M5 faster than SRT10 Viper
#51
And Impro, not that I need to prove anything, but if you read Autocar for a while you will notice that they kee complaining about the "dusty surface" which is an airfield. In fact read the review where they tested the M5. They got 12.8 WITHOUT USING LAUNCH CONTROL. THey left foot braked, They said the traction was so bad that LC would cause the tyres to go up in smoke.
Anyway, they tested the E55 & got 13.1 at the same place so I'm sure the E55 also had traction issues there. Obviously I can't prove any of this. Nor do I care to. The point is the M5 was faster on the same surface & trapped 4mph more.
It's been fun but I'm out of here. I have posted actual test results from actual magazines. Chimp, you keep projecting what the E55 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the E55 REALLY did in the tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.
Anyway, they tested the E55 & got 13.1 at the same place so I'm sure the E55 also had traction issues there. Obviously I can't prove any of this. Nor do I care to. The point is the M5 was faster on the same surface & trapped 4mph more.
It's been fun but I'm out of here. I have posted actual test results from actual magazines. Chimp, you keep projecting what the E55 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the E55 REALLY did in the tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.
Last edited by M&M; 07-03-2005 at 05:17 PM.
#52
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
Impro, how about I don't prove it.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
How about you just accept that Autocar tested the E55 at 13.1?
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
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.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
BAck to your SL55 story. Why do you keep projecting what the E55 will do based on the SL55? WTF?
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
The same mag tested the E55. They got 14.6 to 124.
Here is their test data for the M5.
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
Note that ALL FOUR M6's for which you provided test data were faster to 200 than the M5; the first one got there in 12.8 seconds, the second got there in 13.2, the third got there in 13.1, and the fourth got there in 13.0.
So, to use your very own argument: WTF?? Why did you use the M6 data? Oh, because it's faster, and because it's OK for you to use data from the M6 to establish performance for the M5, but not OK for me to use the SL55 to illustrate the performance potential of the E55.
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
And why are you twisting things around as usual? Point was, again since you're too much of a moron to grasp it, that when ***I*** used the SL55 data to illustrate the E55's potential, you claimed it was **wrong** for me to do it, and yet you felt perfectly justified in using the ***M6***'s data to illustrate the ***M5***'s potential in starting this thread.
THAT is the point of debate. I'm NOT going to let you twist this around and evade by resurrecting a previous argument. Your hypocrisy and dishonesty were exposed repeatedly, and that was the intent--not to let you worm your way out of it by your time-tested technique of changing the argument when you're busted, nailed, and cornered.
And I notice you had no comment on your moronic, false assertion that the Cd of the M5 and M6 were the same, when BMW's own website lists the M6 at 0.26 and the M5 at 0.32--a marked difference. Lying out of your *** as usual.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Last edited by Improviz; 07-03-2005 at 10:35 PM.
#53
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
And Impro, not that I need to prove anything, but if you read Autocar for a while you will notice that they kee complaining about the "dusty surface" which is an airfield.
Originally Posted by Autocar
but on a cold track it produced too much slip – the best 0-60mph time was a disappointing 5.1sec.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
In fact read the review where they tested the M5.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
Anyway, they tested the E55 & got 13.1 at the same place so I'm sure the E55 also had traction issues there.
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
I have posted actual test results from actual magazines.
And how hypocritical art thou? Let me count the ways:
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
Chimp, you keep projecting what the E55 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the E55 REALLY did in the tests & just imagine what it should do., then knock yourself out.
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Hypocrite, you keep starting threads wherein you project what the M5 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the M5 REALLY did in tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
And judging from the caliber of your posts, I'd say you knock yourself out quite often.
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Last edited by Improviz; 07-03-2005 at 10:32 PM.
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
And Impro, not that I need to prove anything, but if you read Autocar for a while you will notice that they kee complaining about the "dusty surface" which is an airfield. In fact read the review where they tested the M5. They got 12.8 WITHOUT USING LAUNCH CONTROL. THey left foot braked, They said the traction was so bad that LC would cause the tyres to go up in smoke.
Anyway, they tested the E55 & got 13.1 at the same place so I'm sure the E55 also had traction issues there. Obviously I can't prove any of this. Nor do I care to. The point is the M5 was faster on the same surface & trapped 4mph more.
It's been fun but I'm out of here. I have posted actual test results from actual magazines. Chimp, you keep projecting what the E55 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the E55 REALLY did in the tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.
Anyway, they tested the E55 & got 13.1 at the same place so I'm sure the E55 also had traction issues there. Obviously I can't prove any of this. Nor do I care to. The point is the M5 was faster on the same surface & trapped 4mph more.
It's been fun but I'm out of here. I have posted actual test results from actual magazines. Chimp, you keep projecting what the E55 should do based on some other car all you want. If you want to ignore what the E55 REALLY did in the tests & just imagine what it should do, then knock yourself out.
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
oh my god -_- just let it go........
excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!
anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)
excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!
anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)
#56
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
04E55AMG, 05Dodge RAM 1500 Quad Cab, 02Montero Limited
Originally Posted by mashimaro1985
oh my god -_- just let it go........
excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!
anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)
excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!
anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)
Are you sure it was a new M5? My understanding is that they are still months away from our shores.
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
Hey Chimp, I'm not predicting what the M5 will do. It's been tested. It's faster than the E55.
ANd the M6 IS faster than the M5. I never said otherwise.
ANd the M6 IS faster than the M5. I never said otherwise.
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
'15 E350 4M Sport
Originally Posted by M&M
Hey Chimp, I'm not predicting what the M5 will do. It's been tested. It's faster than the E55.
ANd the M6 IS faster than the M5. I never said otherwise.
ANd the M6 IS faster than the M5. I never said otherwise.
![Smilie](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Rgds,
Norm
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 W210 E55->2003 R230 SL500->2004 W211 E55->2007 997TT+2007 E63->2010 GLK350->2012 E550 4matic
Talking about tests, it has been tested that the M5 is significantly slower than the RS6+:
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=55987
In fact, the new M5 is actually slower than the Cadillac CTS-V from 10-160km/h and the Volvo S60R, Cadillac CTS-V, RS6+ and VW GTI all beat the new M5 from 10-80km/h.
Anyway, all these tests don't make much sense after awhile, at the end of the day, it depends on ones needs.
Not that the M5 is a slow car, but it definitely belongs to the track more than the street.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=55987
In fact, the new M5 is actually slower than the Cadillac CTS-V from 10-160km/h and the Volvo S60R, Cadillac CTS-V, RS6+ and VW GTI all beat the new M5 from 10-80km/h.
Anyway, all these tests don't make much sense after awhile, at the end of the day, it depends on ones needs.
Not that the M5 is a slow car, but it definitely belongs to the track more than the street.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mashimaro1985
oh my god -_- just let it go........
excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!
anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)
excuse me all are different cars only 2 you can compare to each other is m5 and e55 thats it! the rest can go to hell!
anyways m5 and m6 looks like CRAP! i saw an M5 going up beverly glen already it isnt that nice cant really tell saw the m5 metal thing on the side then i saw oh its an m5! thats about it =)
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
#63
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
Hey Chimp, I'm not predicting what the M5 will do. It's been tested. It's faster than the E55.
Insofar as the time to speed numbers you keep posting: wow. You act like it's some moon-launch-like feat of engineering that a brand new car with 500 rated horsepower and seven gears tested a bit faster in time to speed than a three year old car with 469 horsepower and five gears.
As pointed out to you previously: this is entirely due to its having two more gears. As I've also pointed out to you before, a less-than-one second margin of victory to 125 mph means that the two will be pretty much even-steven in a 1/4 mile race. We'll see how things stack up when the new AMG seven speed auto comes out.
Boy, you guys really are sore about having gotten *****-slapped by the E55...your little small ***** fragile egos can't handle getting slapped around, can you?
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Originally Posted by paid BMW spokeswhore and troll Monkey&Moron
ANd the M6 IS faster than the M5. I never said otherwise.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
No, you never said it wasn't faster than the M5, lol....you just started this thread, which is entitled "M5 faster than SRT10 Viper", using the M6's acceleration numbers. In the lone piece of M5 data you posted in the original post, the Viper was actually tested *faster* to 100, 9.59 to the M5's 9.71, which put the lie to your original claim.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
But that just goes to show, as does the other lies I've busted you in in this thread (the dusty airfield lie, the Cd of the M6 and M5 being equal lie, etc...oh, and then there's this Autocar test you keep citing of the E55 running a 13.1, which as I pointed out does not appear on their website....I've asked you to post it it four times now, and you've ignored me each and every time...where is it?
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
Also, you claimed that the Italian magazine which tested the M5 at a 12.7 also tested the E55 slower. Can you offer any proof of this claim??
For obvious reasons, I don't take anything you say on its face any more, and so would like to see hard data backing up these two claims. We all saw what happened with the "dusty airfield" claim, after all....
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
#64
Imp, you acting like a kid man. Why don't you just accept that the M5 is faster than the E55? Like you said, it has more horsepower, less weight & 7 gears. So it should be faster. No rocket science required.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by M&M
Imp, you acting like a kid man. Why don't you just accept that the M5 is faster than the E55? Like you said, it has more horsepower, less weight & 7 gears. So it should be faster. No rocket science required.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
Don't let the troll door hit your @ss!
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M&M
Imp, you acting like a kid man. Why don't you just accept that the M5 is faster than the E55? Like you said, it has more horsepower, less weight & 7 gears. So it should be faster. No rocket science required.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
relax, no one is doubting the M5, it is definitely faster than the E55 but stop stating the obvious mate.
And just exactly how many times have you eaten your own words with the time you post in here?
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
I can't wait to see you eat your words AGAIN when the new E AMG comes out. We'll start posting M5-bashing in M5 forums.
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
#67
MBWorld Fanatic!
Once again....still arguing...
You guys are
...
Use you logic...how can BMW which is main competitor of Mercedes, make NEW M5 slower the 3 year old E55K???
NEW stock M5 is faster then stock E55K and that is the truth!!! Why some 55K owners cant admit IT
There has been a thread before when an owner of BOTH cars admitted, that the higher the speed the faster M5 (m5 was not fully broken in) over E55K...speaking from experince...Stop this BS...
New E63 will be as fast or faster then E60 M5 and it will continue forever...
You guys are
![beat](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/beat.gif)
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
![thread](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thread.gif)
Use you logic...how can BMW which is main competitor of Mercedes, make NEW M5 slower the 3 year old E55K???
NEW stock M5 is faster then stock E55K and that is the truth!!! Why some 55K owners cant admit IT
![hammer](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif)
There has been a thread before when an owner of BOTH cars admitted, that the higher the speed the faster M5 (m5 was not fully broken in) over E55K...speaking from experince...Stop this BS...
![wall](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)
New E63 will be as fast or faster then E60 M5 and it will continue forever...
Last edited by E55 RUSS; 07-05-2005 at 08:58 AM.
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sunshine Ranches, FL
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 M6, '05 Lambo Gallardo
I for one am glad the M&M put this info on here. Just for the record I have had 2 '04 E55s and I now have a CLS55. My $ vote has gone to MB in the past. I am also considering the M5/M6 as I am 1st and 3rd respectively on the waiting list. You guys need to grow up and stop being insulted by the fact that there are cars faster than the AMG cars we have. I love my CLS. It is a great car in every respect, but that doesn't mean that the M6 won't eat my CLS for lunch. I will most likely pass on the M5 and just wait for my M6 to hit. THe look of the 5 series is the reason. I also prefer the interior of my CLS over the 5 series, but I like the interior of the 6 a lot more.
I like seeing the comparisons...it is entertaining and interesting.
The fact that those tests took place at the same time as the other cars in the comparison holds more weight than all of the speculation. What are you all so afraid of??? Time to grow up and stop taking this **** personally.
I like seeing the comparisons...it is entertaining and interesting.
The fact that those tests took place at the same time as the other cars in the comparison holds more weight than all of the speculation. What are you all so afraid of??? Time to grow up and stop taking this **** personally.
#70
Come on guys. We all know that the M5 will ultimately be faster in cases where both drivers are experts at launching their cars. We also all know that in 99% of street races the end result will be driver dependent and could easily go to the torque-rich monster E55.
Last edited by Accomplice8; 07-05-2005 at 02:43 PM.
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by M&M
Imp, you acting like a kid man. Why don't you just accept that the M5 is faster than the E55? Like you said, it has more horsepower, less weight & 7 gears. So it should be faster. No rocket science required.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
But like I said, it leaves the factory with all of those, just like the E55 leaves the factory with a 5.5 engine .supercharger. No use complaining the M5 has 7 gears. That's like me complaining the E55 has a supercharger.
Methinks you are going to eat your words when the M5 is tested stateside, but hey I'll just keep quiet & wait for that. Then you'll hear from me.
#73
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 W210 E55->2003 R230 SL500->2004 W211 E55->2007 997TT+2007 E63->2010 GLK350->2012 E550 4matic
![Lightbulb](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/icons/icon3.gif)
Originally Posted by Elusive1
Best pissing contest I have ever seen. We should all just sit back and be thankful we have the means to be able to drive any of the cars mentioned here.
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by W210
It's easier said than done. I highly suspect most M5/M6 fans who argue for their merits here on a Mercedes board actually do not own or even plan to buy any of these cars in the near future.
Wait till an actual comparison of the two cars are done head to head under the same conditions and controls. Then all the spec heads can **** at each other all day long. I love my cars and feel lucky to have what I have...No amount of copy and paste magazine spec head can rain on that parade, especially when I can turn off the computer and actually sit in my ride and drive it, while copy and paste boy is still scanning/typing away.
Peace.
Last edited by AMGfan; 07-05-2005 at 10:25 PM.
#75
M&M, this makes it the fourth time I've asked:
Where is the Autocar article you keep citing wherein an E55 was tested at 13.1? As pointed out previously: they do not have the article on their website. I'd really like to read it.
I'd also like to see the Italian mag which you claimed tested the E55 slower than the M5, which they tested at a 12.7...can you also provide a scan or link to one for this as well?
![nix](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/nixweiss.gif)
I'd also like to see the Italian mag which you claimed tested the E55 slower than the M5, which they tested at a 12.7...can you also provide a scan or link to one for this as well?