04E55 AMG

I have walked away from SRT-10 Vipers but off course my car is modded. It goes without saying if a new M5 lines up next to me they will suffer the same results.

mrankovic

***-get the M5 - let's just get TVR to import their cars to the US and be done with it - they're probably half the price of the M5! The Cebera in that list is like a 10 year old design and it's right on the tail of the M5!

W210

We come from two different worlds, most of us come here to share our passion and enthusiasm on the cars we drive, while some strange folks frequent to preach why their dream car is superior.

Rather strange priorities, some may call this textbook insecurity complex.

Improviz

You have repeatedly made these claims about Euro tests, and it's gotten more outlandish with time. I have repeatedly asked you to provide any assertion that 1) Euro mags always test with passengers, and 2) that they test only on airfields which are unprepped.

You have provided nothing.

Further, you have implied that US mags *do* test on "prepped surfaces". Again, I'd like to see some documentary evidence to support this, because despite repeated requests, you have provided no proof of this claim either.

Proof, please.

Improviz

In this thread, our seemingly moderator-proof troll and compensated BMW spokesman Monkey&Moron uses acceleration data from an *M6* to extrapolate acceleration data for an *M5*. Obviously, Monkey&Moron believes this to be a legitimate scientific method--as long as *he's* doing it, and as long as the vehicle involved is a *BMW*.

But if it is *not* him, and the vehicle is *not* a BMW, amazingly enough, he seems to view this technique in a different light...you see, not so long ago, I, in another post discussing the E55, used acceleration data from the SL55 and CL55, which are heavier than the E55 and have the same motor and drivetrain, to compare acceleration data to the M5. My rationale being that if the SL55 is heavier than the E55, yet has the same motor and driveline, then the E55 should be faster from a roll than the SL55, as it is lighter.

So, what did Monkey&Moron say to this methodology when it *wasn't* him using it and the vehicle in question *wasn't* a BMW?

Have a look:
Hmm, so why is it you're now using the lighter M6 to claim acceleration superiority when there are several tests for the M5, of which you are doubtlessly aware and have posted on multiple occasions, hypocrite?

In fact, in the same post in which you lectured me about using SL55 acceleration data in an E55 discussion, you managed to dig up some M5 test data, and you have posted it several times since.

But now, you have the *****, after lecturing me about using test data for different models, to do the *exact same thing*.

Pathetic.

Well, here is the M5 test data, Monkey boy, and it's a bit slower than the M6...and since you don't think it's valid to use different models, even when they have the same driveline and engine, well, sorry, but we just have to hold you to your own standard and insist that you use only M5 data.

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e602004-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m5e60v102004-3.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s

Autocar's road test of E60 M5: 1/4 mile time = 12.8:

Italian test of E60 M5 as reported on M5board: 1/4 mile of 12.58 seconds:

Hmmmm....I believe that Vipers run a bit faster than this....ah, yes, per your own data: Viper road test: 11.77 second 1/4 mile:

houston

Improviz. All your posts always crack me up... I always enjoy reading your posts....

Mardeth

As I presumed, that time was achieved at a dragstrip. (http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...gt/index1.html, thrid paragraph.)

And from the same site you provided, the E55 times (http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm):

0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s M5: 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s 13,9 s

I went throught several M5 articles but couldnt find the sentence "These numbers were produced at a airfield". But I did find many where the word airfield was mentioned or the pictures indicated that the M5 had been at one. And I know there arent many dragstrips around, maybe a few in a country and their used (exclusively?) by dragsters.

Improviz, be a pal and help me out here. Ive already proven that the Viper was run on a dragstrip, you prove that the M5 was too...

enzom

Mardeth - out of curiousity, where are you located? Do you drive an AMG or an M?

enzom

Amazing that NOWHERE IN THE WORLD has an M5 OWNER taken their car to a dragstrip to run from a dig. I guess we'll have to sit patiently until they are relased here, hopefully, later in 2005. Still no answer as to whether the M5 will have launch control in the US?

I find it pretty strange that a magazine touted as one of the "premier" magazines of the world, if not the "best" runs acceleration tests on dusty airfields. I don't know, I never seem to drive on dusty airfields. If I looked for one, I'd have a hard time finding it. If I paid money for a magazine to give me acceleration figures, I expect the "best" magazine to use something close to a reasonably grippy surface. Are they running acceleration tests or tire grip tests?

As for the SRT, drivers posting on drag times have been all over the place. From high 11's to low 12's. It is a very driver-dependent car.

Jon200

what do you have to say about Impro's post?

Mardeth

If from Finland, drive a Volvo. Have driven a e39 M5 once and been driven in one several on several occasions. Thats where I got the bug for perfomance sedans. Have driven MBs, no top of the line AMGs as of yet. Are you asking because you want to make my words less credible or are you just genuinely intrested? Doesn it matter what I drive? Have I made any claims that would require driving experience of the cars mentioned?

I dont normally go against anyone on forums. But Improviz's way of writing annoys me. Making demands which he self cant fulfill...

Now finally to the point. I havent heard of any M5s going to a strip, no numbers to my knowledge have been published. Like I said, there arent many dragstrips around and even less let street cars run. No news on the US LC front.

M&M

Improviz I am so sock & tired of arguin with you. You are an insecure idiot & I hope you find something in your life that gets you out of your rot.

You CANNOT compare the Viper's time from Road & Track to the M5's time donw by Sport Auto. PRETTY PLEASE tell me your liitle brain can comprehend that?

When ROad & Track tests the M5, THEN you can compare ROAD & TRACK's test of the M5 to ROAD & TRACK's TEST of the Viper.

Now, I have posted results FROM THE SAME F&*KEN MAG, showing the M6 faster than the Viper. In fact I'v posted 2 different mags having the same result.

IN FACT THESE WERE SHOOT OUTS WHERE THEY TOOK ALL THE CARS TO THE TRACK TOGETHER. SO THE CARS WERES TESTED ON THE SAME DAY.

BTW the M5 & M6 are mechanically identical except for the 98lb weight difference.

M&M

Imp, you keep comparing tests on on different planets with different timing equipment, etc. But answer me this. WHy don't you use the same mag?

Autocar got 12.8 for the M5, but 13.1 for the E55. Look it up & post it now, or else your point is invalid.

The italian mag got 12.5 for the M5 & 12.9 for the E55.

BMWEATR

WELL my mag test is better than your mag test"oh my lord" are you frign kidding me?

BoBcanada

x2!!

Improviz

Let's get one thing perfectly clear: you don't set the rules, moron. You don't tell me what is valid and what is not. You don't determine what tests are valid (those which show BMWs faster) and those which are not (those which show BMWs slower). YOU were posting data from the ****M6**** to try and establish the speed of the ****M5****, and you now have the ***** to lecture people about using tests from different mags?

Furthermore, I believe that it was YOU who included the Viper test from Motor Trend in YOUR original post, right moron?

So, it's OK to "use it to predict", but not for a comparison?? You're such a pathetic, ignorant little dweeb.

Secondly, are you out of your frigging mind? You're ALWAYS comparing magazine tests from different mags.

No, I can compare whatever I like, because YOU DON'T SET THE RULES HERE.

Only problem is, you're trying to use this data to establish the capabilities of an ****M5****. And in an earlier post to me, you said that it is invalid to use different cars from the same manufacturer, even when the cars are mechanically identical, to predict the performance of a different car.

Well, if I can't do it, why should you be able to do it, my hypocritical little Monkey boy?

Except, again, that this was an ****M6****. As pointed out previously, when **I** tried to use the data for the CL55 and SL55, which are mechanically identical (except for an even LARGER weight difference) to the E55, you jumped down my throat. But now, suddenly, when YOU want to do the EXACT SAME THING, it's perfectly valid.

If it was invalid for me to use SL55 acceleration data before, when the SL55 is *heavier* than the E55 but otherwise mechanically identical, to make a point about the E55's acceleration capabilities, then why is it now suddenly valid for you to use M6 acceleration data to hypothesize about that of an M5, particularly when M5's aren't testing as fast as the M6??

As usual, your blatant disregard for honesty and your incredible hypocrisy have been exposed for all to see.

Jon200

No need for this? Who is the insecure idiot in here? You are the one being warned by Audi forum in South Africa, unwanted in bimmerforums and e46fanatics, not exactly wanted in here as well.

You are the biggest idiot by comparing M5, M6 and viper times in an E55 forum, ffs get a grip, people can't be that thick over there

go read of some your posts

Improviz

He might start with these:

Monkey boy using M3 and C55 tests from multiple magazines in a comparison:

Monkey boy using M3 tests (of course, he picked the fastest ones) from multiple magazines to prove a point:

MB Fanatic

Why the **** would any real human compare this 4 door sedan to a 2 door sports car?? They are in different categories so who the **** cares if its faster?

M&M

Hey Chimp, E55 & SL55 have different rear ends. That's makes a BIG DIFFERENCE. They have different drag coefficients & frontal areas & their weight difference is more than 98lb.

M5 & M6 have EXACTLY THE SAME REAR END & gear ratios. They have EXACTLY the same drag co-efficient & there frontal areas are the same as well.

But anyway, in an ideal world you cannot really compare 2 cars even though they are almost identical. SO then I will rephrase to make you happy.

The M6 (NOT THE M5) is faster than the SRT10 as tested by 2 of Europes most respected mags (both sets of cars tested on the same day by the same driver, etc).

There, you happy?

And I'm not setting any rules. If you want to compare times done by Sport Auto to those done by Road & TRack, then go ahead. You are onlygoing to fool yourself. There's a reason Autocar got the E55 to do 13.1 @ 115mph & the M5 12.8 @ 119mph. Their times are VERY slow because of their test teechnique & surface.

SO is it fair if I compare Autocars E55 run of 13.1 @ 115 to this M6 test done by a different mag (AMS) 0-100 in 8,7, 1/4 mile in 12.2 @ 121.25mph:

reggid

The M6 has better tyres, weight distribution and less mass therefore the M6 will be measurebly faster than the M5, which has been shown.

The e55 and sl55 are rated differently and different mass drag etc etc and untiil there is a crank dyno test by a reputable source showing that they actually are both putting out the same crank numbers we don't know for sure.

Its conclusive that the M6 is the fastest of the 4 cars and in all probability the M5 will be the second fastest but only by a tenth or two at the most over the AMG's by the 1/4 but increasing from there. The easiest way is to be patient and wait for something a bit more conclusive.

M&M

Reggis, you have some good points there. However, according to the AMS test above the M6 has 53/47 weight distribution which is worse than the M5. I do concede that it has a lower centre of gravity, but that will show its worth on a curcuit.

The M6 is faster than the M5, I'm not doubting that. In fact the M6 on average is faster than the Sl/CL65 to 124pm. I'm sure Impro can do the math & average all the tests.

Jon200

why are you ignoring my post

Improviz

Another lie in a long list. The Cd of the E55 is LOWER, and its weight is LESS, than the SL55 to which I was comparing it. Meaning that in a high-speed run, THE E55 WOULD HAVE THE ADVANTAGE. But the acceleration data for the SL55 vs M5 that you were telling me not to use showed the SL55 dead even with the M5, meaning that the E55 should have an advantage, since it has an advantage in both weight and Cd. All of the following data are from mbusa.com:

E55:
Weight: 4087
Cd: 0.27
Final drive: 2.65:1

SL55:
Weight: 4280
Cd: 0.30
Final drive: 2.87:1

note that "NO DATA" is displayed at the AMG site linked to from MBUSA.com, so the following data are from edmunds.com
CL55:
Weight: 4255 pounds
Cd: 0.28
Final drive: no data on website.

So, in other words, the E55 has the lowest weight and best Cd of the three, meaning that SL55 data should be slower than E55. Conversely, the M6 weighs less and has a lower Cd than the M5, meaning it should be faster than the M5, particularly at high speeds due to its lower Cd.

Therefore, it was MORE valid for me to use the SL55 data to illustrate the performance of the E55 than it is for you to use the M6 to illustrate the performance of the M5.

Yes, it is, idiot, which again gives the advantage to the E55, which is what I was claiming all along!. My point then was that if the SL55 was tested as fast as the M5 and the E55 has the same power, weighs less, and has a better Cd, then it sould fare better. YOU said that this was an invalid comparison.

Yet now, you want to use data from the LIGHTER M6, which has a BETTER Cd than the M5, to show how fast the M5 is. So what's the difference? Simple. In my case, I was arguing that since the SL55 was heavier and had a poorer Cd, the E55 would be faster up high. You, otoh, are arguing that the M6 and M5 should accelerate at exactly the same rate, even though the M6 is lighter and has a better Cd.

The funny thing about you is that no matter how many times I prove that you're a total ignoramus who lies, cheats, and deceives in virtually every post, you keep coming back here and acting as though there are people on this board who believe what you're claiming.

Another lie, and nice job of stepping into my trap; I had these prepared yesterday, figuring you'd lie about the Cd without bothering to investigate as usual.

Both of the following links are from BMW's website:

Cd for M5: 0.31

Cd for M6: 0.26

Idiot.

Hey, all I'm asking for here is consistency; you seem to have a problem with my pointing out your hypocrisy. Now you've flip-flopped and are prepared to cede the point, so yes, I'm happy.

Again and again and again, I have asked you to substantiate this allegation. You have on numerous occasions claimed that the test technique and surface used by *all* European magazines is different from that used by *all* American magazines.

For the fourth time now: PROVE IT!!

If you can't prove it, stop making this claim. Sheesh....can't your teeny little brain comprehend this??

M&M

Impro, how about I don't prove it. How about you just accept that Autocar tested the E55 at 13.1? You see it doesn't matter to me what technique they use, BECAUSE the M5 is tested by the same euro mags. If the M5 gets 12.8 @ 119 & the same mag got the E55 13.1 @ 115, I actually don't care what the technique was. The point has been proven.

BAck to your SL55 story. Why do you keep projecting what the E55 will do based on the SL55? WTF? The same mag tested the E55. They got 14.6 to 124.

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


CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO NOTE THAT DUMMY.

That's right there goes your argument. SL55 did xyz so E55 should DEF, WTF? E55 has een around for a while. All the tests have been done & the fastest any mag on planet earth got for the 0-124 is 14.6. Live with it.