Is the E40 M5 faster than the SLK55. Anyone have any personal experiences?

 

I'd suggest you list the model year and/or horsepower of the M5. Not everyone keeps up with BMW internal model naming nomenclature. Fyi, you can look up the published Quarter Mile times & trap speeds to get an idea of speed proximity (the SLK55 is a 12.7/12.8 sec car trapping 110 - 111 mph).

-Matt

 

WTF is an E40?

 

lmao E40..

Its
e28 ->Pre 1989
e34 -> 1989-1995
e39 -> 1996-2003
e60 -> 2003-Present buddy.

 

Or he could get it right the first time haha.

I read the title wondering, perhaps he meant to say the 540i Sport that looks like a M5?

 

Probably meant e39 M5which is the previous 400 h.p. M5 replaced by the current 500h.p. current e60 M5.
I believe the SLK55 would take it. But look it up.
Rich

 

This is true! I just didn't want to sound like an azz.

-Matt

 

I had an e39 M5 and the SLK55 is definitely faster, quite a bit faster actually. They are both torque monsters, but because of the SLK's size it’s a whole different experience. My M5 would do 0-60 in the 4.7 second range whereas the SLK55 is in the 4.3 - 4.5 range. The M5 is also manual, so to achieve 4.7 you need to have near perfect shifts; with the SLK, just hammer the gas and hold on !!!!

 

sorry ...my bad. i meant the current M5. I guess I am not as good with model nomenclature since I gave my BMW up for a benz (the BMW forums tend to be a bit more ****).

 

Current M5 = SLK55 loses...badly. Maybe not so bad in a run from a stop. But on the highway you're done.

 

Hmm, not exactly. New M5 runs a 12.8 to 12.9 sec Quarter & traps ~ 114 mph. The SLK55 runs a 12.7 to 12.8 sec Quarter & traps ~ 111 mph.

So, the SLK is quicker through the Quarter (although very close & assumes the M driver makes ZERO mistakes), the M5 traps faster. So, on a high speed roll, the SLK will get pulled.

-Matt

 

Drag strip times for the M5 are not as good as expected. I've seen a lot of very disappointing times for it compared to what it oughta be able to do with 500hp...

But occasionally you hear some incredible stories, but none of them ever have any concrete proof, so I dunno.

I don't think the low torque and very heavy engine helps (smaller displacement then the AMG 63 engine, yet weighs over a hundred lb's more).

 

If you look at drag times theres M5s in the low 12s. The lowest is 12.2 at 116.5. Seems a little suspect for a stock vehicle. 12.3 for a 'stock' M5 with 21" rims? Umm...

Anyway traps for M5 are about 116. If you look at the SLK55 Traps are about 110 and still high 12s.

 

i've raced the current m5. about even to about 110 mph..., but i don't know how well the driver of the m5 was shifting. I would say racing against the average M5 driver, the slk55 would win.

 

Yellow R1:

I think your quoted times for the M5 are the worst ones published. The following are more reflective of the E60 M5's performance:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...06-bmw-m5.html

I think an SLK55 would have an advantage if the E60 driver was not ready to race. They have to get their car into a fully optimized mode and transmission setting with the SMG. For 2007 they are now offering a manual transmission. I think it then becomes a driver issue. What really is terrible is that the manual transmissioned cars can't fully disengage the traction control. It makes launching them that much harder. So I think the SLK55 would definitely have an advantage in real world conditions. However, if an E60 M5 driver is ready on the highway...there will be little an SLK55 can do to overcome the huge horsepower disadvantage.

Tom

 

Chuckle haven't you see what YellowR1 did to his car?

I know not a fair comparison

 

Actually no, I looked at the Motor Trend mag on my desk & bingo, a 12.9 sec Quarter mile trapping 114 mph. I was being generous in giving it a 12.7 or 12.8 sec time as I know Motor Trend's times can be conservative on occasion. Can your "average Joe" get a slightly faster time? Likely. Consistently? Unlikely (so I stand by MT's numbers as representative of the car's performance ). On a roll, the SLK will get pulled as I mentioned earlier. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_pricing.html


BTW, for people listing Drag Times numbers, I can do the same for the SLK (there is a 12.2 sec Quarter on DR's). Thing is with Drag Times, the testing is not done under controlled conditions (who knows if the poster is wearing DR's, or chipped his ECU, or is running headers, CIA, etc, etc). Its good info (I peruse the database myself on occasion), but its hardly a gold standard for the reasons just mentioned.

-Matt

 

Look who's talking Jesse

-Matt

 

Yellow R1:

Actually no...to your "actually no"... the attached links are from three Motor Trend tests:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_pricing.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_pricing.html

The first two relate to comparisons of the M5 against E63, S6 and CLS55. The BMW M5 ran a best 12.7 and a worst 12.9. The third is a test of the CLS55 against the STS-v. Why did I include the third comparison? The reason...to illustrate that the M5 vs CLS55 test (the one where the M5 ran 12.9) is not even indicitive of the CLS55's performance from the same magazine. The CLS55 in the third test ran a 12.5 second 1/4 mile time (about right for a stock CLS55). In the test with the M5, the CLS55 ran a 12.7... a pretty sluggish time. Interestingly enough, in the test with the E63 and S6, the E63 and BMW M5 ran identical 1/4 mile times. I guess you can make a case that the SLK55 is as fast as the E63 (and for that matter the CLS55).

For good measure here are some tests results for the SLK55:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html

I can't find a link for Car & Driver, but I know it ran 12.7 secod 1/4 mile time. The SLk55 is a pretty impressive package at a reasonable price. Personally, I like the SLK55 better than the E60 M5 (I can't get past the looks). In case you were wondering, my user name is in tribute to my E39 M5 (which I know would be handily beaten by the SLK55...although I also had an Audi RS6 which would be a really good match-up against the SLK55).

If you run an exact 1/4 mile race with the E60 M5, it would be pretty close. Although, a stock M5 has run under the best 1/4 mile time published for a stock SLK55. However, if the race is over a longer distance, the SLK55 is pretty much toast. Look at the M5's 0-100 mph times...even in its worst test it will beat the SLK55 by a full second. So even if the SLK55 edges an M5 at the 1/4 mile mark, the M5 is realing it in at a pretty fast pace (which we both seem to be in agreement with).

Cheers,

Tom

 

I agree with TMC, SLK55 would lose to an M5 both from stop and from a roll, it would be even worse against an M6. Stock M5's 0-100 is almost a full second faster than SLK55's and M5's trap 115-116mph in the 1/4 mile. There are plenty of low to mid 12 second passes on stock tires in M5 too....

 

here....

M5 times

http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes

SLK55 times
http://www.dragtimes.com/results.php...arch+DragTimes

M5 with a good driver is a faster car.

 

0-60mph or 0-100mph? A whole second? If the SLK has been tested by numerous people to be a 4.3 second car, is the M5 a 3.3 second car? ummm, no. The M5 can occasionally get close to the 4 second mark, but from most tests I've seen, the M5 is closer to 5 seconds for a 0-60 time.

However, 0-100, well, that I don't know as I don't have the numbers handy...

Also, some reports actually show that the M6 does worse in some tests versus the M5.

Still, they're all very impressive cars.

 

I said it before, I'll say it again. You don't use Dragtimes as the source for a car's acceleration performance. The cars & times have different drivers, different conditions, & nobody truly knows if the car is still in stock format. You use published results from reputable mags (several) to gauge performance (there will be some variances amongst the mags as well, but the variances are done in controlled conditions). Augment this data with personal experience & bingo, you have an excellent idea of performance.

-Matt

 

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to 0-100mph. Most magazines put SLK55 in mid 10's, while M5/M6 get mid 9's. Fastest 0-100mph for the SLK55 I've seen was 10.3 in Car and Driver...

 

Ah, that could be true. The 500hp really helps to keep it blasting past the 60mph mark.

So, when's MB making the SLK63 ? (I wish they took their heads out of their asses and just released it... sigh).