Improviz

Acceleration up high is governed by Cd (about the same for both cars), gearing, and hp/weight. Afaik, the two cars are geared pretty much the same (someone care to verify this? Too lazy), which leaves weight/horsepower.

So, M5 is 4023/394 = 10.2 lb/hp, while C55 is 3540/362 = 9.78 lb/hp. I would think that the C55 would still pull up high.

Hey, Miami: assuming this troll on the E55 forum is for real and actually shows up, you should meet up with him and SGC at Moroso! Based upon experience w/M5's, I don't think you've got anything to worry about as long as you launch well (which is the tricky part!!).

Erik

Hi M5 Rus,

That only proves 1 thing and that is the 500 Hp from Nowack is BS or they cant get it to grip, probably a bit of both.....

I have also seen serious test results proving an Stock M5 can do the spring is a few tenth less than 5 sec. I think the result was 4,8 sec.

Erik

Hi there

I would NOT bet a lot of money on that outcome.
Never raced or driven a C55 but I serioulsy doubt that the M5 will loose any high speed encounter. It will not be much in it, put a 2004/5 M5 vs a C55 05 and I belive the M5 will be the strongest.

BTW: The gearing on the M5 is 3.15:1 diff, 6 gear is 0,828 and the 5th is 1:1.

The problem with using street racing as a bechmark for deciding what car is fastest is that you will never know the difference in driver quality, was the other guy really into it from the start and a lot of other aspects.

If you read kill stories on LS1. com, M5 board and here on MB we all win on our own board. On LS1 they kill just about everything, almost the samt thing on our board allthoug we are a bit more realistic, this board I do not know much, but I guess it is more or less the same as on our.

What does this mean. On our board I would guess most of them are enhusiast and are above average interessted in cars and therefor more likly to do a lot of racing and then again get more experience. Same thing here.
On average Mercedes owners are NOT what I would decribe as sportive and interessted in anything fun . BUT thats not the same as saying none of them are. This board proves that, most of you buy cars with monstrous engines and use it. So you get experience to do so. So when you end up in a race with your C55 chances are you will toast an average M5 owner.

Why, its a hell of a lot more dificult to launch an M5 to its full potential and much more dificult than to do the same on an auto C55. Not saying is a walk in the park with the C55 either, its just easier. Thats a fact.

I have in my tiny and slow E36 M3 ******* totaly destroyed on the same day and track, M5, ,M3 and M3 CSL. Both M3`s was using Launc Controll and the M5 driver was new to his car.
So if I would start a flame war at m5 board I could say that my old M3 is faster than the CSL, but we all know( or should know) that it would be total BS.

If I would claim that an stock or close to stock M3 would be able to beat an E55, you would go balistic and call me a troll or worse :p
But I actually has video to prove it.
I have a video of an practically stock M3 running 12,497@110 mph. That is in E55 theritory I belive. Well the driver in this car is an experienced drag racing driver and not you average Joe.

The only point in this is to show what an extremly well driven M3 can do.
The only modification in the M3 was an electronical optimization. Stock tires, exhoust and intake. NO pulley.

I know that everything equall the M3 would be toast vs the E55. But it is very capable of hanging with or beating an C55.

When we bough our first ( and only) E class AMG back in the early, 80 we where told by Hans Werner Aufrecht ( owner and founder) that the goal of AMG was to be for Mercedes what ALPINA was for BMW.
The sportive qualities of the early 80 AMG compared to what ALPINA made was a joke, so we went back to ALPINA.

Today they are making cars that are comparable to ALPINA but they er not comparable to BMW M cars. Not saying they are not as good or as fast or anything, just different and more comparable to ALPINA than with BMW M.
AMG are using huge kompressor based engine with torque that could move a trcuk and comfortable autoboxes, while M are building rasor sharp throttle responce and screaming "sport engines" with race like manuel boxes and amazing handling.
Some like the mother and som the daughter, so what.

AMG has raised the benchmark for straigh line speed to almost ridicolous leves and have had M cars fighting to keep up for to long and I am very happy know when the new M is soon to be launched and putting things right again

The first test of the pre series M cars has gotten amazing results that proves its capabilities. So far the results indicates 0-200 kph in 13.5 sec as the fastest, several in 13,7 and the slowest on mid 14. That is definatly faster than any E55 I have seen. The gap from 100 kph to 200 kph is closed in less than 9 sec and that is GT2 theritory and equaly fast as the Lambo murch...

Is this enough to win every street race with an E55, probably not because the advantage in the favour of the M5 is not big enough to make up for anything that can happen.


Just for fun, see this list based on results gotten by the German Sport Auto. Regarded as the best mag in Europe.

BMW M5 E60 8.8 s
360 modena 11.4 s
360 stradale 11.1 s
996 turbo 10.4 s
996 GT3 (2003) 10.2 s
996 GT3 RS 9.3 s
SL55 AMG 9.5 s
575M Maranello 9.3s
Gallardo 9.0 s
Murcielago 8.9 s
996 GT2 (462ps) 8.4 s


Finaly, I find it stupide to have this sometimes "angry" tone in this discussion, we all have great taste in cars, different but still great. Sometimes our cars is faster and somethimes yours are.

I can live with that as long as I always beat you :p

Improviz

I would. I've run several of those things, up high and down low, and never
lost to one yet.

I thought E39 M5's went out of production after 2003! Anyway, as already pointed out: each of the C55's 362 horsepower is moving fewer weight than each of the M5's 394.

Further, I've got plenty of anecdotal accounts from M3 and M5 owners about
their losing to CLK55s:

E46 M3 owner vs. his Dad's CLK55: four races, four wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: two races, two wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: multiple races, M5 vs. M3 vs. CLK55; CLK55 wins all

CLK55 owner vs M3: two races, one win for CLK55, one tie, both on video

CLK55 owner vs his brother's M5: multiple runs, dead even (M5s are faster than M3s)

M5 owner who switched to CLK55 reports CLK55 is just as quick

M3 owner reports runs with W210 E55: dead even race

add another E46 M3 owner to the list:

add still another E46 M3 owner to the list:

E46 M3 owner reports: beaten by two lengths by CLK55:

E46 M3 owner reports: beaten by one length by CLK55:

And here are four more for you:
Motorweek's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.4@107

Motorweek's test of E46 M3: 13.5@107

Edmunds' test of CLK55 AMG: 13.48@106.3

Edmunds' test of M3: 13.5@105

Actually, I disagree, for the following reasons:

1) the M5 has a limited slip differential (LSD); the C55 does not

2) the M5 is about 400 pounds heavier than the C55; more weight
pressing down on the tires = higher traction.

3) the M5 has 275-series rear tires; the C55 has 245.

4) I own a CLK55, and it is genuine pain to get it off the line without tons of
wheelspin, although I have mastered a technique which allows it, but it is still quite tricky.

5) Bearing in mind that the E55 here was 200 lb heavier and had 275's on the back (more traction), have a look at what Motor Trend had to say when comparing a W210 (previous) E55 with the M5 in this article: And I agree with them. Like the old E55, launching the C55 without massive wheelspin is very difficult. I do agree that once rolling, the auto totally eliminates driver error from the equation.

Actually, the 12.4 run was "supposedly" done after the driver in question had
added pulleys. But I question these times, and whether the vehicle was stock.

1) there has been no verification that the vehicle had stock tires, other than
the owner's saying so; the videos plainly show that the vehicle did not have
stock wheels, and so it is safe to assume non-stock tires;

2) a 1.7 60' time on street tires in a non-AWD car with this horsepower/weight ratio is unheard of, and I think is frankly impossible. I collected several stock M3 60' times in a debate with another forum member, and none of them were below 2.0, let alone a 1.7, and 0.3 in 60' times is a huge gain.

3) As I demonstrated in the following post during a debate with another forum member: the car was modified. Also note that in the videos, you can plainly see that the front seat is missing--which means that it's extremely likely that the rear seat was also removed...stock M3's have seats. :-) Removing weight makes the car faster.

4) in this post, when the driver in question was challenged to show up and
repeat his time, for which he would be paid $500, he talked a lot of smack, but never gave the poster a time at which he would show up...and then later claimed to have gone to the track, again without telling the challenger he would be there, saying it was "too bad" that he didn't show...well, how could he have shown without being told when? I find it highly suspicious that he would simply throw away a chance at $500 if he were truly capable of repeating it!

In the recent US mag tests, the C55 was tested faster than previous M3 tests.

Except that if you look at the numbers the latest Benzes are posting, they are very comparable to the M Cars; for example, the C55's 8'22" 'ring time matches the E46 M3...not bad for an auto with no LSD!

Wrt the straightline speed of the M5 vs. E55 et al: I would keep one thing in mind, however: given that the last generation AMG cars equalled or beat the M cars in straightline performance, I see no reason to doubt that this will change...i.e., Mercedes is certainly capable of building cars competative with the M5 in straightline--and handling. Honda's S2000 makes more hp/liter than the M3. Do you seriously think that if so inclined, Mercedes could not match this level of design? They have a different philosophy, that is all, not a lessor quality of engineering as many Bimmer owners would like to believe.

As to acceleration figures: do you happen to have those figures for the CL65 or McClaren? Before the M5 even hits the streets, it has been trumped by two Mercedes already in production; nothing produced by BMW can match these babies. Also note that AMS tested the SL55 at 8'12" around the 'ring, a full 17 seconds faster than the 8'29" they got in the M5!

I agree with you 100%. The anger stems from the fact that we get a lot of trolls here, and it gets tiresome. Go to M5Board and try to find a comparable number of Mercedes owners trolling the forums as we get here...

Why is it that so many BMW owners have this urge to come here and tell us why their subjective opinion of what constitutes a "better" car is better than our subjective opinion? I honestly don't understand this phenomenon...it is truly strange.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder, and while you might think that track
numbers are the most important criterion in the selection of a two-ton luxury
automobile, I can assure you that others might not put it at the top of the
list...the appearance of the automobile is important, the interior and amenities are important, etc. etc...

There are always tradeoffs. For example, you proudly cite the acceleration
numbers of the M5. But I can promise you that when the numbers are in, the car will not beat the 'ring or Hockenheim times of the cars you cited above, the possible exception being the SL55.

So, if track numbers are paramount, why get an M5 over a GT2? Because there are other considerations in the purchase, of course.

I know that you're joking, but the thing to consider, Erik, is that you are posting not about cars which cost $10K less than your own, but are either the same, or more expensive. So, if "beating you" were more important to us than the other factors, it would be wise to keep in mind that we are all quite capable of purchasing an automobile with better track capablities! It is a question of priorities, not affordability.

Erik

OK, But my money would still be on the M5.

About the model year, my bad.... I was writing a little to fast for my head to keep up.





OK, a bit supprising but since I have not driven your car I cant argue against you on that point. Even if I belive that the evarage driver would find it easier to launch the auto than the stock. At least for you US guys that cant handle a stick..



OK, I am not as suspicios as you are so I can accept it. I have seen several stock M3 in the high 12 and the speed is not that much higher than what most many other get. This guy gets 110 mph, I have seen many @108 mph
I have alos seen some lower.

But I agree, this is not your average result on any M3 modded or not modded.



In Europe the oposite is the case.

In your track challenge guide you often refer to is from an 2001 model M3 that was not very fast.

Later 2002 and 2003 models has been a lot faster.






No, thats a very good result.




Well for the moment the new M5 is faster than the E55 and the CLS 55.

But it is very easy for AMG fo boost up the pressure and change that picture.

I have never said anything about good or not good regarded to the different engine philosopy. But it is the easier and simlper solution to go for a blower than do develop a high reving 5,5 ltr V10 also capable for city driving and at the same time rev above 8000 rpms.
To gain 50 more Hp in the new M5 is extremly difficult, to do the same in the E55 is easy.




Yes I have a German test of the Aston, Ferrari 612 and the AMG CL65.

The CL was here definatly the fastest in straigh line, but was totaly humiliated on Hockenheim racetrack by over 2 sec.
The straigh line result was equal with the new M5. The CL was only a few tenth slower to 200 kph than the M5.


No thats wrong, they got 8,28 :p , so the diff is only 16 sec. But seriously, the ring time on the M5 is the old 400 Hp E39 M5 and a very important aspect to consider, the tire technology has become a lot better since that car was tested in 1999, and also the M5 has become a lot stronger. The M5 in that test is app 2 sec slower than what is today the normal result in the 0-200 kph sprint.

When the M5 was tested it was tested agasint a Brabus CLK 5.8 with 400 Hp. The Brabus got beaten on the ring 8.38 vs 8.28.
The CLS was 250 Kg leighter.
On Hockenheim the Brabus was 2 sec faster.

Laptimes of 8 min 20 has been achieved, but those are not comparable since the driver is different.

The new M5 did the same lap in 8 min 13, actually a disapointing result for us, but still fast as hell for a 4 door limo.

And the 100-200 kph time for the new M5 is nothing less than breathtakingly fast.

FrankW

boohoo...I'd take both the new ugly M5 and the E55 if i have the $$

the limited production CLK DTM will be faster than any of the car before mentioned in this thread...end of discussion.

Improviz

I would wager that I've been driving manual-transmissioned cars for longer than you've been alive.

I haven't. And when someone comes along and said they run times nearly a full second faster than the pro test drivers the magazines use got, I frankly take it not with a grain of salt, but with a pound of salt...they pay those test drivers for a reason, and it's not for their lousy driving skills.

If you're going to attempt to debate me, please respond to all of my points. You seem to be arguing that the M3 is always faster, and yet I produced with no difficulty a large number of cases wherein M3 and M5 owners told of opposite results. No comment?

So? That certainly doesn't prove you right, unless you are claiming that the US magazines are inaccurate.

Have the specifications changed since 2001? No. So, dramatic improvements make me suspicious...particularly given my results against them. Further, the results at track-challenge.com's singletest page compared with the 12/2000 test results you discount are quite similar:

0-100 km/h; 0-160km/h, 100-0 hot; Hockenheim:
12/2000: 5.2; 11.4; 36.4 m; 1.17,6
12/2002: 5.2; 11.6; 36.1 m; 1.17,6
3/2003: 4.8; 11.4; 36.1 m; 1.17,6
7/2003: 5.0; 11.3; 37.7 m; 1.16,3

Pretty close, and the 0-100 times and h-heim times are virtually identical. Perhaps a bit better traction was obtained at launch...

Incorrect. I would suggest you consult some good textbooks on engine design: supercharged and turbocharged engines are actually extremely challenging to design, more so than N/A, not less as you are arguing.

I repeat my question to you: given that Honda produces a normally aspirated engine for the S2000 which currently produces more horsepower per liter than any normally aspirated engine produced by BMW, are you seriously trying to argue that Mercedes is incapable of doing so?

This is the second time I have asked you this question, and I would appreciate an answer.

[QUOTE=Erik]Yes I have a German test of the Aston, Ferrari 612 and the AMG CL65.

The CL was here definatly the fastest in straigh line, but was totaly humiliated on Hockenheim racetrack by over 2 sec.

It should hardly surprise anyone who knows anything about racing cars that a car weighing 227 and 190 kg more than its competitors would get beaten by a few seconds around a short track. For example: compare the BMW M3's lap times to those of the BMW M5.

This is odd, because according to track-challenge.com, the SL55 AMG was tested at 13.8 seconds 0-200: http://www.track-challenge.com/singletest4_e.asp?Car=48

And the CL65 is running about 0.8 seconds faster at the strip than the SL55, so something seems out of whack with those CL65 numbers. Perhaps this car had problems..

And in this article, Auto Motor und Sport got 0-100 in 3.9 seconds, 0-200 km/h in 12.6 seconds, which sounds more realistic.

My mistake.

Amazing how in the same time period, their acceleration times here haven't changed significantly. And according to the data on track-challenge.com's singletest, there were two subsequent tests of the M5 to the 1999: one in 8/2002 and one in 1/2003. Comparing, I get the following:

0-100 km/h; 0-160km/h, 100-0 hot; Hockenheim:
1999: 5.4; 12.1; 38.2 m; 1.18,5
2002: 5.5; 12.0; 37.9 m; 1.19,5
2003: 5.0; 11.3; 37.7 m; 1.18,5

Acceleration averages out to 5.3, 12.0, showing that the first test was hardly an anomaly; more like the third was an anomaly to me.

Supposedly 400 hp...pretty doubtful when you compare its acceleration times with the stock 349 horsepower CLK55. Don't trust tuners' horsepower ratings; they are notoriously optimistic. I would expect the faster H-heim time as the CLK was lighter.

But not, however, as fast as the SL55 AMG, which ran it in 8 min 12 :
http://www.track-challenge.com/singletest3_e.asp?Car=48

Auto Motor und Sport tested the M5 to 200 km/h only 0.7 sec. faster than the CLS55 in this article, so it's not as if we're going to bow down and worship the thing. Further, as you pointed out: its 'ring time does not even match the SL55, but instead lags it by one second.

The other point you fail to address is the persistent efforts of BMW owners to come to these forums and second-guess our subjective decisions to purchase these cars. You also failed to answer my question: if track times are the most important factor in purchasing a car, why would any sane person purchase a two-ton, four-door sedan??? The fact that one second separates these cars on a race track indicates that one must be driven at 10/10 to outrun the other, which no sane person should be doing. Further, for the same money, a 911 would be a far superior track car.

Please explain why anyone would place such a high premium on minute differences in track times in cars of this caliber, when there are so many other factors which go into buying a four door luxury sedan.

Thank you.

Improviz

In the test video of the CLS55 and M5 linked to in this thread, the 0-100 and 0-200 km/h times for the M5 are 4.7s and 14.8s respectively. This gives a 100-200 km/h time of 10.1s.

From what source did you see it getting an 8.8???

Erik

From this one.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/att...achmentid=2794


M5 vs Porsche
0-100 kph 4,7 sec
0-200 kph 13,5 sec
100-200 kph 8,8 sec

I have also seen 4,4sec 0-100 times, but I could not find them at the moment.But the difference from 4,4 to 4,5 has no practical meaning.

a 4.5 time is in this link.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/att...achmentid=2862
I think........

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...7&postcount=56
M5 in Sport Auto Supertest

Erik

That would make you a senior citicen and explain why you choose to drive an AMG
Soory, could not help my selves......


That’s true, but I have driven against some of this testers in Norway and was not that impressed. Some of them are bad, some good and some have almost pro qualities.

Me to get sceptical when I read something to good to be true. But his times are not like 1 sec faster than what normal good times I have seen before. Hell I have seen 14 sec times also but that does not represent what the M3 is capable of. So when I read a lot of the post concerning his driving and times I was impressed, and until it is proven wrong I believe it. BUT as I said, this does not represent an average M3 time. I know you can edit videos, but I have a hard time believing that has been done.

Well you made so many points and quotes I sometime loose the overview. J
I did not mean to claim it would always be faster, but all things equal my money would be on the M3. I also believe I said it would be close.



It does not prove I am wrong either does it.

Well on cars this fast the traction parameter is big, so that could be the case. More interesting is to se the times up to 200 kph.
There we have the biggest difference. Some later models have dipped into high 16 but the earlier was in mid 18 and higher.
The fact that the later models is stronger than the early ones has been confirmed by owner of both early and late models M5. I have neither so I do not know by experience.

Its not strange to me that cars evolve thru a production phase. The improve small things all the time without updating the figures. The tolerances get smaller and electronics get better.

But I have to admit 1 thing, I often find this discussion of +/- tenths of second ridiculous, its something we did when we here kids.
But I always manage to put my selves right in them.
Neither I, or you I guess buy a car of this calibre based on a few tenth here or there.

Yes and no.

Yes, it is more simple to make a N/A normal engine than it is to develop a Turbo engine.

But the M engines are NOT you average N/A engine. We are talking about high reving engines with more +100 Hp/ltr. ( M3 and new M5) . And to produce an N/A engine with the power output of a blown 5 ltr engine is not easy. At lest not when we consider the fact that it has to be usable for the streets with powerful pull also down low, qualify for all normal environment tests. So for BMW M to keep up with the Hp race of AMG without putting a blower in it, they had to use every trick in the book. It is also be a lot easier for AMG to up the power 50 Hp, to do the same on the new M5 engine would be close to impossible without increasing the volum.

So am I saying that its easy for AMG to produce their engine, NO.
Am I saying they could not produce an engine like M does, NO. But they would need long time to make it as good as M does. That has to do with experience. Same thing goes for BMW M, they would also take some time to develop a blown engine to the quality of AMG.

You talk about the HONDA engine…. , it’s a funlittle thing, but I am sure you see that it is a bit more complicated to make a 5,5 ltr V10 reving more 8250 rpms with that long stroke than for a tiny little 4 banger. I once read the speed of the piston of the M5 is more or less identical to a Formula 1 engine. That is impressive if it is true.

I also copied your number from earlier in the post. Yes the differences are big, same as with the CL65 test I have seen. But its not that difficult or unheard of that cars delivered for testing are not modified but carefully taken care of for best possible result and that are a hell of a lot more easy to do with a Blown engine.
But is could just as well be that some are faster than other.


That I know, some tuner live sometimes in a fantasy world. You have if I am not mistaken used a blown M5 for reference somewhere. If that car has what is claimed I will eat my hat.
I have been in the tuner business for some time, and I know a lot is pure BS.



That is also by far the slowest result on any of the m5 tested. But the CLS55 is also a very fast car.

I know . It was terrible and very surprising.
If I write why it was so “slow” you probably going to have me prove it so I wait until I can. J


I have no idea. I have never done it I hope. I could not care less what car you buy.
To me the difference on an AMG and the M is big.
I did not know that BMW guys are coming here. I did not know if the existence of this board until you came long and went ballistic with the M5owner claiming to have stayed away from an CL55 :=).

I actually think 99% behaved well in that post, even though I think it got stupid in the end.

I believe I have never posted here before, if so I have forgotten it.


No its not the most important factor, not by a long shot.
But I really enjoy taking my car to the track and at the same time put my family in it and go for a vacation or go to get groceries.
I and really doubt you would argue against me when I say that for that task the M range does that better than most other cars. I would stick my head out and say it does it better than the AMG`s, but that’s my personal preferences.
You get faster cars, you get car with more space, you get more comfortable cars, but you are gonna look hard to find some that does everything that good.
If I was a rich man I would get a M5 for everyday use and an M3 for track use and entertainment.

So the possible ring time for any given car is to me important, it says a lot about the balance and capabilities for the car. But anything below 8 min 30 is fast as hell.
If I hade the money I would get my selves an M3 CSL, Look up the data on track challenge and you understand what I mean.


Pheeeeeeeewww, did I get everything this time…..

Erik

That would make you a senior citicen and explain why you choose to drive an AMG
Soory, could not help my selves......


That’s true, but I have driven against some of this testers in Norway and was not that impressed. Some of them are bad, some good and some have almost pro qualities.

Me to get sceptical when I read something to good to be true. But his times are not like 1 sec faster than what normal good times I have seen before. Hell I have seen 14 sec times also but that does not represent what the M3 is capable of. So when I read a lot of the post concerning his driving and times I was impressed, and until it is proven wrong I believe it. BUT as I said, this does not represent an average M3 time. I know you can edit videos, but I have a hard time believing that has been done.

Well you made so many points and quotes I sometime loose the overview. J
I did not mean to claim it would always be faster, but all things equal my money would be on the M3. I also believe I said it would be close.



It does not prove I am wrong either does it. :p

Well on cars this fast the traction parameter is big, so that could be the case. More interesting is to se the times up to 200 kph.
There we have the biggest difference. Some later models have dipped into high 16 but the earlier was in mid 18 and higher.
The fact that the later models is stronger than the early ones has been confirmed by owner of both early and late models M5. I have neither so I do not know by experience.

Its not strange to me that cars evolve thrue a production phase. The improve small things all the time without updating the figures. The tolerances get smaller and electronics get better.

But I have to admit 1 thing, I often find this discussion of +/- tenths of second ridiculous, its something we did when we here kids.
But I always manage to put my selves right in them.
Neither I, or you I guess buy a car of this calibre based on a few tenth here or there.

Yes and no.

Yes, it is more simple to make a N/A normal engine than it is to develop a Turbo engine.

But the M engines are NOT you average N/A engine. We are talking about high reving engines with more +100 Hp/ltr. ( M3 and new M5) . And to produce an N/A engine with the power output of a blown 5 ltr engine is not easy. At lest not when we consider the fact that it has to be usable for the streets with powerful pull also down low and qualify for all normal environment tests. So for BMW M to keep up with the Hp race of AMG without putting a blower in it, they had to use every trick in the book. It is also be a lot easier for AMG to up the power 50 Hp, to do the same on the new M5 engine would be close to impossible without increasing the volum.

So am I saying that its easy for AMG to produce their engine, NO.
Am I saying they could not produce an engine like M does, NO. But they would need long time to make it as good as M does. That has to do with experience. Same thing goes for BMW M, they would also take some time to develop a blown engine to the quality of AMG.
But it not likly that any of them would change their philosophy.

You talk about the HONDA engine…. , it’s a funlittle thing, but I am sure you see that it is a bit more complicated to make a 5,5 ltr V10 reving more 8250 rpms with that long stroke than for a tiny little 4 banger. I once read the speed of the piston of the M5 is more or less identical to a Formula 1 engine. That is impressive if it is true.

I also copied your number from earlier in the post. Yes the differences are big, same as with the CL65 test I have seen. But its not that difficult or unheard of that cars delivered for testing are not modified but carefully taken care of for best possible result and that are a hell of a lot more easy to do with a Blown engine.
But is could just as well be that some are faster than other.


That I know, some tuner live sometimes in a fantasy world. You have if I am not mistaken used a blown M5 for reference somewhere. If that car has what is claimed I will eat my hat.
I have been in the tuner business for some time, and I know a lot is pure BS.



That is also by far the slowest result on any of the m5 tested. But the CLS55 is also a very fast car.

I know . It was terrible and very surprising.
If I write why it was so “slow” you probably going to have me prove it so I wait until I can. J


I have no idea. I have never done it I hope. I could not care less what car you buy.
To me the difference on an AMG and the M is big. They more or less do the same thing, the difference is how they do what they do.....
I did not know that BMW guys are coming here. I did not know if the existence of this board until you came long and went ballistic with the M5owner claiming to have stayed away from an CL55 :=).

I actually think 99% behaved well in that post, even though I think it got stupid in the end.

I believe I have never posted here before, if so I have forgotten it.


No its not the most important factor, not by a long shot.
But I really enjoy taking my car to the track and at the same time put my family in it and go for a vacation or go to get groceries.
I and really doubt you would argue against me when I say that for that task the M range does that better than most other cars. I would stick my head out and say it does it better than the AMG`s, but that’s my personal preferences.
You get faster cars, you get car with more space, you get more comfortable cars, but you are gonna look hard to find some that does everything that good.
If I was a rich man I would get a M5 for everyday use and an M3 for track use and entertainment.

So the possible ring time for any given car is to me important, it says a lot about the balance and capabilities for the car. But anything below 8 min 30 is fast as hell.
If I hade the money I would get my selves an M3 CSL, Look up the data on track challenge and you understand what I mean.


Pheeeeeeeewww, did I get everything this time…..

MiamiAMG

You bimmer guys can say all you want, post magazine articles, link videos, talk about times and statistics, even have the CEO of BMW come on and give us his opinion, whatever... Fact of the matter is that i beat that M5, nothing more, nothing less

tuscanraider

Its safer to say you beat the driver, rather than the car. With a different pilot the outcome might have been different.

MiamiAMG

That's usually the excuse the loser or a sophomoric person would use. Not in my case though, he took his beating like a man.

tuscanraider

Oh I see, your probably right, no matter who was driving the M5 they would have lost becasue you have AMG power.

MiamiAMG

Nope, i never said that, i said that i beat him. I also said that when someone losses a race they usually make an excuse, he didn't, but for some reason you did, even though you weren't there. I never said that i can't loose because i have an AMG On the other hand, you're the one insinuating that an M can't loose, it has to be driver error.

Erik

Sounds like a cool guy.

Personally I would much rather win a race because I am a the better driver than because my car is the fastest.

I have lots of wins against faster cars, but I have also lost to slower cars

Improviz

No, it makes me a person who has a) a lengthy commute in heavy traffic and tires
of shifting gears every five seconds for 30 min. at a time; b) a person who
prefers a hand-built, all-aluminum 5.5l V8 with 390 lb-ft of torque to a cast
iron 3.2 l I6, who prefers the interior of the Mercedes to the interior of BMW,
who prefers the ride quality of the CLK55 to the ride quality of the M3, the
better stereo, the appearance of the vehicle, etc...

In other words, I drove both this and the M3 extensively before choosing, and I
preferred the CLK55, or I would have an M3 in my garage. I also drove the 996,
and preferred *it* to the M3, but liked the CLK55--for my purposes--better. Had
I been looking for a track star, I would have bought the 996, which has superior
track numbers to the M3, and is far nicer to look at. But for my purposes, this
was the best ultra performance German uber-car.

As to the "12 second stock M3":

I have provided evidence that M3's 60' times are typically in the
2.0-2.2 range on street tires, timeslips, etc., which all cast doubt on his
story, *and* I have proven that the M3 in the video was NOT stock and had
weight-removing steps taken. "Stock" means "unmodified", Erik, and viewing
the videos proves with absolute certanity that the car was modified, period.
This is not open for discussion; as anyone can see by viewing the videos, the
car was not stock. Those are not stock M3 wheels, M3's come stock with front
seats, etc...stock means stock.

I do not believe that the video was modified; as I pointed out before, I do
believe (and proved) that the *car* was modified. I believe that the only way a
stock M3 could ever hit that 60' time would be with drag radials, and I have
seen absolutely *NO* evidence, other than a claim on an Internet forum by the
owner (who nevertheless did not to show up for $500 and prove it) that this is
a true statement. Until or unless I do, this feat remains a claim, not a fact.

And your argument about people making slower runs doesn't fly...this
is like arguing that because many people run 8+ second 40 m dashes, it is
therefore perfectly logical that someone could run it in 3 flat. It is a
non-sequitur. The fact that many people have lessor skills in no way
establishes that this individual has skills so great as to beat every test run
by such a margin.

In any case, I think we've wasted enough time on the "stock" M3 debate; we
clearly both agree that this is not representative of what stock M3's are doing
in general, and I can vouch for this from personal experience, fwiw. I
personally believe that a stock M3 could *possibly* get into the upper 12's
with drag radials (and possibly increasing the front tire pressure), but stock,
on stock tires, I'd say that low 13's are about as good as it's going to get,
and even that would require a very sticky track and an exceptional driver.

No. I believe the best thing to do is to look at the tests as a whole, and in
so doing, it seems that the race is a tossup. I believe personally that the M3
does have a traction advantage off the line due to its wider tires and limited
slip differential, which is what accounts for its faster times, NOT any
horsepower superiority on its part (in fact, it is 30 horsepower down from the
C55, and has over 100 lb ft less torque).


Based upon what I see in those tests, I simply don't believe that the car would
make up two full seconds from its 0-100 times in those runs. Can you please
scan or link to the articles which support this claim? There was one done which
was clearly faster than the others, but 3/4 tests were quite close, and the
0-100 time was virtually identical in all of them, which leads me to believe
that the fourth was an anomaly, not standard, given the fact that the car's
specifications have not changed.


Absolutely; this is what I am saying! The fact that one must drive an M3/M5 at
10/10 on a track to outrun an AMG (or tie it, in the case of the C55/M3, or to
lose to it, in the case of the SL55/E60 M5 ) shows that on the street, there
will be no appreciable difference between the two, unless the drivers in
question are both lunatics who should have their licenses revoked for the safety
of us all.


You are claiming that it is more difficult to build an N/A engine to 100 hp/l
than a turbo. I am an engineer by trade, and I claim that it is not. If you
can provide proof to back up this claim, please provide it, because I'm not
going to engage in a factual argument based upon your opinions.

I cited the HONDA engine because it produces higher hp/l than any M car in
production. You maintain that this is because it is easier to do this in a 4
cylinder engine than in a 6, 8, or 10. Again, I would like to see proof of this
claim, because I really don't have time or inclination to argue on your
opinions: I don't know your background or credentials, but I am telling you that
I have studied engine design, and I do not accept your argument. Each method of
engine design brings challenges, and frankly, the methods used in either case
are well-established and have been around for years; this is not rocket science
or cutting-edge technology in any sense.


I agree with you re tuners' claims and production variances in cars, although I
still think there was something wrong with that CL65; that is too big of a
variance to be accounted for with normal production tolerances. Either they
launched it on a very slippery surface, or there it was not producing rated
horsepower. I am confident that this vehicle will test out with sub-12 second
1/4 miles and 120+ mph trap speeds when US mags test it.


We get many of them here, and it is not just here...go visit Audiworld's S-car
forums sometime, Porsche forums...same deal. It is annoying. You are actually
quite polite, and for the most part have avoided attacking the AMG stuff, so
I'm not bothered by you to the same extent as some of the others!!


Regarding track numbers' being the most important factor in choosing a luxury sedan:
We agree on this one!

Yes, but so do the AMGs. The M range are great cars, but I weight everyday
driving and luxury higher than track use, and here (imo) the AMGs are better.

For example, we own a 3-series with sport package. It has marvelous steering
and handling dynamics, but the odd thing is that while it has significantly more
body roll in sharp corners than my AMG, the AMG has a smoother ride. And the
AMG has a *much* smoother ride than the M3, not an idle consideration where I
live...the roads are quite lumpy here.

If I were just rolling in dough, I would own a fleet of cars...for everyday use,
I would probably get a large, high-powered luxury sedan, along with a nice Grand
Tourer and a Porsche (or if I was *really* rich, a Ferrari or the smaller Lambo)
for track use.

Not me; for that money, if I wanted a trackster, I'd get a GT3. M3 has really
good steering, but Porsche is the king there!

For that matter, if I wanted a serious track star, I'd prefer something very
lightweight, like a Caterham or an Elise. Street cars are too heavy for serious
track fun imo, with few exceptions. I would prefer 2800 pounds or less for a
track car, which few street cars are at or below.


Yes!!

Speaking of which: given that we seem to agree that both the M cars and AMG cars
are great cars and that the decision is one of personal preference and weighting
of factors, I'd recommend that we leave it at that...these mini-essays take too
much time!!

reggid

The difference between a Honda and M engine is that the M engines are far more flexible. In the s2000 the peak torque is at very high rpms 7500rpm and power at 8300rpm so you have to constantly rev to get anything useful. M engines are not designed for maximum hp/L they have more flexibiity and have better torque per litre (have better inflow and outflow charcateristics).

E36 M3 peak torque at 3250rpm and power at 7600rpm,
E46 M3 peak torque at 4900rpm and power at 7900rpm,
E39 M5 peak torque at 3800rpm and power at 6600rpm,
E60 M5 peak torque at 6100rpm and power at 7750rpm

these are good numbers for a NA car with high specific power and specific torque.

Many motorcycles have over 100hp/L but engine size alone isn't the key factor but the stroke is important which allows more revs. The F1 cars have a stoke of about ~42mm and bore of ~95mm compared to 91mm and 87mm respectively in the E46 M3 and 75mm and 92mm for the E60 M5 thats one of the reasons why F1 cars have a higher rev limit and make 300hp/L

So i guess i'm saying that hp/L isn't that hard but achieving flexibility across the rev range is more of a challenge and will comprimises absolute hp/L as shown by comparing BMW and Honda.

Improviz

Actually, peak torque on an S2000 is at 6500 rpm, peak power at 7800 rpm. Its torque/liter compares quite favorably with the E46 M3: it is 162/2.2l = 73.6 to the 77 of the M3...quite close, and impressive. But my point was (and we shall find out soon enough; see third paragraph) that BMW does not have a monopoly on great engineers, and Mercedes could certainly build N/A powerplants of comparable power if so inclined. The secrets of increasing engine power in either N/A or forced induction engines are not exactly on-the-edge technology these days...the techniques are the same, it's the CAD tools which and variable valve timing which have facillitated some of the fantastic motors we see today.

In any case, my CLK55's peak torque is rated at 3,000 rpm, and peak horsepower is at 5,700 rpm...only 300 shy of the range in the M3, and same as in the M5, except that it comes in 1,000 rpm lower. However, as a percentage of the usable rev range, I prefer the spread of the CLK55: spread from peak torque-peak hp is almost 50% of usable rev band, while on M3 it is 37.5% (4,900-8,000). This is why the acceleration in the CLK55 is so much more linear, and why I prefer a nice, big V8 to a peaky L6.

In any case, AMG will soon be moving from forced induction motors to N/A, so we shall see how the two compete (V8's, that is...I'll already cede the 6-cylinder contest to BMW, as Mercedes gave that one up by switching to V6's)

FrankW

Honda, BMW, or MB all suck!!!!

SAAB makes the best engine in the world who would've think you could have a movable cylinder head that can change compression ratio accordingly.

and

would the troll just go away and would improv just stop wasting time arguing (you know why they are called the "troll")

M&M

Improviz, its a lot easier to pull those hp/litre numbers from small engines. Case in point, S2000 has xxx hp from 2.0. Honda NSX i-VTEC 3.2 V6 has 276hp. ITs much easier to make a smaller engine rev.

Even BMW in the late 80's have the 4-cylinder M3 Sports Evolution III which from 2.5l made 247hp (I think). So they pushed almost 100hp/litre in the 80's without VVT.

I think any manufacturer can do so if they want to. It just takes engineering. The question is do they want do. Does their target market want such an engine?

reggid

We don't get the 2.2 S2000 here but i've heard that it doesn't have the hp/L of the 2.0L which had 104Nm/L with the e46 m3 114Nm/L so the bigger they made the engine the more torque per litre they got and less hp/L to help drivability i assume.

My point with the useable rpm band was that that its impressive for a engine with more than 100hp/L not that its neccesarily impressive full stop.

The E36 M3 euro had more spread than current M engines (4150rpm/7600 = 55%) and its torque never went below 83% of the peak value (@1500rpm) an achievement that is difficult to better in any engine fullstop.
Meaning that its torque curve was very flat and its power very linear and its acceleration in gear would have been close enough to a constant (actually constant torque does not give linear acceleration) if not for air resistance.

BMW have seemingly gone away from that in the newer engines the E60 M5 is very strange with noticeable "steps" and "dips" in its torque curve.

Erik

Agree. I totaly respect your choice and understand and agree on the part that AMG is the more comfortable ride. Its a matter of personal preferences. Personally I like the stiff setup. For my preferences the M is still the choice.
On the other parts we can agree that we not always agree.

BTW: The GT3 is one of my favorites, but the fact is the M3 CSL is definatly faster around the ring even it is a lot slower in straigh line speed.
In 2003 Porsche launched the updated GT3 with stronger engine and updated chassis, even faster straigh line, but it could not beat the Ring time of the CSL.
It was not until the very light weight GT3RS came with same tire setup as the CSL is was able to beat it, but only with 3 sec. And that does say a lot of the handling of the CSL considering the GT3RS totaly blow the CSL away in straigh line performance. 0,5 sec faster to 100 kph and more than 3 sec faster to 200 kph.
Even the 425 Hp and 50 kg leighter Ferrari Challenge Stradale was beat by 6 sec by the CSL.


But Porsche is to my opinion the best sportscar producer on the marked.
It really are made for hard use and can take the beating over and over again.
Especially the GT3, Turbo and the GT2 and offcourse the Carrera GT


Bin fun discussing with you.

Improviz

Well, the M3 did eek out a win, but you're forgetting one very important little factor: when AMS tested the M3 CSL, the air/track temperature was 26/34 degrees C, while when they tested the 2003 GT3, they were 14/16 respectively. This temperature differential would give the M3 an enormous advantage in grip, and so it's not really a fair comparison. Also note that despite this, the GT3 did pull a slightly faster Hockenheim time, 1'13.2" to the M3 CSL's 1'13.5".

In fact, this test is quite odd...given that the GT3 won on Hockenheim, which is a shorter track where grip and cornering ability are weighted a bit more heavier than the longer Nuerburgring, at which acceleration comes more into play, I would have also expected the GT3 to have won at the 'ring, given its superior acceleration numbers. This also makes it seem more likely to me that temperature and track conditions were responsible for the time differential rather than the differences between the vehicles themselves:

http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=63&Car2=61

Yes, but in looking at the track conditions on track-challenge.com, I see that the same temperature differential was present here, and the same held true: the Stradale won on Hockenheim by 0.5 seconds, and yet lost on the 'ring by 6, despite vastly superior acceleration. But the temperatures were virtually the same as when the Porsche was tested, at 19/17 air/track...again, not really a fair comparison, as a warmer, stickier track (and tires) would give the CSL a great advantage.

http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=63&Car2=70

Yeah, I love the Porsches....great cars. My next car will probably be a 911...

Anyway, fun chatting with you.