dmzz

I read all the posts at RS6.com and I don't think that there is any disagreement that the M5 was faster than the E55 among the people who were present in the airfield. I think the disagreement lies in the usage of the word "Humiliate" which can have a different meaning to different people. Some people use it when they win by a mile and some people may use it when they win by a car lenght. Either way I think your name calling toward Gustav is uncalled for. An yes, it's obvious that you are the most bothered by gustav's comments.

Belmondo

M&M, buddy,

NO I dont, because I dont have a clue what you are talking about, nor do I think anybody else here does.
YOu can spend here another 3 years and not agree with anybody.
If you really have son and its not just another of your BS ---I think playing football with him or reading him a book or doing his homework together is where you should be.
Don't you see how desperatly stupid it is to try to prove something to someone who is not interested in hearing your BS?

Belmondo

Do some more reading, he was called dush tav before and I simply , finally, agreed with that .

Remember, since there is a disagreement on what "humiliation" means, "obviously bothered" therefore can have "different meaning to different people" as well.

"name calling" can have "different meaning to different people" so take it easy and dont get obviously bothered by it
since it may have different meaning to different people like you and me.

enzom

M&M - how many people at the test know the sound of a stock M5 so well that they would be able to recognise that it is different on that press car? Seriously? I have never heard one - have you? I bet most people at that test never heard one either.

What could be done? Bigger intake, bigger ported heads, no cats, beefed up internals with advanced (much more aggressive) timing, upgraded cooling system, reprogrammed traction control system, weight reduction (lighter glass and special body panels), numerically higher final drive ratio. To think that nothing can be done to a press car to make it much quicker is being naive. And you don't need 100 hp to make a difference. Geez, cars can be made much, much quicker just by changing out the rear.

For example - the new Corvette C6 press car that the car mags tested had a torque management system disabled by Chevy. All factory C6's have a system that protects the tranny by moderating the amount of torque that runs through the driveline on upshifts. It either pulls timing or does something else to protect the clutch and transmission. By disabling it, the test car gained an estimated 3/10's in the quarter. THERE WAS NO WAY OF TELLING THAT IT WAS DISABLED. But believe me, 3/10's of a second at 113 mph is a nice distance. Chevy used to supply cars with the optional performance rear that made the car noticeably quicker. Problem was that 2/3rds of the cars on dealer lots did not have that option. So most people were driving around not even realizing that their cars were at a disadvantage compared to the cars tested by the magazines. That's the way the auto business works.

dNA3D

I haven't been following this thread in its entirety, but from what I've been reading, the test conducted was not even given a single chance of being considered "true and fair". All I get is "The M5 was obviously tuned up", "The E55 didn't go 100%", yady yada. Isn't there a VERY LARGE probability that the M5 was not tuned beyond manufacturer specifications and the E55 gave it all it had?

Why is it SO hard to believe the fact that a car which is lighter, has more power and more gears hooked to a clutch (M5) will beat a car which is heavier, has less power and fewer gears stuck to a torque converter (E55). Why is that so hard? Have you considered those facts enzom? I know what's coming, torque right? Well its not raw engine torque, but torque which gets through the transmission and to the wheels which propels a car; given the right gearing (and believe me, it really eats me inside to say this) a Civic or a dreaded CRX can beat a Viper SRT-10.

And what's up with the personal, less mature (wouldn't really say, immature) attacks on Gustav, dmzz etc. Why? If it's disagreement on the use (or, misuse) of the word "humiliates", well, you can't really argue with Gustav on that one, it is his PERSONAL opinion. What's up with the names too? I stopped calling people names when I was 12.

I think this section of MBWorld has been derailed for long enough. Its definitely time to get back to the proper, sensible, mature discussions on what this section was created for - discussions on the E55 AMG!

M&M

Enzo, you are a grown, educated adult I assume. Do you really believe that BMW would go to these measures?

Anyway, I shall counter your argument. There are pics & videos available where you will see the exhuast is stock.

Bigger intake, there will be pics posted with the hood open where you willsee the stock intake in place.

Ported heads - all M cars have this stock, even a 330 has it. It's hard to get 100hp/litre without it.

More aggressive timing, well then Gustav & them ran pump fuel. Would be detonating on pump fuel.

Ugraded cooling? Why? It's normally aspirated. Anyway, you will soon see the engine bay?

Lightened glass & panels? Mmmmm? Let's ask the Audi & MErc owners that sat in the car if they noticed this. I think the run with 4 passengers in it would negate this anyway.

Numerically higher final drive? Well M5's is quite high stock. Obviously this has been through Research to get the right number. Anyway, Gustave posted a 100-200km/h video. Do you want me to prove you wrong by using the speeds in each gear to prove that the stock ratio was in place?

Reprogammed traction control? Why? There's a track mode DSC anyway? Any whynot make this option stock anyway? I'm sure TC was off on all the runs anyway?

No catts? Well the post catt O2 sensors would complain & CEL would light up on the tach. Car would go into limp home mode. Unless that was programmed out in the ECu by a special program.

So you say BMW would go through all this effort for some guys in Sweden & they didn't even know what the car was going to be used for.

Did you consider taking a step back from this situation & thinking about how the neutrals see your guys behaviour?

enzom

You are judging me by one post. You said you haven't been following this whole M5 thing, so no big deal. But if you read my other posts on this subject, I do not have a problem with the probability that the M5 will be faster than the E55. It should be. My "problem" is that too many people rely on magazine tests, and I believe that magazine tests are generally crap for the reasons that I have stated in my prior posts. My other problem is that the raw data posted by Gustav's tester for this admitted press car sounds too good to be true, e.g, 0 to 100 mph with a car full of passengers in 8.66 seconds???? Other pro-M5'ers have made the same point. There is nothing wrong with questioning the data. I am sure the M5 guys are doing the same thing with the recent results from Quattroruote - 1/4 mile in the high 12's.

Tangentially, I also have a problem with people making statements that are just ill-informed, regardless of whether they are "pro" or "con" E55 posts. So when people suggest that there is little to do for a factory car to be made faster without it "sounding" different or without changing the redline, it is only fair to point out the numerous things that can be done. That is not to say that all or any of those things were done, but to illustrate to people why they are making faulty assumptions. To discount even the possiblity that the M5 press car was a ringer, given what car companies tend to do, and given the "too good to believe" data, is even more unreasonable than insisting the results are flawed. My opinion.

Back to the point. The M5 is a fast car and should be faster than the E55, especially at crusing speeds, given the reasons that you note. When the production cars finally get here, and they surpass their 3,500 mile break-in periods, real drivers will take their car to the track, and we will have real data on how much faster it is. My guess is that the US M5 will not be much quicker than an E55 at the strip, especially if it doesn't use launch control. And that is because of - you guessed it - low end torque. The E55 explodes out of the hole, and faster cars play catch up. We will see. I am as anxious as most people for the car to hit our shores. And as I have said before, my life won't change one bit if it is faster.

I have always tried to keep my posts on a mature, informative and respectful level. That others on this board have not is no fault of mine, nor should "all of us E55 owners" be painted with the same broad brush.

enzom

To answer the basic question - Yes, I absolutely believe that BMW and any other manufacturer of a high performance car would go our of its way to make sure that the car it provided was "special". That is nothing new. If that shocks you, then I can only ask you to realize how these things work. Chevy does it, Toyota did it, and I am sure that many other manufacturers do it. Given BMW's marketing campaign on this car, I would not put it past them. That is NOT TO SAY THAT THEY DID, but you are only fooling yourself if you are of the view that they'd never do it, espcecially if they knew how it would be tested.

As for each thing you list, and your explanation, here goes - JUST to point out how you COULD be wrong:

1. I don't know what the stock intake looks like, but they could have dropped in some special air filter - no biggie. Could you tell from the pics whether the intake was attached to a larger throttle body??

2. Silly. Heads can be reported to provide for higher airflow. You'd never know from looking at it. That's easy.

3. I don't know why you would need special fuel to run a car with more advanced timing? Unless you tell me that the M5 REQUIRES a minimum octane level of the equivalent of US 93 (as opposed to recommended), the M5 engine management system is designed to run on low-octane crap fuel. You could easily play with the fuel maps and still use pump gas. Hell, you can swap for more aggressive cams and still run on pump gas. And you'd never know.

4. How would you tell if the glass was lightened or the panels replaced by lightweight aluminum (or if sound deadening materials were removed? I couldn't. Were the passengers M5 experts? I agree that four passengers adds considerable weight.

5. I don't know what you mean by "research" to get the right rear number. Because a performance car comes from the factory with an "X.XX" rear doesn't mean that it is the most aggressive gear there is. Again, you'd never be able to tell. If you want to try to calculate the gear ratios, you can try. Not sure how you'd be able to do it with any precision based on timing. Sounds like a waste of time to me. Hell, I can't even find the stock rear ratio anywhere. Assuming you can't prove what ratios were used, it is not a mod that you can easily detect unless they were silly enough to drop something way too aggressive, e.g., 4.10 gears.

6. Car manufacturers program their traction control based on concerns for safety, as well as performance. They can conceivable (and probably quite easily) be reprogrammed more for performance and less for safety. Cars also have torque management systems and other controls on the transmission to protect the drivetrain. They can (and are) tweaked. Hell, it feels like it takes half a second on my E to switch from 2nd to 3rd gear. All intended to protect the tranny.

7. So I guess the guys at BMW can't figure out how to take off cats, install dummy 02 sensors, and reprogram the computer to prevent it from throwing codes? I guess then they aren't as smart as every Corvette tuner in the US. It can easily be done, and you'd never, ever, know it.

8. The upgraded cooling is to help offset the heat from the more aggressive timing. Also, cars make more power when they run cooler. Absent a digital coolant thermostat, you'd never know anything was done.

9. It is a press car. It is meant to be tested.

The point of all of this is to demonstrate that many things can be done to a normally aspirated car that affect its performance. Many of these things are undetectable. Whether they were done or not is not the point of this post. I am just trying to get you to recognize the possibility.

M&M

Ok, so you say there is a K&N type flat panel filter in there. Whooop-dee-doo, I know you can prove it has it & that this makes 50hp.

M-cars heads are ported stock. Read the brochures.

M3 & M5 require minmum 98RON. Says so in the owners manual. Even M3's detonate on 95RON. How you gonna' run more timing on pump fuel? Running more aggressive cams you would need to change the intake (& I'm talking K&N panel filters) & exhaust or the cams wouldn't give much gains. M5 has aggressive cams standard anyway.

Surely you aren't serious that this car has lightened glass & panels?

I can prove that the stock ratio of 3.82 was in place by looking at Gustav's video & the speed he achieved at 8000rpm in 4th gear.

LC control prcedure REQUIRES that you be in S6 mode & traction control be OFF. So there goes your argument. I don't know any M owners that race with TC on.

Yeah they can take the catts out. But euro catts are pretty good. Gains are about 2hp with catts off, but you have to run in open loop. Not worth it.

Why not make better cooling stock? The M5 isn't exactly that cheap.

But the point is any mod causes you to gain somewhere & lose somwhere else. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Money for nothing & the chicks fir free.

BTW, do you realise how desperate you sound?

enzom

M&M - your responses choose to ignore what I wrote or demonstrate that you have much to learn.

I am trying to show you what COULD have been done. So that you don't look foolish again claiming that nothing can be modified on a normally aspirated car that won't be easily discovered from a different exhaust sound or higher redline. That is what YOU said. I thought I made it clear to you, but you have your mind set and won't change. It is NOT about what was done - It is about what COULD have been done. Understand that.

I said the air filter was no biggie. I never said it was a 50 hp issue. Just an example

YOU CAN ALWAYS ENLARGE THE PORTS AND POLISH HEADS. WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??????? This is elementary to most car enthusiasts.

Pretty strange that you can modify the ECU on a stock E55, or a pullied E55, or a Z06 vette, or a Mustang Cobra, etc., and not have to use race gas. I guess the M5, which requires 91 octane in the US (not 93) , is different. So either the ECU can't be tweaked unless you use racing gas, or you are wrong. Take your pick. I happen to believe that it can be nicely tweaked on pump gas. If not, M5 owners are severly restricted in what can be modified on the car. By the way, you are now on record as having claimed the M5 timing can't be advanced using pump gas. I hope I don't see you posting about how easy it would be to mod the M5 motor to get 1000 hp.

I never said the car had lightened windows or panels. It was just another example of how manufacturers can tweak their ringer cars to make things look normal while the car performs better than a standard customer car. Remember, you are the one that said it wasn't possible to do. When you acknowledge that these changes can be done, and they can be undetectable, we can talk about whether I (or anyone else) actually believes it was done.

How can you say that gains are 2 hp without cats??? Have you tested it??? Where did 2 hp come from?? (And you say I sound desparate.) I have never heard of such a small gain. Considering the car puts out 500 hp and is a high revver, it can't be that little. But I am willing to be proven wrong. So please show me an actual test.

Go ahead and prove your theory on gears, if it makes you happy. I guess that you've seen the video and it shows enough of the display for you to compute it.

The races against the E55 didn't use launch control They were rolling races, right?? What does that have to do with my theory? I don't get it.

Why not make better cooling stock? Did you mod your M3? Why aren't all your mods stock? Cars are made with warranties, emissions and mileage averages in mind. Also, the quicker the car gets "hot" the better and faster the pollution control devices work. Doesn't really answer the question of whether it would be possible for BMW to have swapped out the thermostat and lower the coolant temps, but whatever.

Again, the entire point of this is you asked another forum member to demonstrate what COULD have been done to the M5 that would have made it quicker, yet not altered the exhaust sound or changed the redline. The import of your challenge was that nothing COULD have been done. I gave you a half dozen or so examples. Just say - "I guess they could do that, but I don't believe they did." That's fine.

For someone who insists that it is "possible" for a bone stock M3 to pull a 1.7 second 60 foot times (without a single instance of it actually occurring in the real world) I would expect you to at least acknowledge that these modifications are "possible".

Gustav

Rock

Then stop being a child and cease posting.

M&M

YEah OK, it's "possible" the car had hidden mods that no-one could see but BMW decided not to put into production. I guess its also "possible" that every 55 AMG press car ever tested by a mag had a smaller pulley fitted. But hey, I'm not that kind of fan to think Mercedes would actually do that. If I were really desperate then I might say that.

But what's really killing me is all these mods you say this car had, why not just put them into production? I mean enlarging the ports & polishing the heads (which I keep telling you M-cars have stock), why not do it to the production cars?

And seeing as this press car has this & no catts, it would require a new program. AFR's would be different. Many man hours at the factory would have to be spent on the dyno redoing the ECU for these new settings. Oh yeah & the cams as well. They would have to re-shim & fit new rocker arms, & then tune it again. M cars tend to run lean when you fit cams. Then there's the fact that the gains aren't all that much in a bmw with VANOS & the idle gets rougher. Also tends to hunt in hot conditions.

The owners of 2 E55's were there, C32 owner, some Audi RS6 & RS4 owners, Lambo, POrsche, RUF, etc. Some of them are quite knowledgable on the tuning side. So none of them picked this up, or picked up any rough idle on the M5, or any aftermarket intake or exhaust, or any sounds of detonation, or picked up the thinner windows & panels.

You do realise that none of these people have anything to gain from lying?Most of them don't even own BMW's.

Erik

I have no probs to agree that they could do that, but I do NOT belive they would.

Also I do not BELIVE they could do much to secretly make the car perform better.

I know it has been done before by others, mostly on Turbo/Kompressor car that are much much easier to manipulate and almost impossible to prove unless one take a close look inside the programming.

An N/A engine like the one installed in the M5 is not easy to play with.

Do you have any idea of the size of the embarisment if BMW M was caught doing this they would have so humilated they would never recovered.
Sport auto, Auto Motor & Sport and maybe some other tend to check the car on a dyno of somehing does not add up, and those guys are no amatours. The actually did that on the SL55 they tested.

So NO i definatly do not belive BMW have done anything to make that car perform better.
As a side note the car Gustav drove is going to be sold to a costumer so I guess it no special press car.

enzom

Cool. The whole point was to get [edit - M&M] to see that it could be done. That's it. If you believe they did nothing, then that's fine, too. I think all press cars eventually get sold to customers as dealer demos, so that doesn't really sway me one way or the other.

(edit - I agree it is much easier to tweak a forced induction car. Toyota upped the boost on the tested Supra Turbo when it came out in 93(?). Very easy undectable mod.)

To beat the dead horse again, when they are out stateside and hitting the track and our streets, we will know what it does. I am ready, willing and able to be convinced of the M5's superiority in straight line performance. Won't make me lose a second's sleep. But I want an unbiased, regular Joe-customer to line up at the strip. That's all I am waiting for.

Remember, if the M5 was out when my E39 lease was up, I'd possibly be in an M5 right now.

enzom

I am trying to be respectful. Really. Do you not see the distinction between saying that something could have been done and saying that something was done? I thought I clarified for you a few times the point of what I was saying. I never said that the car had all of these mods. Why is it so hard for you to see the distinction?

Again with the heads.

enzom

Last response for me. I continue to try to be objective, lest I be labeled an "unreasonable, jealous, illogical, frightened AMG owner".

Nobody really cares about the magazine tests of E55's. Only you seem to. Many of the guys on this board have their own timeslipes that tell us what OUR cars run. So say all you want about the magazine tests.

I thought we went through this already - cars are built with various things in mind, including longevity, emissions, mileage, etc. There are always going to be aftermarket parts to improve upon what the factory has done. Why don't all E55's come with a Kleeman K3 package?

You can remove the cats without spending "hundreds of man hours" reprogramming the computer. Actually, most computers can "learn" on the fly and make their own adjustments to compensate for the increased airflow. And considering how long it is taking BMW to get this car on the road, the extra man hours wouldn't make much of a difference.

When you get your M5, take it to the strip and let us know how you do. Seriously. At this point, I think you have an obligation to prove what it can do in your hands. I will be the first to congratulate you when you post your 11 second timeslips. I am not being facetious.

BMWEATR

your 100% right and thats why you put it dyno mode cause if your back wheels are spinning and the front are not the computer freaks out.

BMBW

I think I get it. If I called you an a-hole, I might mean it as an insult but you you might take it as a compliment. Is that about right?

RezF

Ha Ha Ha! Good one

IwantA124

Those pictures will shut alot of people up. Thank you.

BoBcanada

dont forget E55 is 27 HP short to m5s 507 in europe right?

MikeHK

People says denial is always your biggest rival. I don't find it so hard to accept that another car is faster than an E55. The funniest thing is I think these E55 owners could easliy accept that an 997 TT is faster than their all mighty E55 but just refuse to accept the slimest chance that the new M5 MIGHT just be a LITTLE faster.

There were Manufacturer claims performance debates, then Car Mag debates, now pic debates, I am sure even when the video is ready there will be debates on the video. Even after the M5 been delivered, there will be still be debates. With excuses like hidden upgrades etc...etc..... This is just funny consider the level of education of these owner should be at least higher than average.

I don't see any M5 owners here or over in M5board.com denied with E55 owners amazing 1/4 times with immature assumptions like we had on this thread. I just think naive reactions from a few members are degrading the entire group which shall be stopped.

enzom

I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that - "The funniest thing is I think these E55 owners . . . just refuse to accept the slimest chance that the new M5 MIGHT just be a LITTLE faster." Has anyone said that a stock M5 can't be a little faster than a stock E55 at speed????????? Broad generalizations are bad.

I (and I suspect everyone else that actually owns an E55) is perfectly prepared to accept that the M5 will be faster than the E55 for a whole host of reasons, including that it was designed specifically to be faster. Maybe only marginally (if at all) in a standing start 1/4 mile, but at speed it has to be.

The issue for most of the E55 owners (as I have already stated in prior posts) is that a representation that the M5, with 3 passengers plus a driver (weighing hundreds of pounds more than an E55), ran from 0 to 100 mph in 8.66 seconds and repreatedly "destroyed", "demolished", "humiliated", etc. an E55 with only its driver seems too good for the higher than average educated members of this board to simply accept as true. I don't believe that there is anything naive or immature in thinking that something isn't quite right. What is truly naive and immature is the insistence of certain people that this test of a special press car (with the afformentioned incredible performance measurements eclipsing by a wide margin anything that has ever been recorded to date for the car) should now be accepted as the standard point of reference.

I am perfectly prepared to accept that the car is faster. I am just waiting for the car to be released here and be "tested" by their owners.

That's all.

Gustav

MikeHK: I agree.