yeah i wrote c32 but i was thinking c320 for some reason. i guess i was typing to fast. lol

but still i think the both m5 body types have the same enigne and stuff (actully i didnt even know there were 2 body types are you sure about that, i dont know). i dont see how there could be that much of a diffrence except for wieght. the specs that i got were enough, it showed more power (hp and torque) and the wieght of both cars. yes i know there are other things that factor in but i would take hours to conculate all that. i have driven both and if you dont want to believe me thats fine. manual is faster and enyone who know anything about machanics would know that!

the facts are there, i wish you could just say your wrong. i realize im facing a bias since this is a mercedes-benz enthusiast site but oh well. if it makes you feel beter you guys could blow me away (i drive a ml320).

AND I NEVER SAID I WAS AN EXPERT, I SAID IN MY OPIONION DICK!

 

oh and as for the torque converter, yeah but it only locks at higher speeds not on take off! you may have known that but just making sure

 

Only limoversions exists of the M5 E39. Bad typing in the link.

 

i don't know about the c32, but my car locks in all 5 gears.....of course not on the very start of takeoff (would defeat the purpose of the torque converter) but at pretty low speeds.

 

Yeah, I'm sure that's it...you weren't lying out of your *ss, you were "reading too fast" and "typing too fast". Pardon me, but you've demonstrated all too convincingly that you're far too stupid to do either one!

Until now, your presentation has consisted entirely of your arguing that the M5 can beat the C32, no matter what those silly C32 owners who have real-world race experience say, because you valet parked both cars. Any idiot could see what a joke this is, which I guess rules you out...

You have presented no facts to back this up, other than a link from some Internet site which gives an overview of the M5.

If you *do* have facts to bring to the table, by all means, bring them, but it's ridiculous for you to accuse people of ignoring facts when you haven't presented any!

As per your assertion that "manuals are faster, anyone who knows anything about mechanics knows that": are you aware that *ALL* top fuel dragsters are powered NOT by manual trannies, but by automatics?

And the icing on the cake is this statement: i dont see how there could be that much of a diffrence except for wieght

Why exactly is it that you have such difficulty understanding that the weight/horsepower ratio, NOT THE HORSEPOWER ALONE, is THE factor in determining a vehicle's acceleration? Are you seriously dumb enough to think that a car's acceleration will not change, no matter how much weight you add?

So, if I tow a battleship behind the M5, it will still run 13's all day long??? Ridiculous.

If you'd pull your head out and read the FACTS which have been presented so far:

1) the weight/power ratio of the M5 and C32 ARE THE SAME.

2) the tested 1/4 mile times for both vehicles ARE WITHIN 0.2 SECONDS. FYI: an eyeblink takes 0.1 second!!!

3) the M5 described in the post HAD EXTRA WEIGHT, three extra passengers, while the C32 was EMPTY;

Three extra passengers at 175 pounds/passenger would add 525 pounds to the M5!! This will slow it down!

Geez louise, pull your head out of your *ss and get a clue, dude...this is seriously getting annoying. I've seen houseplants that can carry on more intelligent conversations. Moron.

 

yes yes i understand that the m5 is heavier. i never said that wasnt true. but the m5 has more horsepower and toque and has a manual transmission. these factors are more than enought to make up for the wieght driffrence. so i will leave you with this.

i can understand why all you c32 owners want to stick up for your cars noting how much you payed for it. but im sorry the m5 is fast in my opionion and im sure other poeple who dont own either would agree. m5 is faster i know you know we all know it.

this thread is dead i will no longer be checking it. if you want to debate im me. my sn is jonus079. just be honest with yourself and relize that the m5 is fast. goodbye all!!

 

"It's true because I say it is!!!" Thank you for reminding why I never let anyone valet park my cars. Bye bye, Beavis!!

 

Sorry guys, this is a very trustful source.

http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...Car1=3&Car2=42

Btw. To be honest. M5s usally run 0-200km/h in 17-18 secs


Hp 0-30, 0-60, 0-100, 1/4, Trapspeed
Mercedes E55 AMG 2002 469 2.1 4.6 10.4 13.0 114
BMW M5.............. 1999 400 2.1 4.6 10.6 13.0 111
Mercedes C32 AMG 2001 349 1.9 4.6 10.8 13.0 107

Source: http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htm

 

You aren't seriously arguing that the C32, the E55K, *and* the M5 all run 13.0 1/4 miles, at trap speeds ranging from 106-114? No way.

If you read Car & Driver, you will find:

E55: 12.4@116
M5: 13.4@108
C32: 13.6@106

However, as I keep saying, those of you who think that just any Tom, Dick, or Harry can simply hop in an M5 and turn a 13.4@108 each and every time are either taking some serious drugs, or are totally ignorant of the following FACTS:

1) all human beings are not equally skilled in driving;

2) all human beings do not have the same reaction time;

3) all human beings do not move with equal speed;

4) all human beings cannot consistently execute the same task precisely, with no variation, each and every time.

You must bear in mind that the tests as published of the M5 and other auto mags are normally NOT averages, but are typically best-case results, with a professional test driver.

Well, think for one second: if any bozo could walk in off the street and duplicate the results of a professional test driver, there would be no need for professional test drivers, would there???

My argument is that simply, and this is based upon over 20 years of drag racing experience at both street and strip, most people could not duplicate a 13.4@108 in an M5 if you held a gun to their head. It is *not* easy to launch a manual transmission car with 350+ lb-ft of torque. It is *not* easy to time the 1-2 shift perfectly for optimum acceleration. It *is* easy to make a mistake, which will cost *several* tenths in lost time, which is several carlengths!! And different people have different reflex speed, some move faster than others (which is why athletes get paid millions, right?), etc...

Whereas with an auto-trannied car, all of these variables are removed from the equation

Why exactly is it that this is so difficult to comprehend?? Are you guys simply not reading what I'm writing? I would very strongly suggest that if you don't believe or comprehend it, you do the following: go to a drag strip in your manual-transmissioned automobile, and try it yourself!! I can guarangoddamtee you that you WILL see variances, even in an automatic, and MUCH more so in a manual.

This is why *ALL* top bracket racers do NOT use manual transmissions in their cars; they know that no human can duplicate the consistency of an automatic!

Also, please go back and read the original post in this thread. It very clearly states that the M5, which lost, was carrying about 500 pounds of extra weight: the M5 had three passengers, the C32 had none. Pay attention: force = mass*acceleration!! If you keep force constant and increase mass (weight), acceleration *will* decrease! This is not negotiable or subject to opinion; it is a law of physics! Extra weight slows a car down, so test results for a car with no passengers do not hold!!

Is that clear enough for you now? Sheesh...

 

The first thread is definatley trustful.

I see your point conserning aut vs man, and i agree. I hav´nt
read the hole thread, my point was just to refer to some times set by the two cars from the same source and it´s clear that a car full with people affects the acceralation. 13.4 sec is a time that i do think many M5 owners can run though. There are stock M5s that have run high 12s, but they´re rare. An M3 3.2 lies in the mid 13s, set by most amateur drivers.

That trapspeed you have on that E55, 116mph, will give you 530-540hp on the wheels....with aut transmission! Thats a hell lot of power for an E55. It´s common knowledge that some of the presscars are tuned. Maybe this one is?

 

Ah, OK...sorry if I came off too harshly in my reply; that other guy was driving me crazy!!

In my experience, anyway, if two cars, one manual, one automatic, test within a few tenths of each other in the mags, the one with the auto will win in most street encounters. This has been my experience with the M cars, both the M3 and the M5, at all speeds. But the CLK55's test times are deceiving, because the car's time is *very* traction limited with the stock 245mm rear tires coupled with 390 lb-ft of torque!

You are half correct: the 116 trap speeds of the E55 et al do calculate out to about 520 hp, but at the crank, not the wheels. These trap speeds have been gotten by not only the E55k, but also the CL55, by all of the major US mags, and have been duplicated by many owners of the 5.5l kompressor cars at drag strips. Also, a few dyno tests have been run which indicate between 520-540 crank hp. The consensus is that Mercedes is very much underrating the horsepower of those motors!

 

I assumed that....no hard feelings

I totally agree, except that the torque is´nt essential to grip unless we speak torque at the wheels.

Are you sure? In that case the transmissionloss does´nt matter and the accuracy will be worse than necessary. Anyway. I got 536hp (at the wheels if you ask me) for that trapspeed and 4400 pounds.
But hey. Who says that performanceconverters is the ultimate truth?

Ok, i believe your times. The X55AMGs are crazy fast.

 

Thanks for the understanding!

Yeah, torque at the wheels is a big problem for me! Even with 265's on the back, I still have about a 50/50 chance of getting off the line without tons of spin. Definitely slows me down.

The equation I'm using is pretty popular, and is used to get crank hp given a car's weight (with driver) and trap speed. It is: hp = w(spd/234)^3
Using 116 mph & 4430 pounds (4250 + 180 pounds for driver), I get about 540 crank. I am going by memory on the curb weight and may be a bit high, though, because I recall getting more along the lines of 520 before. But this is definitely supposed to give you engine power, not wheel power.

Yeah, the E55's are insane. I'd love to have that S/C in my car, but I think I'd end up in jail or dead, so I'm sticking with what I have!

 

Jonus079, please cool down and read all the postes in this thread again. Then you will find out how weak your points are compare to others members. They bring up all the provement of their points but you just give us two useless links.
Everyone has different point out views, i don't expect all poeple in this forum agree with me, but i also don't like someone comes here and says 'M5 will blow C32 away' without knowing what C32 is.
Good bye Jonus.

 

I miss Jonus079 already...do you think he will ever come back???

 

This data doesn't seem so "trustful" when you consider there was no 2001 C32.

 

There were indeed. Even early -01 C32 can be found in Europe. I don´t know about the US.

 

Exactly!