M&M

So now that the Sport Auto test is out, we can finally compare the M5 & E55 acceleration figures done by the same drivers on the same tracks, using the same techniques under similar conditions (temp difference was 3 degrees celcius & humidity was the same). Here's the Sport Auto tests of the cars:



& just in case you want to compare against an E55 sedan instead of the Estate, here's Sport Auto's test of the E55 sedan:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm

Test in sport auto 01/2003
Gewicht 1944 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

ANd as an added bonus here's the CL65 test by the same mag. The temp was about 10 deg higher though.



So let's discuss the aceleration of the M5 now that we can comparative figures.

Bilal

M5 is superfast!!!! yawn...

M&M

Come now Bilal. LOt's of E55 owners are showing interest in the M5, so let's just discuss the topic.

BTW, weren't you one of those saying it wouldn't be any faster than an E55?

HarveyKorenzo

I didnt think the M5 was even available yet. I wanna read that later.. but I think I'll go for a drive in my E55 right now.

Bilal

Ok ok, the yawn comment was a bit much, apologies.

The M5>stunningly fast>good engine ( can't beat a big block V8 IMO)>agile handling and feel. I'm very biased, so I would take the Mercedes regardless if its slower. I didn't say the M5 would be slower than E55, it is of course quicker, but not hugely quicker, just a testament to the AMG engineers for raising the bar so high that anyone wishing to beat it, can only beat it marginally, look at F430 and 612, just minutely faster. IMO, i'd still take the more comfort orientated car even if it was slower.

Besides, Sport auto Nring time for M5 is 1 second slower than SL55. The latter is heavier, cumbersome, slower in a straight line and limited to 155mph vs 170mph....but its faster.....The recent C55 also, is as quick as M3 around the ring...AMG is making progress....

Now there have been doubts regarding the M5 time, some say bad driver>impossible (he holds highest lap record around Nring in CGT) some say wrong modes used>impossible, some say wrong tyres used> impossible (good tyres will acount for a 13 second reduction to match BMW claims?>impossible.

So all in all, the conclusion is that the M5 is faster in a straight line than the 55K's and on par if not quicker than the 65 cars....but its handling has not met expectations...we should be impressed by this car? ( we are secretly) but not impressed enough to be tempted away from our beloved star....

M&M

I'll be the 1st to admit that AMG have made huge strides forward in the handling department. The lap time by the C55 is a great accomplishment.

The M5's time is a bit off. Sabine who drives the Ring taxi & is a woman (no offense ) laps 8:16 with the old M5. The BMW test drivers lapped close to 8 minutes dead with the preproduction models.

I find it hard to believe the M5 will only be 3 seconds quicker than the old M5. It will make massive time on every straight bit (of which there are may at the RIng).

Of course our German counterparts will agree that it has been raining incessantly during the period when the test was done. Even in the magazine shots from the test most showed rain. So I assume that lap time was done in rain or at least on a damp surface.

Having said that its still 10seconds faster than the E55 & RS6 & is the benchmark for a 4-door family car. But we all don't buy cars to lap racetracks, so I doubt it matters.

What shocks me in the in gear acceleration runs where the M5 was significantly quicker in all of them.

DRCrowder

blah blah blah we still magazine racing here? Ok Dec motor trend's cover is "The 1000-hp clash: BMW's monster v-10 m5 meets AMG's E55 Benz"

Bottom line from the article:

M5- awesome machine, handle like a dream, ugly as sin (in and out)

M5 - 0-60: 4.5, 0-100: 10.0, 1/4:12.6@115
E55- 0-60:4.2. 0-100: 9.7, 1/4: 12.4@116.2



WHO CARES ?!?!?!? once again, they are different cars, for different experiences. As I said in another thread, I do plan to sriously consider one, but it wont replace my E55 as they do different things (Plus, it would be bad-*** to own them both)

M&M

Geez, what's with all the hostility. I thought we could just have a civilised conversation on the upcoming E55 competitor. As you say you are considering one, I thought the topic would be pertinent.

But to each his own, I'm not saying the M5 is the better car. It just happens to be damn quick for a 4-door.

BTW, in case you didn't already know, Motor Trend numbers are estimated for the M5. (It says so in brackets after the numbers - estimated).

DRCrowder

I did know they were estimated, that's what the (est) means, my point in posting them is that the E55’s numbers beat any numbers for the E60 M5, estimated or tested.

While I don't mean to be hostile, I took the tone of your post as "read this, and take that!" that was further reinforced by you saying to another member "Weren't you the one that said it would be slowe?r" as if you were gloating.

I am 90% certain I will get the new M5, I am #4 on the list for Devon Hill BMW here in PA.

Once again, if I misread your tone (which I don’t think I did) then I would be glad to offer up my apologies. Otherwise, It is in very poor taste to do what you did.

reggid

correct me if i'm wrong but they didn't actually test the cars and used estimate times so it doesn't add anything conclusive and is not very useful.

edit: damn M&M beat me to it!

DRCrowder

They tested the E55 not the M5, but as I said above those numbers beat any estimates or actuals for the M5 to date. Now I'm not saying that dictates what will happen in real life, I just wanted to give the original poster info that was just a bit more fair that a 200kg heavier pig that was in the original test.

BTW those R&T numbers have been corroborated with Car and Driver

M&M

OK sorry if I came across too aggressive. They are, of course, both great cars. It would be an embarrassment for BMW if the M5 wasn't quicker than the E55. But I don't think it will be. I think Motor Trend & C&D will get some unbelievable times when they test it. We will have to wait & see.

But comparing what one mag got one side of the world to another test on a another continent is pointless. FOr example Autocar got 13.0 for their E55 test, but their test track is a dusty airfield & their test technique is full tank of fuel & 2 people in the car. Can't compare that to the US tests.

I posted test done by the same mag at the same place with same drivers, same test procedure etc. Sport Auto tested the E55T vs RS6+ in 13 deg celcius temp. The M5 was tested in the same place in 16 deg heat. The humidity was the same. Therefore I believe those times are comparable. The E55 did 15.6 & the M5 did 13.8.

We are seeing in the head-to-head tests (M5 vs CLS55 & Autocar M5 vs E55) that its reasonably close to 60mph. Up to 124mph the gap widens to a lowest of 0.7 & a max of 1.8 seconds (As above).

Going up to 150mph we are seeing the gap go big & Autocar got (I think) the M5 3 seconds faster to 150. I think the high rpm power, gearing, drivetrain efficiency, aeridynamics of the M5 make for a good runner after 60mph.

But even a 0.7 second gap to 124 is big. Its not 2-3 car lengths, but a lot more than that.

Frank Wiesmann

"Besides, Sport auto Nring time for M5 is 1 second slower than SL55. The latter is heavier, cumbersome, slower in a straight line and limited to 155mph vs 170mph"

That is not true. The SL 55 featured as the comparison car of the Aston Martin DB7 last year was "dechipped" to go 300 km/h, as you can also see on the speed readout in the magazine- it had a top speed of 270 or 280 on the Döttinger Höhe straight.

DRCrowder

if you feel you must fabricate any scenario in which the M5 is quicker, then please continue to do so.

I appreciate you realizing you came on a bit strong and backing it down.

All of this is utterly pointless. Wait for road and track, motor trend and car and driver to gat a hold of one and we'll see for sure

enzom

Speaking for us U.S. enthusiasts, how much time are we going to spend comparing magazine tests of cars that aren't available here? When the M5 finally comes out HERE, and a magazine runs its tests HERE with an E55 in the SAME TEST, then we can magazine race. But that is just magazine racing.

The real measurement is going to be how these cars actually do at the track. I have no doubt whatsoever that the M5 will outhandle the E55. Hell, my 2001 540i sport (I LOVED that car) could outhandle my E55. But as far as straight line acceleration, until I see an M5 run 11 second quarter miles at 120 mph, I won't believe that it is significantly faster in a straight line. Think about it - the M5 is only 100 lbs lighter than the E55. Assuming the M5 has 500 hp, and knowing that the E55 has 493 (instead of the advertised 469), the horsepower of these two cars is virtually identical. The E55 has a boatload more torque (519 lbs vs. 386 or 368). That is a huge difference and an advantage to the E55. I can't believe that even with the gearing in that 7 speed, the M5 is going to be much faster than the E55 in a straight line.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I think the M5 will be a great car, assuming you warm up to the styling. But I know that in my bone stock E55, I can run low 12's at a hair under 117 mph on the same track and on the same day as stock Z06's are nudging into the high 12's at 113 mph. So, assuming the M5 is even out by the close of the next racing season, we'll see what real M5's are running at our local strips. Yes, drag racing is very one dimensional, but the trap speeds really give you an indication of how fast a car is. And if the M5 is significantly faster, then kudos.

Bilal

People are forgetting one very important factor as to why the M5 is quicker. I doubt it has to do with aerodynamics, with its slippery shape, I think the E55 could be better than the M5. Drivetrain efficiency is minimal, AMG's autos are the best in the world. The M5 also weighs slightly less.

IMO what it has to do with is GEARING. Plain and simple. By having a high redline (8250rpm), and by having 500bhp at the top at around 7750rpm, you can have a very short final axle ratio. Now with a low revving motor you could have the same ratio and top out at 160mph, by having 8250rpms to play with, a broad field, you can have a shorter ratio and a very high speed (attainable only with a high HP naturally-500hp). Now we all know a shorter ratio multiplies the torque at the rear wheels, so with high hp (500hp) at a high rpm, coupled to very linear and short geared transmission, you get massive acceleration and high speed. Just look at the Ferrari430/360/M3. Very small amounts of torque, but high power at high redlines, shorter transmissiom, and bam, instant fast acceleration.

Look at the AMG approach. They can only work with a 7000rpm rev limit due to the transmission oil being a limiting factor and only 5 cogs. This means to achieve high speeds and cruising comfort, the car has to have long gears. Longer gearing means you have to make a very torquey powerplant (torquey throught the rev range) to rely on torque for acceleration. The M5 thrives on revs and HP for its acceleration so do the aforementioned cars. Now with that method torque can be deemed useless because you have HP. But you can't have 900NM and only 300hp, high Hp is essential for performance. Torque only aids acceleration so you don't need to rev the engine high to get speed. Notice how AMG 55K and 65 engines are not really "working hard" to give you that massive kick? This is all due to the high torque and its spread across the rev range. AMG and Mercedes only have 5 cogs to play with so they need this torque. This torque aids acceleration to cars with longer gears as well as the eventual high hp at peak power. This is why the 55K cars are as fast as they are. You can bet with the current gearing and only 500Nm and 500hp (in other words, the M5 engine) they will not be as fast they are currently.

The M5 is quicker than the E55, but only marginally. Can you see the difference 700Nm at 2700rpms makes? Look at the SLR vs CGT, the former is much heavier and a cog down, but with 780NM, its fast, if not faster in some speeds (SLR is faster than CGT from 0-186mph by 4 seconds!!) yet both cars have same HP. Can you now see the importance of low down torque?

Now you're thinking, what if the E55K had the M5's gearing>? Think SL65 performance, if not faster....

M&M

Bilal, very good points. I agree 100%. Low down torque makes for a more relaxed cruiser. No doubt the M5 will be more "manic" in its power delivery & more peaky.

But as the rolling runs show, provided you are in the right gear it' gearing advantage means it pull away. I think each person needs to choose a car based on their personal preference. I actually don't think an M5 will suit the typical profile of a Merc customer.

Drc, it's a bit of a slap in the face that you consider Sport Auto not be good enough. I'm sure my European counterparts will back me up when I say they are one of the (if not THE) most respected magazines in the world. If I name the list of drivers in their employ you'll see what I mean. ANd the motoring heritage of their editor as well.

BTW, Autocar got the M5's trap speed at 119mph.

DRCrowder

Not meant to be, didn't name it because I don't know it (not really into magazines at all, for any subject)

Bilal

M&M, the M5 won't be manic, from what I've seen its very refined, you only know its working hard when you look at the tachometer. I just wanted to simplify the M5's advantage in performance. People incorrectly assume that more torque and Hp automatically means better performance, when in reality there's a hundred other things that could aid performance. Power and torque being near the top of the list obviously...

Mercedes engines are all engineered to produce 80% of max torque at low rpms. What this does is not only provide initial thrust, but it aids the power wasting effect of auto transmissions and gets the car rolling, once rolling the engine has to work less hard to keep the car moving, simple physics. The M5 also has 80% of torque down low, but 80% of 500Nm is not the same as 80% of 700Nm , this is where gearing makes it what it is...All you AMG owners should accept this so we can stop the naive "more torque" argument.


PS, Sport Auto is probably the best definitive mag for performance measuring, but I prefer Mercedes enthusiast magazine, (they edit out the negatives) just kidding

Nickerz

Don't feel bad, according to M&M - he beats everyone!

Nick

Jon200

0-200km/h in 13.8s is very very quick for a family sedan.

BMW has managed to squeeze another 107bhp out of the same 5L, amazing

skratch77

I think that 8min time is not right.

Maybe that car was beat to **** from all the testers?
Bad clutch from all its 4k launches?Who knows
I think another mag got 7.52 with the m5 but the speed limit was delimited(not sure on that yet).
There is no way in hell that the m5 is 3 sec faster than the old one.

can any one read this m5

Mardeth

Translation by babelfish:

"Munich (fnp) the knight impact took place on the Nuerburgring. When the strongest BMW M5 of all times had orbited the north loop in only 7:52 minutes, even Professor Burkhard Goeschel was a little baff. "that was a treat, a piece racing", schwaermte the BMW member of the board after the successful test of the new supersportsman."