Well personally,I like both cars but the amazing thing about the older car is that it's making all that power with only 9 points of compression ,thanks to the multivalve heads.Mercedes is actually going back to the multi(32) valve technology because of the tremendous power potential.The 6.3 L will be a 32 vavle engine like the old Hammer engine.



Now can we get back to the BMW vs E55 argument.



Seems like BMW is about HP(cams,multivalve technology) while MB is about TQ(Pistons,displacement).

The quality of both cars are very good so now it's MB's turn to reclaim the crown since the E60 M5 has come back to temporarily reclaim it. W210 E55 vs E34 M5 then E39M5 comes to get back at W210E55.MB makes F/I E55 and it comes back to get E39 M5.Now E60 M5 comes back to get MB's F/I E55.So guess who's turn it will be next!It will never ever stop.

 

I think AMG/Mercedes always knew the 32v heads were the way to go. They simply found a good way to make power with 24-valves so started there, fully knowing that they would need plenty of space for improvement, hence going back to 32v heads with similar technology as the 24v heads. I thought about what it would be like to have higher compression pistons put in and raise comression to 10 or 11 like most current models. AMG got 500hp in their offshore engines with my same motor with higher compression and different fuel injection. Watching the 6.3 bounce off the rev limiter the way a tuned NA motor can will be amazing. What next if AMG decides to keep winning the HP wars with NA motors?

 

Yes they found a good way to make pwr with the 24 valve head but it was also more economical for them to use that head at the time vs using the 32 valve head.I'm just wondering if the 32valve 6.3L NA motor will be enuff to overtake the M's 5.0L v10 500hp 383ftlbs of TQ 8000rpm's?What is the proposed HP and TQ gonna be? Also I heard the E46 M3 and E60 M5 motors are maxed out by the engineers. They say that the (m5) would be very very expensive to mod.It would be very hard to go F/I with it because of the ceiling high compression.

 

I've read HP figures will be similar to the 55 Kompressor engines. Torque should be welllll above 383. I would imagine they could squeeze out around 500 lb.ft from 6.3L and 32 valves. Nice thing about going to a larger NA motor is the tuning houses will no doubt launch a supercharger or turbo system to get them to the S/CL/SL 65 numbers or further. Maybe AMG will launch a 6.3L Bi-Turbo model late in production..? Isn't the current 65 motor actually 5.8L?

 

 

So come to Dallas and we'll put some money on it. I'm not worried.

 

Hah, I tried to get back on topic! Since your car cannot go as fast as mine top speed wise, and I know I would lose 0-60 and 1/4 mile races due to hp to weight differences it doesn't make much sense to put money on anything. On paper, my car has 375hp and 407tq, your car has 342 bhp @ 5500 rpm and 376 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm. (I'm not giving you the E55's numbers 'just because they have the same engine' and I have no idea where you got the 390tq from after doing some research.) Your car weighs 3406, mine 3890. I don't have a chance at short distances. You don't have a chance at hitting 185mph. Let's just leave it at that. I just thought I could get you to show some respect for a 20 year-old 'antique' that cost as much as 2 2001 CLK55's + a C230 Coupe in 1985$ and the chances of you ever seeing one are slim to nil vs. the 4 E55's and 2 CLK55's I saw last week.

 

From my owners' manual.

Unless, that is, I chip it and delimit it, where it will hit those speeds. I've read this before and am quite certain it's within the car's capabilities, but am unable to find it at present. However, the following top gear calculator shows that gear-wise, it calculates out to 188:

http://www.ultimategto.com/art29.htm

Just goes to show that you can get more bang for your buck these days. The new Z06 will cost $65-75K, and will be in McLaren territory.

And I never said I didn't respect the original AMGs; that's your opinion, but I can assure you that it is false. I was speaking of the non-AMGs in the first place, but since you decided you wanted to argue, I let you run with it...I'm always up for a good debate.

In fact, the 6.0L Hammer was and is remarkable for its time, and is in fact pretty damn quick even by contemporary standards, but the data I've seen, as I said, doesn't have me shaking in my boots. Respectful? Of course. Give me a good run? Sure seems like it. Afraid of losing to one? Not based upon what I've read, but again, your little thread hijack took this down a whole 'nuther alley from my original point. To wit:

I was merely stating that the original poster to whom I was replying was out of place to be lecturing W211 E55 owners about how their cars were "inferior" to M5s or whatever, and asked him to prove the M5 was "better"; he declined, because he obviously realized that subjective opinions can't be proven, which was, after all, my point. He, you might have noticed, is not driving an AMG Hammer, or anything close to it, but a car which will not even hang with a present-day C350, let alone any AMG...

Now would you mind trying a bit harder to keep from going ? Topic is M5, not Hammers.

 

Watch out guys the AUDI RS6 is coming at you with 500 horses. What a pile. AUDI always falls short of the crown. AUDI has the chance to take over the entire performance sedan market, and what will they do. F up and not put out a real effort. Just like witht he Old RS6.

 

Hi There

Are you driving the "widebody" Hammer or the normal body ?

I remember well I read about the AMG that they claimed to ba able to hit 186 mph. AMG claimed 340 Hp but considering their preveous claims on Hp based on a few engines they made it was not taken seriously by many.
Also nobody belive a 340 Hp sedan would reach 186 mph.

But they had made some serious evort this time, and the secret was the extremly low Cw value on the E klass sedan. I belive to recall that the HP was increased after while but can not remember if it was to 360 or 375 as you claim for the 6.0.

The widebody Coupe did not come close to hit 186 mph, but the normal body E klass did and maybe the normalbody Coupe. This was tested several times at the highspeed track at Nardo.
I must admit I do not recall what was the "normal" body style on the Hammer, but I do not belive all Coupes was the widebody thing. Maybe you can enlighten me ?

Acceleration was as a E34 3.8 M5 until 125 mph, but the topspeed was much much higher due to the low Cw.

 

O.T. LOL I had to demolish a modded Audi S4 V6TT Sunday night.1/4 mile and up top .He did a semi launch off the line and that was one of his big mistakes,Stayed with me in 1st gear for a minute,then he shifted in 2nd and at the top of his 2nd is where my car just started to walk away with me waving at him and laughing with one hand.Funny thing is he called me out that same night I was watching my buddy put an E55 engine in Steve's W202 C43.I certainly don't fear the new NA 4.2L V8 S4.


Back to topic:If the M5 is truly faster I hope MB stays tru to what they have been doing and go F/I,big displacement and go 4valves per cylinder.Then I hope they try to step up big time with suspension.We'll find out when people come out with their M5's at the track this season.

My car is fast and has great brakes but it is very dangerous handling wise at the limits for the amt of pwr it has.

 

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=bmw_m5

improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that and by better i was considering alllll factors from A-Z
being reliable being a key issue which the current benz arent and i cant quote MANY CLK owners that have complain alot about their car and i dont even want to go check out your previous post of how many times you have asked for help with your car because i found it useless.

 

WOWWWWW! I think the new V8 E90 M3 will be better around the track for obvious reasons though.Tiff Needle,I think that's how you spell his last name can drive his *** off.

 

Agree, the new M3 will do even better on a track, at least on such a Mickey Mouse track. And it should..... considering its much smaller and lighter.

Tiff Needle is a very very capable driver, I always enjoy looking at his shows.

 

I have a normal body W126 coupe. According to AMG the term 'Hammer' reffered to the 32v M117 motors, not just the car. Its all debateable... The 6.0 32v was available in W124 sedans and coupes, and W126 sedans and coupes. The W124 coupe was available in widebody but not all were. The W126 coupe was avail in widebody also. Both of the widebody models did not have as good of a drag coefficient. Spec sheets list the 6.0 32v @ 375hp and 407lb/ft, 385 & 417 without cats. These numbers were derived to keep insurance costs inline. Many 6.0 32v cars dyno close to 400hp at the crank. BTW, this top speed chart Improviz listed is calculated using the stock figures from a '05 GTO, 6.0 400hp, which I assure you, you are nowhere near. If you used the '04 GTO stats and changed the ratios, that's fine. That thing says my car will go 204mph! There's no Cd ratio either. Anyway, when are these V10 M5's going to start showing up? I've yet to see one here.

 

They are out already...waiting list is forever tho !!

 

[QUOTE=egutie6970]http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=bmw_m5

improvac look at that...your clk is not 'better' then that

Do you own one? No, of course not...you're a wannabe driving a 20 year old Benz that costs less than a new Corolla, talking **** about cars that by your own criterion are infinitely better than yours.

And you want to talk up BMW reliability? check Consumer Reports' reliability data for Mercedes and BMW. To state that BMW is appreciably more reliable than Mercedes is a joke, and I can attest to this personally because my wife owns one which we bought new in 2001, and it's had:

- sunroof repaired for coming off the track, twice;
- window regulators break four times (leaving the window stuck in the down position);
- power seat motor fail;
- check engine and brake lights came on and stayed on within a week of the car's delivery;
- main ventilation fan failed

Wow. Now that's reliable. In the meantime, my car has had three minor issues. I'll take that any day of the week.

Do you own a BMW? Do you own a modern Benz? Do you have anything other than idiotic assertions to back up one claim about the reliabliity of modern Benzes versus the old one? One data point? One survey? Anything?

I'm waiting, but for some reason you refuse to answer.

And a car's being faster around a racetrack is what makes it "better"? So you're saying that a Corvette Z06 is one of the best cars in the world, while a Rolls Royce is one of the worst? So given that a Celica GT will out accelerate, out brake, and outrun your 20 year old Benz around a racetrack, and is more reliable, then I guess it's a much better car--it does cost about 3x what yours is worth, so you can add price to the equation as well.

It doesn't surprise me that someone with brain power like yours is driving a Benz worth $8K...one has to be intelligent enough to make some real money to get a new one.

So? People complain a lot about BMWs too, and if you go to Lexus forums you'll see people complaining about their cars there too. Again and again you keep trying to cite anectodtal evidence as proof of fact, but there exists scientific data showing that you're wrong.

In addition to being a wannabe and a BMW troll, you, sir, are a goddamn liar. I have never asked nor posted about a single problem or issue on my car in this forum, ever. Produce one post showing otherwise, liar.

 

No, it is a simple gearing/speed calculation, which is POSTED on a website for a GTO, dummy. Learn to read. Here's another one...same calculated top speed. Want more?

I would also recommend that you take a look at the first Car & Driver test of the W210 E55, which has the same motor, gearing, final drive, and drag coefficient as mine:

The car hit 155 in fourth gear, and was pulling 4950 rpm at 158 in fifth. When Car & Driver tested the CLK55 in 2001, it was pulling the same.

 

You compare cars for what they were meant to do, in this case we are comparing a E55 AMG and your CLK 55 AMG vs. a M5...these cars are meant for luxury and racing down the track/cornering/speed etc. It's not the fact that my family can't afford a Benz, it's just they suck. My dad just blew nearly 65k on Ford Lariat King Ranch and paid cash; a MB didn’t even cross his mind. Let’s face it man if you debagged any I mean any Benz now days you will confuse it with another brand and I can go ahead in photo shop a Benz and another car, just debagged them and a common person won’t even know what brand it is! Simple as that. My father’s business owner friend got a 2003 S 600 for his birthday (his 2 sons bought for him) and he never drove it. He sold it ASAP and bought himself a caddy. His words were, I don’t like that car it's ugly and not reliable I don’t want to have to deal with it. I personally think the CLK is the ugliest out of all benz-thats my opinion, I have never liked that body style maybe someday it will grow on me but not now. To me the C, SLK, CLK, and M - I don’t consider them MB. Where I live theirs more E classes then Hondas.... I’m sick of these E classes.



oh p.s. lol
My gf : Hey honey i want an SL MB when we both become a doctor
Me: You mean an SL chrysler
gf: lol! yes the sl chrysler, your so mean about the new mb, i know they don't look unique but they are nice and confortable inside, maybe not as reliable but still.
me: lol your funny, well your not using my money to buy that chrystler of yours.
gf: actualy your right i don't really like them, i really like those cars with the aggresive look that you always talk about, what are they ?
me: BMW baby, the M power that i will buy myself one

 

We are? Maybe you are, but I'm not...you started in about how the M5 was a "better" car than the E55, remember sparky??

My question is, how? You still won't answer.

And yet you proudly claim to drive a 1980 Benz in your sig...

The remainder of your childish rant isn't even worth comment, so I won't. However, I see that you did not produce a single solitary post of mine "asking for help" on my vehicle, which of course you can't, because they don't exist.

And yet you claimed I'd made numerous such posts.

So you are proven to be a first-class liar.

'nuff said.

 

OK, you want the actual calculated top speed? Here you go.

You need three things: rolling resistance, air resistance, and rear wheel horsepower (and, of course, the gearing to get there, which was addressed previously).

Rolling resistance: 3450 pounds*0.013 = 44.85 pounds

Air resistance: calculated frontal area (based upon 67.8" width, 54" height) is 20.3 ft^2 . Car's Cd = 0.31 .

So, to go 185 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 20.3 ft^2*0.31* 0.00256 x (185)^2 = 551.37 pounds.

So then required bhp to go 185 is (551.37 + 44.85)*185/375 = 596.22*185/375 = 294 rear wheel horsepower.

CLK55s usually dyno out at 290-295 rwhp. So la de da, it calculates out to hit 185, with drag, frontal area, and rolling resistance factored in.

Now, please stop acting stupid about the car's ungoverned top speed capabilities.

 

Show some class/tact. What are you, 6? I still fail to see where you enter hp on the opening page. It says to select the drivetrain from the list of GTO's and their years first.

Is this how you rate 'Mercedes success' or success in general? Boy, your parents did a wonderful job... I will *never* purchase a 98+ Mercedes unless it has a warranty balance. You can bet it would be sold as soon as the warranty was coming to an end. 25K more miles on my ML and its gone, no question. If I remember correctly, your car is approaching 50K. If you don't have the 100K warranty, please keep the car and provide us with some real data on reliability/maint costs. Let's see, 50K miles, is your driver's seat bolster still together?

 

Hmm, what a fine example of hypocrisy in action we have here...first, EuroCoupe writes:

And then goes on to write:



Yes, they did, thanks: I have a wonderful wife, a great job, a fabulous home, three excellent cars, give lots to charity, and help little old ladies with their groceries.

Now then, back to the calculators: The calculator I originally linked to is gearing-based. I have also produced equations which account for power, frontal area, rolling resistance, and drag.

In both cases, the car's top speed calculates at or above 185 mph.

Give it a rest.

 

remember you drive a chrystler, i dont see what your hype is all about

 

lol!!



I doubt it but oh well. Still funny as hell.