Well having more torque doesn't mean better response at low revs. Here's Sport Auto's test of the M5 & I added the E55 vs RS6+


And I took the liberty of blowing up the elasticity runs:


Note they started all the runs at 80km/h (50mph). Now it''s not a fair contest as the M5 had 7 gears & the E55 has 5. But hey, who's problem is that? Anyway, M5's peak torque is at 6000rpm & these guys are rolling at 50mph in 4th & 5th. Talk about out of powerband!

Fact is when you encounter one on the road, the slushbox will kick down to the lowest gear possible & the SMG in automated mode will as well. It's not like you gonna' wind your window down & yell at the M5 driver,

"Hey dude, you put in in 3rd gear & I'll put it in 2nd".

I mean an E55 has a supercharger & a whole heap of torque anyway. But as you can see gear for gear the M5 pummels the E55 in the rolling runs, & even if the M5 is a gear up it does the same.

 

Excellent points. I'm surprised that the M5 is that much quicker than the E55 in the 0-200 test - 1.8 seconds is about a 10 CL margin.

SportAuto has the well earned reputation as producing the most consistent test results in the world in terms of their test methods. They are typically German and precise in identifying and controlling as many variables as possible. If you're going to use anything as a benchmark, this is it.

 

This ***** again??

Will it ever end?

 

Judging from the run, it appears that the same problem will persist as on the M3. M5 has to be in the right gear to release its potential. The 4th gear rolling start looks very impressive. But if you are caught in wrong gear, you are done. I wonder how much tuned down the SMG-III program will be when it finally reaches in the states.

SMG-II even in S6 mode is very reluctant to shift down two gears quickly. By the time it engages you are already behind. SMG-III must solve this. Or if we are in 6th gear cruising when someone punches it next to M5, the M5 is cooked.

Then again, I can careless about how fast to what speed. It's like I am going to gun it on straight line basis. Interesting to know. But servse no useful purpose.

 

[QUOTE=krispykrme]. I wonder how much tuned down the SMG-III program will be when it finally reaches in the states.

Why do you think the SMG III will be detuned for the states? The only difference that I am aware of between the euro spec SMG II and US spec SMG was the LC was toned down, and not officially recognized on US spec cars.

SMG-II even in S6 mode is very reluctant to shift down two gears quickly.

I was under the impression when in s6 mode (manual mode) upshifts/downshifts need to be instigated by the driver, it will not kick down automatically under full throttle.

Thanks

 

I would sure hope that the M5 is faster... It's 3.5 years BEHIND the E55 in devlopement and arrival to market! Do you "Einsteins" really believe that M Benz won't have that bettered in the next 1-2 years? Trust me, they won't take nearly as long as the BMW people took in getting this new M5 to market (which I must say is fugly!)

 

all right here i go again! sweet some more mag testing! whooooooaaaaa awe screw it I'm going to buy a m5 also! I'm sold!

 

can I have your e55

 

The drive initiate the shift down that is correct. But when you are shifting down 2 gears (i.e. move the lever twice in quick sucession). My SMG-II will engage the lower gear more slowly then I was only downshifting once.

It seems that SMG is making sure that i am not overly downshifting to over rev the engine.

There was a noticeable delay everytime when I tried to do that.

shifting one gear down and more than one gear up enages very quickly. I just had problem with quick downshifts of more than one gear.

That's why i never liked the SMGII, it was simply too smart for its own good.

 

E55_Power:

Try the 'mute' button. I just added certain individuals on my ignore list and they just become white noise. It's a wonderful feature.

 

As they intentionally cut the "T" off the end of the E55.

Here is the test being cited for the E55. As has been pointed out to M&M before (which means he is, as usual, intentionally trying to deceive), these numbers are for the E55 WAGON, which weighed in at 2046 kg:

Test in sport auto 07/2004
Gewicht 2046 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - 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

If you click here, you can see the scanned .jpg of the test. Look at the end of the E55, and you can see where the "T" begins after E55 (and also verify that the test numbers match).

Here are the numbers for the E55 *SEDAN* from Sport Auto, the same magazine from which the test was scanned:

Test in sport auto 01/2003
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

A bit closer. And as we all know, the E can't be launched as agressively as the M due to its higher torque...yet even with a flawless launch, the M manages to pull 0.8 from 0-200.

For further proof: Here is the video of AMS's comparison between the two. They are clearly equal to 100 km/h, and the M5 is 0.7 ahead at 200. Wow. So, with lighter weight, 40 more rated horsepower, and two more gears, the mighty M5 manages to squeak out a 0.7 second victory in a 0-125 mph run.

Two more gears. 0.7 seconds. Are we supposed to be impressed?

How would the M5 fare against a seven speed E55, doyathink?

So what will happen from a rolling start? Well, as has also been pointed out to M&M on numerous occasions, this test has already been run: Autocar did a highway run with a CLS55 against an E60 M5. Results:
in a rolling-start race from triple digits to rev limiter, M5 could not close gap with CLS55: (click here for complete article)

As to the 0.8 difference in 0-200: well, I've pointed out to M&M, again on numerous occasions, that time to speed does not equal time to distance. In fact, here's a PM I sent him on this very subject:

And its 0-100 time also decreased, from 12.2 when new to 11.3 at 40,000 miles.

So, if the car picked up two full seconds in its 0-130 time, 0.9 in its 0-100 time, and yet only picked up 0.2 seconds over time-distance, that would be pretty convincing proof--but M&M isn't interested in proof, only in flooding every competitors' forum with pro-BMW, anti-competitor propaganda. Why? I suspect he's being compensated for it. Nobody would go to this much trouble to deceive for free.

Examine:
His history of trolling other Internet forums under multiple user IDs;

(click here for other multiple instances of the same behavior):

And the coup de grace: here I nailed M&M lying about his "stock M3" was actually wearing drag radials:

Click here to see M&M get BUSTED:

 

Hi Impro You cant really describe that incident at a test can you. Come on the M5 was 200 meters behind. It could both lave lost 3 CL and lost 3Cl without neither the driver of the CLS or the M5 would have noticed.
Neither can they say anything about who hit the throttle first. So that is just a joke.

Lets wait an see until the video comes.

 

From AMS test they said M5 does 0-200 in 14.8 and E55 is lighter then CLS and does 0-200 in 14.6...and different mag say different things...

I will believe a video when I see it...So to beat M5 or run closer E55 needs an LSD...

Video will show US...but its definately more easy to launch an M5 with LSD, launch control and 285 rears then E55 with ESP, 700 torgues and narrow 265's...

Some one needs to add LSD to their stock E55 and and put at least 275's at the back and race new M5...

 

If anyone wants to give me an LSD I will gladly install it on my stock E55.

 

Hi, Erik

I'm afraid that your logic works both ways: one can just as easily state that in Gustav's tests, we cannot say for sure who hit the throttle first, and so the videos won't prove anything either. These cars are so close that a 1/2 second (or less) difference in the application of throttle could easily deterimine the winner, and drivers' reaction times can vary wildly, as anyone who has ever been to any dragstrip anywhere can attest.

What will tell the tale is instrumented 1/4 mile test results. So far I have seen only one for the M, which was thoughtfully provided by one of the BMW propagandists who frequents the board, Gabri343. It gave a 12.7 second 1/4 mile for the M. I'm certain that in US tests the M5 will test faster than that, but it will have to be a full half second faster than that to beat the times already recorded in the mags for E55s. So unless those Euro drivers are really, really lousy, or unless that car was a clunker, that's a lot to make up. But we'll see....

Acceleration tests are already available, and a 0.7 or 0.8 difference to 200 km/h won't amount to squat in a 1/4 mile race; as the Jaguar numbers I showed proved, a difference of a full two seconds in 0-130 mph (just over 200 km/h) only netted the car 0.2 in the quarter mile, which would be perhaps two carlengths and well within the margin of reaction time on any given street race, making it a drivers' race.

Again, for about the tenth time: there simply is not a 1:1 relationship in time to distance and time to speed, period, and any instrumented comparison test with timed acceleration and 1/4 mile runs will prove this. This is not, to put it charitably, rocket science. I know you guys are excited, but a total lack of objectivity is sorely evident here.

For example, look at the May 2003 Car & Driver test of the M3, C32, and S4. The M3 was the fastest of the three to 130 mph, beating the C32 and S4 there by 1.3 and 1.7 seconds respectively. It was the fastest to 60, beating the others by 0.4 and 0.2 seconds respectively And yet, the three cars' 1/4 mile times were identical; all three cars ran a 13.6 second 1/4 mile.

Time to speed != time to distance.

We'll know as soon as BMW offers the vehicle for sale here, since they make us wait for years instead of bringing them out near the beginning of the model runs as does Mercedes with the AMGs.

 

welcome back impro, havent seen you in a while. they dont let the facts get in the way of a good story huh? HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE IMPROVIZ PROVING ONE WRONG!!! :v :v :v

 

well first he actually have to prove I am wrong, and so far he did not.

 

Improviz, If You Are Going To Use Autocar Again, Please Don"t Forget To Mention The Article Where They Said The M5 Pulled 10 Lengths On The E55 To 150mph.

Dufus.

 

You mean, the article you claim exists but have never produced, despite repeated requests to do so, and which does not appear on the Autocar website?

That article?

I'll again request that you produce the article. I have yet to see it, and, well, given your history, I'd like to see it.

Sticks and stones from a compensated propagandist...

 

Not any better as a car with a wide torque plateau & a powerd drop-off at high rpm is better suited to long gearing. Short gearing helps to keep a high revving car in the powerband between shifts, effectively mutiplying the trque to the wheels.

But hey, a 7-speed E55 will get better gas milage, so that a bonus!

Nice one, looks who's being selective now. I'll see your Autocar article, & I'll raise you this one:



BAM! Wow same magazine says M5 pulled E55 15 lengths to 150. Which article you gonna' believe? Rather stick to instrumented tests as on the road encounters are impossible to call.

 

Actually, you are the one making the assertion, namely that in a time to distance race, the M5 is faster, and so the burden of proof is on you. I am merely pointing out facts which counter the assertion. It would certainly seem that in time-to-speed contests, the M is faster, but time-distance and time-speed are different, as proven by the Jaguar and M3 vs. others comparo data I posted earlier.

Can you produce any instrumented test data which shows a marked 1/4 mile difference between two cars which test 0.1 apart to 100 km/h and 0.8 or less to 200? This is 1/4 the difference of the 0-60 mph times between the C32 and M3, which tied in the 1/4 mile, and the 0.8 difference from 0-200 is also less here than w/ the C32 and M3.

 

Impro, I know you see the difference in a race where 1 car is 200 meters behind and a race where they start side by side. So its no point to argue that.

The only thing left to dicuss is how much faster the M5 is, one has to be extremly ignorent, blind and not very well informed to still belive the E55 is the faster car, and I do not put you in that category.

But how much faster is open, I personally belive they are close, so close in fact that in a red light grand prix its anyones game. I do not doubt the fact that we will in the future read about E55 cars claiming to have beaten the M5.

When Gustav posts his videos we will get a good indication on the difference on the car. You will also see that in most of the races Gustav gives the other cars the jumps and then play catchup.

No I did not attend this event, but seriously I have no reasson to doubt what he says and he is not so dum he will lie, when the videos are posted everyone will see it anyway and he will loose all the credibility.
The only thing this video proves is that the M5 beat 2 different E55, 1 Wagon and 1 sedan, not 1 but several times also with 4 persons in it, run even or almost even with the Gallardo even when the gallardo hit it first.

You can hit me with every reference you will find, it will not change this facts.
BTW its not the only Gallardo incident for the M5 showing excactly the same thing.


The difference in the way the European mags test compared to the US mags has been correctly described somewhere in this mess so its no point to do that again.

Every singel test to speed indicates M5 is faster, the funny thing with the 1/4 thing that it is not always the car accelerating to speed fastest that hit the 1/4 mile mark first.

0,1 sec at the 1/4 in the speed those to monsters trap indicates +/- 5 meters difference. ( estimating 120 mph trap speed ) .Yep that is close.









Nah, its not Impro unless that was pointed at some of your MB collegues , I like to see my selve as fairly objective....

Nobody equals the time to speed with time to distance. Unless one writes faster than one think.


That is actually kind of interessting, strange but interessting.

Was that test taken on the same 3 cars during the same test? Because to me it sound strange that a car that are faster to every single speed from standstill and up to 130 mph, still are side by side with them at 402 metes running at a speed of app 105 mph..... So unless the M3 was slowest off the line and had to play catch up I cant understand how that is possible. I can see the S4 be able to put some meters on the M3 off the line, but not the C32...

I mean, if a car has more speed at lets say 5 sec and 10 sec than to 2 others, it is either pulling away or closing.

 

Hey Chimproviz, are you sad now that I provided the article you been looking for so long. What you thought I was lying?

Shame on you man. But hey, have a nice day anyway.

 

Perhaps you should compare the 1/4 mile times of the seven speed S500 to those of the five speed S500. It would seem that despite your naysaying, the seven speed came in several tenths quicker; see new Road & Track for details.


At long last, thanks. Only took me how many requests for you to post it? So Autocar has posted two virtualy anecdotal stories which are totally at odds with one another. Most interesting...more on that in a moment.

Selective? Don't make me laugh. I've nailed you too many times for you to start in with such nonsense.

Precisely. Here we have the same magazine giving two anecdotal stories on separate occasions which are totally at odds with each other. In one case, the M5 against the E55, which has superior aerodynamics than the CLS55, in another the CLS55. Both cannot be correct. It would seem that you agree that anecdotal data, which would include Gustav's videos, are unreliable, yes? So give me an instrumented time to distance test showing the M5 is faster.

 

OK Impro-man, how does this sound? If you see a video on an airfield. An E55 with the owner of said car gets the hit. Applies fullthrottle before the M5. M5 runs the E55 down from behind & passes it. M5 does this more than once & to a 2nd E55 as well. Both owners of both E55's there to confirm

If you see such a video will you accept that a lighter car with more horsepower & shorter gearing can beat an E55?