Here's what happened with me in 99 deg heat with very poor traction & pump fuel at 5500ft elevation. E46 M3 vs '04 E55, 1km sprint (0.6 mile):

http://www.okka.org.za/bb/ss/MMvsE55.mpg

 

Was that you doing the ricer flyby?

Nice. Why didn't you hit the hazards? :p

 

Yeah I did a flyby 'cos I didn't see the finish line. Too busy concentrating. My bad!

 

because they paid s-class pricing for an e and want to justify it???

went for a canyon run in my friend's e55k last night. it was fun, but the car has way more engine than the chassis can handle. i cant help but think that the new m5 will be more dynamically interesting than the e55. even the m5 is heavy, i just have not seen a car this heavy that handles well. either car.

 

From what i see he quited at the time you past him....

 

No he beat me fair & square twice, over half a mile. If you look closely you'll see the finish line & he lets up after crossing the line.

 

Start confessing now my son. Besides being unpopular on MB forums, have you been nasty to your wife criticizing her weight, hairdo, cooking, handbags too?

 

DAMN!!!!!! That is one fast M3 to almost be even with the E55 over 1/2 mile!!
M3 is modded or no?
Thanks for vid.

Iron Sheik

 

THATS IT! im getting the on board trypod? that you can attach your camcorder to and calling out bmers to take it to the track and post some real footage where no one gets an unfair start, roll on, ricer fly by or ill just my *** handed to me. either way, itll be from in car tape. hopefully a new m5. and when someone posts anything i can reach back to a file and upload with no wasted verbage.

 

Are you in the left lane? It looks to me like when you guys cross the finish line you are ahead. My bad if you are in the right lane.

 

....another day, another BMW troll here inciting a flamefest, with no moderation, here in the "BMWTrollWorld" forums, where trolls are welcomed with open arms and have no fear of moderation!!

Pathetic.

 

You've made this claim many times....care to substantiate it? I read Autocar, and have never seen them state this in any of their tests. Please provide documentation for this claim.

As to the Benzes: you're spinning like a top as usual. You've seen test results for these cars before, from Euro mags, and know damn good and well that they're pulling 0-100km/h times well under 5 seconds, because you've participated in threads wherein the data has been presented, multiple times.

To wit, here's a compilation of the 500 horsepower Benzes' tests from various German mags:

SL55 tested in ams, 8/2002:
0 - 80 km/h 3,1 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,8 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,1 s

SL55 tested in Sport Auto, 4/2002:
0 - 80 km/h 3,1 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s

E55 tested in Sport Auto, 1/2003:
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

SL55 tested in Sport Auto, 4/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,3 s

SL600 tested in Sport Auto, 4/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

SL600 tested in Autobild, 2003:
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,1 s

SL600 tested in ams, 8/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,1 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,5 s

E55 *wagon*, tested in Sport Auto 7/2004:
(note that weight was 2046 kg--100kg heavier than E55 sedan)
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,6 s

CLS55 tested in ams, 2004:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 130 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 140 km/h 8,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,5 s

CLS55 tested in auto zeitung, 2004:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

CL600 tested in ams, 3/2004:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,8 s
0 - 130 km/h 6,8 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,9 s

CLS55 tested in Sport Auto, 1/2005:
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,4 s

Oh, yes, look at how their performance suffers in the Euro tests....and wow, doesn't the above data show that Gabri's idiotic magazine article is plausible? Devil's advocate? Idiot's advocate is more like it, lol.

You are such a joke. Easy money.

 

OK, Improviz. I give up. I'm sorry for trying to justify why the E55 lost in all the shhoot-outs. Yuu win. E55 is king wil never be beat. If if does its a conspiracy & BMW bribed the mag.

 

Oh, stop whining, you got pwned...deal with it.

As to BMWs: if you like to let magazine writers do your thinking for you, then BMWs are the cars for you! Some of us think for ourselves, and weight our purchase decisions a bit differently.

But I'd like to take this opportunity to pose a question to you, and to gabri: I posted it the other day, but you didn't reply...

While you're out trolling all of these Internet forums, which you presumably do for a living, as it's all you *ever* seem to do, why don't you post the numbers for the 996 compared to the M3? And can you explain why it is that you don't drive a 996, since you seem to believe that track numbers are the only factor one should consider when purchasing an automobile, and as we all know the 996 posted better track numbers than the E46 M3 you drive?

And better still, if track numbers alone determine which car is superior, then why is an M3 a better car than a Corvette Z06, which will thrash it on a track?

Also, is an M3 a better car than a Rolls Royce? If so, please explain how you define "better".

I'd really appreciate an answer. If, after all, your goal here is to sell more M3's as it seems to be, then why not sell us? We all read car mags and are fully aware of the numbers, and yet we bought these cars anyway. You seem to think we were wrong.

So prove it. Prove that the M3 is a "better" *car* than my Mercedes. Sell me on it, and I'll be happy to buy one. My CLK, you see, cost quite a bit more than your M3, and so even after depreciating for four years now is still worth enough for me to go trade it on a brand new M3, with only a few extra thousand out of pocket. So you might be able to do me a huge favor; all you need to do is prove it is a better car.

I will eagerly await your response.

 

An M3 is a not a "better" car than any of them. It's just a "better" car for me. It happens to do everything well. There are cars that are faster in a stright line & there are cars that are faster on a track. But they M3 does both well & can seat 4 people with place for luggage. Therein lies the difference between an M3 & a POrsche/Corvette.

If I were in a position to afford a week-end track car then the 2-seater would be a better option & ultimately had less sacrifices in the handling department. I don't want to post links on this thread but I'm sure you knwo the M3 runs the 911 close on all tracks for significantly less money. In fact over here an M3 CSL is still cheaper than a boggo 911. And I don't think even a GT3 can beat the CSL's lap time of 7:50.

But if I were to sell all my cars for one track car, it would be the GT3 RS.

 

So, if you admit that there is always a tradeoff in any automobile purchase, and that for you, track numbers aren't **THE** most important factor in purchasing a car, then why do you always come in here posting track numbers as if they should be the most important factor for US???

 

so why engage?

they will go away if ignored.

i still have this sinking feeling that the e60 m5 will handle "better" than the merc. in a straight line, its no contest i would imagine as the e55k is blindingly fast. its hard to imagine how fast it really is until you get behind the wheel. example: when i looked down to change tracks on the radio in my car, my friend kicked down the e55 without me noticing. when i looked up, he was not in sight, gone. i found his taillights several seconds later braking up the offramp we were getting off at, at least 3/4 of a mile ahead. he said he hit 140mph in that time and distance.

 

Oh what do you know, you have an M5 on order? Wow, that's just crazy! I really want to hear your opinion on how the M5 drives, your 1/4 times, track times, etc...oh wait, you don't have it yet. I'm not getting worked up over anything, it's a magazine test. I'm just saying that these guys go around posting BMW on this site just to **** people off, which is called trolling.

I could give two-*****s about your opinion on what I think about my car. I love the E55 for what it is, and I respect any car that appeals to me -- not you.

I haven't seen the new M5 in person so I can't really give an opinion on it. Once it becomes available here in the US, I'll test drive one and offer a fair opinion. If I like it, I'll buy it -- simple as that.

I get worked up over my car because I love it, it's my car! For anyone to offer EURO magazine tests as their opinion on what car is better then the other is just stupid and called TROLLING!