Ohhh BoYYY!!!


Anyway guys I will be locating one of the many SLK55's that showed up at the Monvale NJ AMG meet just this past fall. I want to see how theE39 M5 and my W202 5.5 compete against each other. Rumor is the M5 is modded so I guess i'll have the appropriate mods as well.



By the way BMW only came out with the V8 M5 beause Audi,Jaguar and AMG had more powerful V8's than the BMW 540. So where did BMW first set the table Tee?

 

Again you lie. The test in question is NOT the slowest test of all of the M5s, as I will show presently. I chose the one with the Nurburgring and Hockenheim numbers. The others didn't have that.

Why did you choose the fastest one? Because you're cherry picking as usual, as we shall soon see.

So let's just cut through your usual cherry picking bull****, and put all of the German mags' numbers for both cars on the table:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e39st1999-1.htm
Supertest in sport auto 03/1999 (<=test I used earlier)
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
Nordschleife 8.28 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.18,5 min

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m51999-2.htm
Test in ams 01/1999
Gewicht 1793 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h 11,7 s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 18,6 s
1 km, stehender Start 24,2 s

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

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m52002-1.htm
Test in sport auto 8/2002 (<= THIS is the slowest one, idiot! )
Gewicht 1806 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,9 s
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.19,5 min
Note that this one had a slower Hockenheim and acceleration than the one I used originally, so if I was interested in choosing the slower test, I'd have used this one, idiot...

So, four tests. Of the four, three show 0-xxx times within a few tenths of each other, one faster. Two had the same numbers as mine, one was slower, and one was faster. And again: I used the only tests for both cars which have track tests at *both* Hockenheim and the ring. If I'd been trying to cherry pick as you do, I'd simply have chosen the last one, the slowest one, and used only the Hockenheim numbers. But I'm not a cheat or a liar like you are.

SLK55 numbers:
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
Nordschleife 8.24 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.17,1 min

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/slk55amg2005-2.htm
Test in Auto Bild Test & Tuning 04/2005
Gewicht 1585 kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 17,1 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...5amg2006-1.htm
Test in sport auto 10/2006
Gewicht 1553 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,8 s
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.18,2 min

Averages:
M5:
0-100 km/h: 5.3
0-160 km/h: 11.75
0-200 km/h: 18.325
Hockenheim: 1.19,0

SLK55:
0-100 km/h: 5.0
0-160 km/h: 11.0
0-200 km/h: 17.56
Hockenheim: 1.17,65

 

And right there Sherwiner,the law of averages shows the SLK55 for the win over your beloved BMW E39 M5.

Far different than the stupid drag race with the modded M3
(which u also claimed was stck) vs STCK SLK55 race you posted!

 

Post my proof? You're the one making all of the claims, dip****....post a scan of the article and prove that it does what you said it does. I maintain that it does not, as I've read it. I didn't buy it, because I don't much care for mustangs.

Got a copy? Scan that sucker. You don't live in the US, but in South Africa, and I seriously doubt that they sell this magazine there, so if you've read it, it surely must be online. So post a scan.

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

I've challenged you to produce this innumerable times, and you never have...now, you're claiming that the magazine, a magazine about Mustangs, did a feature article about an M3??? What a fokking joke....as I said: you simply invent **** to fill in the blanks.

Again, you lie and put words in my mouth. I listed THREE FACTORS, dip****. Allow me to quote it, for the third time now:
There are three factors listed there, moron:
- traction
- weight transfer
- power

I know counting to three is difficult with all of the splooge on your screen from whacking off to photos of BMWs, but look again: that's three factors, dummy.

So not, it's not the only factor, but here's a nice challenge for you: compare the the 60' times of a CLS55 with a CL500 or an E55 with an E500 and get back to me, idiot. The AMG cars have the same width tires (traction), the same weight (roughly), a stiffer suspension which will hurt weight transfer--and yet, somehow, miraculously, they manage to pull a far better 60' time....gee, how is that??? Do ya suppose that the 200 extra horsepower just might have something to do with it thar, Einswine? Duh....you really are one of the dumbest, most disengenuous pieces of dog meat on the 'web, and that says a lot.

Oh, and how about comparing the 330ci with the M3 as well, dumass....

 

Wait a minute, I never claimed it was stock. I always said I had gears.

And what's with the aggression. I agree an SLK55 is faster than an M5. I was arguing Chimp's cherry picking.

 

Can you read or what? Where did I say they did a feature ON THE CAR? The did a feature on the driver who owns the car & had an insert where they accompanied him to the track. And I don't have to prove anything. You don't have to believe it. He's done it many times with numerous slips & videos. Long before the one you saw.

Ok Einstein, you put a huge emphasis on the one factor when the others are as important if not moreso. You forgot the suspension setup BTW. So an E39 M5 doesn't have the power to weight ratio to do 1.89 60ft? I assume you are saying it has the other requirements? Í'd like your answer on this so I can debate it, which is what a forum is all about.

 

He also admitted that they'd done the runs with him in gear and the SLK55 not in gear, but rather stomping on the gas and waiting for kickdown.

Read about it here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....1&postcount=11

Just one of the many instances of M&M using fraud, lies, deception, etc., to promote BMWs in competing brands' forums:

M&M lies about how much his car's modifications affected its performance, *and* about jumping on his car first in a video:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=160

M&M gets busted by user zumbalak in Audiworld's S4 forum. First, he posts following photo of him driving his M3 at the track:
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/274461.phtml
Then, user zumbalak compares the photo with other photos M&M posted there of his car (he posts as "343bhp" there), and found obvious discrepancies:
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/274595.phtml

After zumbalak posted this, m&m went and edited his original post to say that he was driving his *cousin's* car, lol!!! What a joke....I suppose the blue one in the links below is his **other** cousin's car!!

zumbalak then analyzed some other photos M&M posted of "him" in "his" silver M3, which had by then morphed into a smurf blue model (look at the a-piller; exterior paint is clearly smurf blue!)
M&M's original post of the pics:
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/274802.phtml
and zumbalak's nailing him on the smurf blue:
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/274901.phtml
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/274896.phtml

M&M gets busted lying about ease of reproducing Car & Driver launch of M5 after he'd participated in thread in M5 forums where difficulty of technique was quoted from C&D's editors:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....5&postcount=37

M&M gets busted comparing apples to oranges, deliberately comparing slower test data for E55 *wagon* agains M5 when he'd previously been told that this data was for the E55 wagon:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....1&postcount=11

M&M gets busted posting a false claim about the CLS55 after I'd proven it false to him on three separate occasions by posting the actual article he was citing:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=109
Even after proof was provided, M&M continued to lie:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=129

M&M gets busted in a lie he'd stated repeatedly, namely that all European magazines test their cars on "dusty airfields" and with a passenger:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....st#post1183934

M&M gets busted cherry-picking fastest M3 results, slowest C55 results to deceptively portray the M3 as being faster:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....3&postcount=35

M&M gets busted lying about having "bone stock tires" on his car, when it was actually wearing drag radials:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....9&postcount=68
M&M continued to lie, stating that even though I'd found a post of his in the South Africa Audi club where he bragged about how much drag radials had helped his car's launch at about the same date from which he'd posted his timeslip, well, by golly, he actually got better times without them. But then, I found the following, where he'd actually admitted (again at the South Africa Audi forum) that he *HAD* run his best time with semi-slicks (drag radials):
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=112

M&Ms four-year-plus history of trolling other Internet forums under multiple user IDs;

(click here for other multiple instances of the same behavior):

M&M getting busted lying about "stock" M3s running 12 second 1/4 miles:

M&M getting busted lying *again* about the "stock" M3s *and* three more lies:

M&M refusing to engage in honest debate, lying about what I said, and changing the subject when proven wrong:

M&M stating he would be at a dragstrip on Sunday, then not showing up and issuing a lameass excuse when he found out a C32 was going to be there to take him up on his challenge (whoops; gee, I know I told you I was going to be there, but I decided to get my car modded--on Sunday!!)

 

In other words, you're full of **** as usual and are, yet again, making false claims. You've never seen this article, never read it, have you? If so, where is it?

Get sucked into another debate with you? No way....you'll go on and on and on for hours with this ****, making it up as you go along, and I've got things to do. I said that a stock E39 M5 could hit a 1.89 on drag radials, but not on street tires.

You can blow smoke out of your **** all day long as usual, but given that I've already busted you in two outright lies in this thread alone, I'm not inclined to feed the troll yet again.

The difference in 60' times between the E500/E55, CLS500/CLS55, and 330ci/M3 show that the same basic platform, with a ****load more horsepower, will run a quicker 60' time. This was in response to your asking why an E55 could hit this 60' time but an E39 M5 could not; the answer is clear: the 120 horsepower/192 lb-ft of torque differential between the E39 M5 and the E55.

Idiot.

 

Actually I'm not. You see I can prove it as I have link to all his timeslips, from bone stock to pulleys to pulleys/seat delete to intake/gears to ecu to rear seat delete which is where he is now with 12.1. If you want I can post all of those RIGHT NOW on this thread. That would be off topic, but if you create a new thread I will do it. Or else I will clutter this thread full of timeslips to prove you know jack****.

Of course you are gonna say we don't know the state of the car in each slip. And you know what? You would be correct. Even though there were numerous BB member present at lots of these runs, & even some pice & videos, we don't know what was in the engine on each run.

But guess what? The same applies to every timeslip every posted for a MErcedes or any other car on any forum actually. We don't know know. In fact, we could take it further & say that we don't know what state the engine is of every car test a car mag ever does. But hey not all of us are paranoid losers like you that can't accept a good run. If you show me a stock C55/C32 running 12's I will accept that its possible, even though I'm a BMW fan. I'm a racer 1st & a BM fan 2nd. I have friends that have AMG's & run at the track & I wouldn't dream of taking away their glory & hard work if they do a good run.

 

GOTCHA. So it doesn't have the TRACTION. You just fell into your own trap. You say it can do it on drag radials & not on street tyres. So its not power to weight but TRACTION that it's missing. Unless the power to weight magically goes up when you add DR's.

PWNED LIKE A ****!

 

Say Imp, pop quiz:

Why does an M5 have the power to weight to do 1.8 60ft on DR's but not on street tyres?

PINNED!

I think you should add this page to your links to all my "lies".

 

Um... ok? I'm crazy because ....

BMW set the table starting with the E28 in 1984, which was the fasted production sedan in the world. And I know the almost didn't make the E39 with a V8 (I think everyone knows), but they responded to competition and gave the M5 a V8, 400HP.


Tee_Tz.

 

You just love to rehash the same old tired, disproven arguments, no matter how many times they've been disproven. I caught him lying about the state of tune of his car, here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....8&postcount=48

Now, a synopsis for you:

1) Rutter posted a thread, with a video of him making a 1/4 mile run.

2) he claimed that when he made this run, and I quote: "All I have for mods are power pulleys.", here:

3) I showed, through screen captures of the actual video he posted, that:
a) the front seat was plainly not in his car in this video;
b) the wheels were not stock

Here is proof. These are screen captures from the videos posted by rutter, in the thread where he claimed the ONLY MODS to his car were power pulleys:

First, I produced four photos from the video itself *showing* that there was no front seat, here:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=121
...and here are nine, count 'em, nine more photos, from the passenger side, same day:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....&postcount=191

That's a grand total of 13 photos, taken from both sides of the car, same day, same track, all of which show that the front seat is clearly missing, all of which show that the wheels are clearly non-stock, shod with who the hell knows what kind of tires....and who the hell knows what else he did?? Just by reading his thread and inspecting these photos, it is clear that he was NOT honest when he said that the only mod to his car when this video was made was pulleys.

Removing the front seat is a mod. Replacing the wheels is a mod, and there is no way of verifying what tires were on the car.

So you can post whatever claims you like about mr. rutter, but the facts show that he wasn't telling the truth about his mods when he posted this video, and therefore, any other claims he has made should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Now I have no doubt that you, being a liar yourself, having been caught in numerous lies yourself, many of which I catalogued above, will lie about this as well, and continue to lie about it no matter how much evidence is produced.

For example, you lie about an article which you cannot produce. But how would you know what the article contains if you have not read it? If you did read it, where did you read it? In South Africa? Or online? If online, why can you not produce it??

No some of you are annoying, trolling peckerheads who troll Mercedes, Audi, an other brands' enthusiasts boards to annoy people, and who are only here to denigrate Mercedes and talk up BMWs, and would, if presented with a claim that a BMW had driven up the side of a building, spend hours defending this claim, while simultaneously arguing that a Mercedes couldn't drive over a speed bump under its own power.

I have no problem accepting good runs. I do have problems accepting runs which are not physically possible, particularly when the person claiming to have made them is obviously lying through his teeth, as both you and rutter have done.

Bull****. You've repeatedly lied about the state of tune of your car, and numerous other lies. As recently as a few months ago, you were caught making outright lies about events which transpired in South Africa, but were very quickly exposed by fellow South Africans who were witnesses to the events you described:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...=169018&page=2

You are a dishonest piece of garbage, a blight upon this forum, and why the moderators allow you to continue to post here despite the documented lies you've told is a huge mystery, but they do.

 

Pwned??? Hardly, idiot. Again: I listed three factors. An E55 can hit a 1.8 second 60' time because it has 120 more horsepower, and even more torque than that, than an M5, so once it hooks up, it will be moving a ****load faster, giving it a faster 60' time.

An M5 cannot do it because it doesn't have the power to run the post-hookup portion of the 60' time as fast as the E55, OR the TRACTION to allow it to be launched agressively enouth to MAKE UP for its LACK OF POWER when compared to the E55. WITH the extra TRACTION added by drag radials, it is a LOT more believable that it could hit a 1.89 60'.

Are you playing dumb here, or are you really that stupid? I mean, YOU asked the question as to why the E39 M5 couldn't hit the same 60' time as the E55; are you dumb enough to think that a 120 horsepower difference won't give a vehicle a faster 60' time?? Or are you just ignorant enough to think that drag radials produce no reduction in 60' time??

Christ, you're dense.

 

I agree. I don't know if the SLK55 or E39 M5 is the faster car of these two (I neither owned the Benz nor this Bimmer), but if somebody's telling me the SLK's 0-62mph time is only 0.1 seconds slower than the 0-62mph time of my E60 M5 posted by BMW (4.7 secs.), I tend to believe there's something wrong...

 

How would I get through night shifts without this forum! ...but I digress. Back on topic...I think *L*

I respectfully disagree on that last paragraph. With all that in mind, and with very few of us being professional drivers, I believe the maximum performance of the SLK55 to be much more accessible (for lack of a better term) to the average driver, what with it's auto trans and various driver aids, than a high strung manual-equipped M5. Yes, in the hands of a great driver used to wringing the most out of the car, the M5 would perform much closer to the SLK55. But again, most drivers (of either car) are not in that class, so an added advantage to the SLK55 in a casual highway encounter because of it's more user friendly capabilities.


Funny that average - it's exactly what I ran (and that's my timeslip too *L*). And the car ran that consitently and easily when left to it's own devices (basically ESP off, ease into the launch then nail it - easy to do for anyone). But again this illustrates my previous point - no doubt the test drivers for various magazines are much more able drivers than myself, yet I was able to basiclly dublicate their best times...me Mr. Joe Average. I doubt the average owner of the M5 would be able to perform the same type of dublication. A very good driver? Probably, but not most owner IMHO.

 

E39 M5= 400hp
E55= 469hp

469hp-400hp=69 hp difference... Where are the other 51 horses coming from? Sorry, maybe I'm an idiot as well, but I'm just curious..

 

It is a well-documented fact that E55s (along with the other supercharged/turbocharged Mercedes products) are underrated from the factory, and this has been proven by independent dyno runs of stock E55s showing the rwhp in the 430 range, which with an 18% driveline loss puts crank hp at 525.

Here is one such dyno, from user Fikse, who operates dragtimes.com:
http://www.dragtimes.com/2005-Merced...aphs-7808.html He was trapping at 116 with this stock engine, exactly in line with what mags got...

Also, if you use the equation provided by Road & Track for estimating crank hp from a vehicle's trap speed, you come up w/similar figures. When R&T tested the E55, they trapped at 116.4 with an as-tested weight of 4300 pounds. Their equation is hp = weight*(trap/234)^3, so 4300*(116.4/234)^3 = 529 crank horsepower.

I used 520. 520 - 469 = 51.

 

Well, both BMW and Mercedes often are rather conservative with 0-60 times. Both of these cars have been tested significantly faster than their factory ratings, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Again: Car & Driver tested the SLK55 at 4.3 0-60, 10.3 to 100, and the 1/4 in 12.7 @ 111. They also tested the E60 M5, and got 4.2 0-60, 0-100 in 9.4, and a 12.5 @ 118 1/4 mile.

So as you can see by the 7 mph trap difference, the M5 is clearly putting on steam faster up high, but down below triple digits it is closer.

 

I'm really beginning to believe that you are psychotic, or at the very least seriously delusional. Are you seriously stupid enough to be arguing that the added traction from drag radials will not improve a vehicle's 60' time?? Particularly after you, yourself were bragging in the South Africa Audi forum how much better your M3 shot off the line after you'd mounted them up on your car??

Or are you stupid enough to argue that a higher powered vehicle won't accelerate more rapidly than a lower powered vehicle?

Now, with regard to the second one, it's so stupid that I won't even waste time addressing it; any idiot knows that a car weighing 4200 pounds with 520 horsepower and 560 lb-ft of torque will outaccelerate a car weighing 4025 pounds with 394 horsepower. Compare the 60' times of an E500 with an E55 if you have any doubt on this one.

With regard to the first: the effects of drag radials on reducing a car's 60' time are well-documented. (I'm sure you know this and are just lying again, but I'll produce this just the same to shoot this moronic argument of yours down.) Here is one example: Car Craft magazine ran a tire comparison with three sets of radials mounted up on a 1970 Chevy Chevelle: the car's original tires, a set of BFG Radial TAs, and lastly, a set of BFG drag radials.

The radial TAs and the DRs were both 275mm wide, while the old tires were 225mm wide).

Nothing else on the vehicle was changed.

The improvements were vast, and the results tabulated:

Tire Test
Performance Results (All testing results measured in seconds.)
MPH Old Tires BFG Radial T/A BFG Drag Radial
0-10 0.618 0.472 0.431
0-20 1.501 1.160 0.921
0-30 2.286 1.798 1.608
0-40 3.169 2.732 2.391
0-50 4.249 3.813 3.470
0-60 5.446 5.051 4.539
0-70 7.094 6.663 6.117
0-80 8.958 8.628 7.979
0-90 11.509 11.282 10.430
1/4-mile: 13.933 @ 100.02 mph 13.601 @ 100.70 mph 13.204 @ 101.27 mph

So, the drag radials picked up about 0.4 over the BFG Radial T/A tires, and 0.73 over the smaller original tires.

Nothing changed but the traction. No power increase. No suspension mods. Only the traction; first the change from 225 to 275 width, which gained the vehicle about 0.33 seconds, then the change to drag radials, which picked it up an additional 0.4 seconds.

So, my perennially idiotic wannabe debate partner, once again, it is soundly demonstrated that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Got any more stupidity you'd care to contribute?

 

Imp, dam I laughed so hard at your pinnage.

Let me recap. You state that an M5 doesn't have the power to do a 1.8 60ft. But WAIT, you say it could do it on DR's. Why do you type up a whole page explaining the power of an E55 when you yourself say an M5 can do it on DR's. Can you not see how dumb your logic is?

So does an M5 have more power on DR's or what? Are you that dumb to think power is more important than the other factors for a good 60ft?

& Lee Rutter didn't lie. His only power mods were pullies.

 

NO, that is not what I said, liar. I said that it doesn't have enough power to overcome its lack of traction, nor enough traction to overcome its lack of power. Can your brain only grasp a single concept at a time, or what??

I know this is extremely difficult for you to get your head around, but I feel I've explained it adequately, and your stupid, lame attempts at diversion via outright lying about what I've written aren't going to fool anyone. I have provided a documented test example of how a car which was running well over a full second slower than a stock M5 had its ET improved by over seven tenths by no other modifications than the addition of drag radials. Got that: a less powerful car than the M5 benefited by the addition of drag radials, and ONLY the addition of drag radials.

The vehicle's power was not increased. Its suspension was not modified. ONLY change was addition of drag radials.

And lo and behold, its 60' time decreased, along with its ET, which went down by over seven tenths of a second.

I guess this might fool people stupid enough to believe you after being caught in multiple lies in this thread alone, or people too lazy to click on the following link and see that the car wasn't wearing stock wheels, and had no front seat, but other than that you're only fooling yourself, troll.
Click here, and then here, to see photos of Rutter's car, which he claimed had "only power pullies" as mods:

I've proven and documented my points, and this discussion is over, troll. I've already wasted far more time on you than your idiotic arguments and lies are worth.

 

Chimp, let me explain this to you slowly. You say the M5 might do 1.8 on DR's but not on street tyres. Immediatly that says to me you know it has enough power but not enough traction. Hell that's pretty obvious as we've all seen much less powerful cars run those 60ft's, excluding 4WD.

Now if you were a racer you would know the limiting factor would be traction. An E55 makes more power than an M5 & LOADS more torque. It doesn't have LSD, it doesn't have bigger tyres (not sure about the sizes) & yet it can cut a 1.8 60ft on street tyres. Is it the power? I'm pretty sure there is a technique E55 drivers use to launch where they brake torque & then modulate the throttle to prevent wheelspin. If you stomp it all the way to the floor then for sure you gonna go up in smoke on street tyres.

So in fact an E55 doesn't use all its power immediatly in 1st gear. 1st gear is traction limited on any powerful rear driver.

So let me ask you again. Can an M5 not due a 1.8 because it doesn't have enough power or not enough traction?

BTW, Lee rutter replied to a question about power mods when he said "I only got pullies". The rest is plain to see on the video which he posted.

 

That's interesting..the only thing we need to know now is IF the E39 M5 is underrated as well..if you use a different source for one car in a comparison, you would have to do the same for the other car as well, or we won't know the right numbers...

 

M&M, as I said: I already addressed the pertinant issues with traction, and power. If you have any questions and cannot comprehend, I would suggest the following three-step program:

1) pull head out of ***;

2) reread what I wrote, carefully;

3) repeat 1) and 2) as needed, until some of what I wrote actually sinks into that thick skull of yours.

I have repeatedly addressed and answered the questions you are posing, and you are simply going into an infinite loop of bull****, rephrasing and re-asking the same questions over and over again. I repeat: this discussion is finished.

Another bald faced lie, just like your earlier lie about the only mod to his car being the pulley mods, which you now back away from after having seen the photographs. Here is the post where he was asked the question:
The word "power" is not even mentioned in the post, liar.

And in response, two posts later, in this post, rutter wrote:
So, in response to a question about what MODS he has done (NOT power mods as you are falsely claiming), rutter claimed that the only mods he had done were a power pulley, period, full stop.

And yet when we watch the video, stills from which can be seen here, and here, we see that the wheels are not stock, and the front seat is missing.

He lied. Removing the front seat for weight savings is modifying the car. The car does not come from the factory with the front seat removed. Hence, it has been modified by removing the seat. Hence, he was lying, as you are now.