39 M5.

Which just goes to show that you never raced an SLK55.

The key is how much horsepower the vehicle has, *and* how much weight has to move. The governing equation of physics is force=mass*acceleration, and this is true at all speeds, from rest up to well beyond highway speeds: mass is always a factor. And the M5 has ~4025 pounds/394 horsepower = 10.21 pounds/horsepower, while the SLK55 has ~3400 pounds/360 horsepower 9.44 pounds/horsepower. That's a 7% advantage for the SLK55.

Well, I hate to break this to you, but you'd lose your money. There is a German mag, Sport Auto, which uses the same driver (Horst von Saurma) to ring out these cars, both in acceleration and around two tracks, Nurburgring and Hockenheim. Here are the acceleration and track results for each car:

E39 M5:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e39st1999-1.htm
Supertest in sport auto 03/1999
Gewicht 1833 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,1 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,9 s
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 37,8 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 38,2 m
Nordschleife 8.28 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.18,5 min
Querbeschleunigung 1,1 g
Slalom 18 m - km/h
Slalom 36 m 120 km/h
ISO Ausweichtest 124 km/h

And the SLK55:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/slk55amg2005-1.htm
Test in sport auto 04/2005
Gewicht 1566 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 250 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 36,4 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 35,6 m
Nordschleife 8.24 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.17,1 min
Querbeschleunigung 1,15 g
Slalom 18 m 65,8 km/h
Slalom 36 m 130 km/h
ISO Ausweichtest 136 km/h

So, the SLK was tested substantially faster from 0-all speeds, was 4 seconds faster around Nurburgring (a longer track), and 1.4 seconds slower around Hockenheim, posted better slalom numbers, better braking numbers, etc. etc. etc..

Read the first post in the thread. The comparison was made over on bimmerforums.com; this is simply a discussion as to whether or not what they are claiming is realistic.

tee_tz

Improviz - First, I have to say you are right about most of the things you said. Glad to see you know your stuff.

However, my point comes here: what is achieved by professional drivers cannot be achieved through everyday driving. Hence, when they say the SLK55 has an acceleration of 4.9 (according to MBUSA.com, you will not necessarily achieve that); likewise with BMW's E39 M5, you will not achieve the 4.9 seconds BMWUSA.com claims. Those are very enhanced settings and conditions.

Given that, I think when 2 people who are not professional drivers, in fact, not great driver's (or rather smart driver's if racing on the highway), are driving the SLK55 and the E39 M5, I believe that the M5 will win. The M5's power to weight ratio is quite phenomenal still (although you've worked a 7% advantage to the SLK), it's very balanced and corners extremely well, while your number doesn't show that I can find numbers from both manufactures that do. BUT, I haven't driven the SLK55 (nor raced it), therefore I cannot say that the SLK doesn't provide the same responsiveness, however, I have read quite a few reviews about the car (when compared to the Z4 M Roadster), and the drivers said that the M had better handling than the AMG counterpart - and from BMW Forums most agree that the M5 (E39) handling is one of the best BMW has to date.

Now while the SLK55 is very agile (shorter chassis, lighter weight), I think the power makes up for the M5. But of course my info is premature, I would not know for sure until I get in the SLK55 and drive it.

Either way, if the SLK55 is faster, I doubt it'll be much faster, regardless of what the German driver achieved. I must say the 0-100 kph times raise my eyebrows... The M5 was given a rating of 4.9 by Road & Track and Car & Driver when it was first introduced; therefore, I'm questions this guy's numbers. Also, the SLK's 4.8 secs. to 62 mph is quite dodgy too...

I don't know. I guess I'm not saying the SLK55 is not actually faster, but I am saying that today if I was driving a BMW M5 and someone was driving a SLK55, I think I'd win. (leave driving style, experience, capabilities, etc. aside). I guess I'd need to be proved wrong.


Tee_Tz.

Improviz

You can't compare factory numbers, which are often very conservative, to those of actual tests. For example: Mercedes often simply uses the same numbers as their 0-100 km/h times in Europe for their 0-60 times here, but that extra 2 mph tacks on 0.2-0.3 seconds. So a 4.8 0-100 km/h time is a 4.5-4.6 0-60 time. BMW, otoh, generally updates their 0-60 times to reflect mags' test times (compare the 0-60 times they provided when the M3 first came out to the times they use now).

But again: test results are actual measured runs, by mags, and they are averages, not best-case results.

Here are results from the big three US auto mags for each car:

Car & Driver:
M5 (May 2003):
0-60: 4.9
5-60: 5.3 (rolling start)
0-100: 11.5
0-150: 29.2
1/4 mile: 13.4 @ 108

SLK55 (June 2005):
0-60: 4.3
5-60: 4.6 (rolling start)
0-100: 10.3
0-150: 28.0
1/4 mile: 12.7 @ 111

That's 0.7 seconds faster, about seven carlengths, for the SLK55 in the 1/4 mile. Also notice that in the rolling-start 5-60 runs, where the M5's advantage of a dropped clutch launch is out of the picture (as performed by a professional driver), the 5-60 margin grows, to 0.7 seconds, indicating that from a roll, the SLK would have an even larger gap.

Motor Trend:
BMW M5:
0-60 4.7
0-100 11.4
1/4 mile: 13.2 @ 107.4

SLK55:
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 11.0
12.8 @ 109.2

That's 0.4 seconds faster, four carlengths for the SLK55.

Road & Track:
M5:
0-60: 4.8
0-100: 11.3
1/4 mile: 13.3 @ 108.5

SLK55:
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 10.6
1/4 mile: 12.9 @ 109.8

That's 0.4 seconds faster, four carlengths for the SLK55.

Average:
M5:
0-60: 4.8
0-100: 11.4
1/4 mile: 13.3 @ 107.9

SLK55:
0-60: 4.43
0-100: 10.6
1/4 mile: 12.8 @ 110

That, my friend, is what's known as a clean sweep. And your point about the professional drivers os *much* more applicable to the M5, which has a manual, than to the SLK55; there are people on this forum who have run consistent 12.7s in their SLK55s by simply mashing it:
https://mbworld.org/forums/slk55-r171/159694-dragstrip-results.html

Even from a roll, the automatic will shift right at the optimum point: no rev-limiter bounces, missed shifts, mistimed shifts, etc. to worry about, so the advantage is still with the SLK in the "driver mistakes" department.

As to what forum members at BMW say about each car's handling: that's anecdotal, and doesn't carry the same weight as Horst Von Saurma's numbers around actual race tracks at 10/10. Von Saurma is no novice, but is rather a seasoned race car driver, who held the record around Nurburgring for the fastest time ever in a production car in 2004:
http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm...roduction-ends

So, if this guy nailed a faster time in the SLK, then prima facie it is the better-handling car, subjective and anecdotal comments aside. The M5 put in a damn impressive set of numbers for a big sedan, but the SLK55 is clearly faster around a track, both short and long tracks, with the same driver at the wheel.

But hopefully, we can get a showdown going at a strip somewhere (assuming coolcarlskiC43 is successful in his efforts! ) and settle this! The E39 M5 is an amazing car, though, no matter who wins...I wish some of the more-rabid BMW guys would acknowledge the same about the AMG cars, though!

M&M

Yeah but on a SEPARATE occasion, about a year earlier he ran 12.7 with the seats and all. It was documented by FF&MM magazine. Write a letter to the editor & prove it was not stock. There are pics of the car being tested in the mag & you can see the seats & wheels are stock. But you are correct, the car was not stock in that particular video that you saw. That was a separate run. That car now runs 12.1 with basic bolt on mods & rear seats removed. It traps 111, which proves it doesn't make loads of power.

But let's not digress. I don't want to get into another mindless argument with you. I agree an SLK55 should beat an E39 M5. But something an internet racer wón't understand is that sometimes the stars align & you can run a good time. I believe an E39 M% can run 12's stock.

Why do you say it doesn't have the suspension setup, & tyres to run a 1.89 60ft when E55's do it all the time? Remember it's stick so you can launch an any rpm you want. Maybe I'm dumb, I'd like you to please explain that to me if you have the time.

M&M

Love your work buddy. Any particular reason you chose the slowest test of the M5 against the fastest SLK55 run?

Here's that SELF SAME mag's test of the M5 in another test:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m52001-1.htm

Test in sport auto 7/2001
Gewicht 1815 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,1 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,9 s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,9 s

Bit closer ain't it?

Improviz

No, it wasn't. It was mentioned in passing as hearsay, NOT AS AN INSTRUMENTED TEST. OK? We've been through this **** innumerable times, and I'm telling you that I read the goddamn article, and IT WAS NOT A ROAD TEST.

Keep lying out of your *** all day long as usual, but I read the stupid thing. If you've got ANY scan of it, put it here, but it is ONLY hearsay.

Bull****, bull****, bull****. The magazine article was NOT about the M5, it was about a Mustang, and had NO photos of Rutter's car.

Post a scan if you've got one, because I'm saying you're full of ****. I hate you so goddamn much, because you basically just make **** up whenever you're trying to prove something. You have no scan of this article, you have never seen this article, and that's that.

Yeah, I know, becuase you sit there and whack off to BMW **** all day long, which I could care less about. If someone claimed a bone stock M5 ran a goddamn 10, there would be Sherwin Singh, splooging all over his monitor, on every forum on the earth telling us how wonderful his beloved BMWs are.

But who the fock cares? You're a liar, have been exposed numerous times as a liar, and that's that.

Selective quoting, as usual what I said was this, liar:
The E55 has the power to weight. The M5 does not.

Simple. It won't do it.

tee_tz

Improviz - I'll accept your information as true.

In this case, I'll call the BMW driver's 'bullish' for claiming the M5 is faster than the SLK55. I now seem more convinced that the SLK55 seems to have an advantage, and it's quite obvious it has to do with the subtracting of 2 doors. However, again, although of course it was 'them' who started it, I'll say the SLK55 shouldn't be compared to the E39 BMW. In the C32/C55 section we had a similar discussion... I guess it seems like everyone likes to pick on the E39 nowadays that cars have evolved. But I do remember a time when the E39 was the fastest and best performing sedan in the world. I guess, manufactures learnt they need to beat the best to be the best.

With that being said, I think it's hard to disagree that AMG produces some astonishing vehicles, I think in the past they were secondary to M, but nowadays it seems like they have matched them. Although I do have a feeling about M, and many people feel the same, I feel like M is more like Ferrari/Porsche - racing inspired whereas AMG is Lamborghini -- still bloody fast, but more style/elegance than performance. So while I hold upmost respect for AMG, the only reason why I wouldn't consider an AMG over the M counterpart is simply because it doesn't come with the three pedals.

All in all, the E39 set standards that today, the only car that has set those kind of standards in it's own scale (re-shaping the auto industry) is the Bugatti Veyron. However, reading this information about the SLK55, I must admit, these AMG cars are very fast.


*Last thing to note: A good driver, never has "mistakes" with a manual. I haven't in all my years of driving.


Tee_Tz.

tee_tz

Wow!

This debate is getting heated. I better pull out.

In my defense, I own both BMW and Mercedes and I love them both, all for different reasons. Hence I have no loyalty to neither brand, I just like cars. If Audi makes a really good A4/A6, then I'll go for it. Therefore, I'm not sticking up for BMW, nor Mercedes.

However, does the E55 have better power to weight ratio than the M5?? I didn't think that was true... let me check.


Tee_Tz.

M&M

No, not OK. They accompanied him to the track where he ran that time. There was pics on the sidebar of the car at the track. If you have proof that it wasn't stock at the time of the magazine shoot, then please POST YOUR PROOF NOW! Else STFU & stop dissing other people's achievements from your sofa.

So now power to weight is all that matters to do a good 60ft? What about

So suddenly suspension set up, enough weight transfer don't matter? 60ft time is ALL about power to weight ratio? So if I put 1000hp in a Civic & roll it on Kumho tyres it will do a 0.1 60ft?