Rafal

Yes, of course it is!
What sort of a stupid comparison is that? Let's now put the Alpina against Derek's E55 or anybody else's with stage 2 or 3!

SoulBladeZA

Oh my God. Please save yourself the embarrassment and use Google next time. The B5 is more of an E55 competitor than the M5 is. They are nowhere NEAR the same car.

B5 uses a modified version of the 4.4 liter block of the 545i. It is supercharged with 500bhp and 700nm torque - more power than the E55. It's not a new engine, having been used in the B7 too. Alpinas are NOT tuner cars, nor are they BMWs. They just use BMW as their base. It has much softer suspension than the M5 and comes with a 6-speed auto.

SoulBladeZA

I was going to let this one slide, and before someone asks no I'm not M&M nor am I affiliated with him. The M5 makes 520nm from a 5.0. The 5.4 in our SLK makes 510nm. Torque is all about displacement. Stating that BMW makes crappy engines because their engines don't make the same torque as bigger, supercharged versions of their competitors is quite frankly, stupid. HAVING ACTUALLY DRIVEN AN M5, it pulls damn well from down low. Yes it's a high revving engine, but it's not a Honda 1600cc FFS. It's a big 5 liter V10.

Using the same logic, the E55 will be faster than the new E63 because the E63 has less torque. OMG NOOOO AMG MUST BE MORONS BECAUSE ONE GUY SAYS SO.

M&M

C'mon SoulBlase give it up man. I know that you are me & I are you. We are one & the same. The Hawk is our long lost 3rd personality but me manage to mind-morph ourselves over to Italy to post as him. Who know's how many other personalites we have.

SoulBladeZA

Lol. I'm still waiting for you to organise that chip for the 120d

:p

enzom

I'm sorry, M&M. You still don't get it. (And by the way, when are you getting your M5 again? I didn't see your response. Maybe I missed it.) I am not in denial or a sore loser. I really don't care that much about these cars. I spend too many hours in an office to even enjoy driving my cars, let alone post about them from an internet cafe.

What irks me is when someone like you (who swore off this board about a month ago) shows up and keeps spitting up the same magazine comparisons and videos of cars racing at triple digit speeds. Guys like Wolverine, who clearly have a bias, at least make an effort to try some spirited dialogue. With you, it is the same story. By the way, can you show me where it is documented that the M5 5th gear test was run from 1,000 rpm? I didn't see where it specified 1,000 rpm.

The M5 should be faster. But I am still waiting for a documented M5 quarter mile time in the low 12's. I don't know, I guess as an attorney, I am trained to look for proof of an argument and not simply speculate based on magazine times. Please show me a documented 1/4 timeslip run with real equipment. The only standing start quarter mile times from European magazines that I have seen were not that impressive. That to me doesn't mean the M5 is slow. To the contrary, it bolsters my view that magazine times don't mean much. For crying out loud, look at the numers you posted in your post and compare them to the scan that is a few posts up. In what you posted, the M5 has a 1.6 second advantage to 200 kph. In the scan from the other German mag, the difference is only 2/10th's. Doesn't that prove something to you about magazine tests?????

My favorite car remains my 2001 540 sport. I am not blinded by brand loyalty. I know my E55 was not built for me. If the look of the new 5 didn't make me want to throw up in my mouth when it first came out (totally subjective, I know), I would be driving a 545 right now.

I spent too many days at drag strips watching the same cars have variances in e.t and trap speed to know that you can't take a magazine test and say my car should run X at X mph. I know that Chevy and other manufacturers have already been caught making minor but effective tweaks to their press cars (eliminating the standard torque management in the C6 for example) in an effort to have those great times thrown all over the internet so people will want to own them. That is why I view magazine times as an example NOT A RULE.

The M5 is finally coming out stateside in the next few months, and they will finally be hitting the strip. If the thing runs 11's bone stock, then I will be proud of the engineering accomplishment. Not sad. Not suicidal. And not all broken up. My prediction is that the M5 will not have launch control. (Can anyone tell me if that has been confirmed). And launching an SMG without launch control means you are giving up 3/10ths easily in the first 60 feet. I remember what a pain it was to try to launch my father's Ferrari 360. And flooring the pedal in my cousin's F430 Spider last night from a dead stop resulted in the car bogging. An SMG without launch control will not be a great drag strip or stop light to stop light car. Doesn't mean it is not the better car or the faster car at speed, but it does mean that it will probably not have standing start quarter mile bragging rights.

enzom

Are you referring to both cars with the ESP and ASR switched off? Don't most of us drive with it on at all times? I know I never turned it off on my cars. I would put the traction control on my Z06 in competition mode at the track, but always left the active handling in place in case the car went sideways on me.

I can tell you based on owning two 540's and my current E55, that the MB ESP is MUCH MUCH more forgiving than the BMW ASR in the 540. I couldn't make a right turn with more than 1/3 throttle in the 540 without the damn traction control SHUTTING the car down. It was frightening to worry about getting rear ended. The E55 on the other hand, gives you plenty of tire slip before intervening.

RezF

Now that is just plain wrong. You are confusing the Z8 Alpina engine (B10) which put out 375 hp. The X5 4.8 is an enlarged version of the valavetronic 4.4 L engine found in the X5 4.4 which puts out 355 hp (up from 325 found in the 4.4).
The only factory collaboration between BMW and Alpina has been the Z8 (Alpina version only)

Improviz

Well, look who's back, posting the same lie I've busted him in multiple times. Not only have I busted him in it multiple times, I've corrected him multiple times, and linked him to an actual video, produced by Sport Auto, of the test, and yet he still continues to come back to the forums and repeat the lie over and over, a violation of the terms of use.

What strange disorder is it that causes one to repeatedly lie, knowing full well that the correct information is at hand, right here? Here is Sport Auto's video of this comparison test (overdubbed in English), which I have provided to M&M on the following occasions:

12/26/2004:

12/28/2004:

12/28/2004, again:

And finally, here, on 12/29/04, a post of mine with the title M&M, why do you keep posting data which has been shown to be false??, wherein I asked him:

So, we see: despite having had it pointed out to him on at least four separate occasions, with video AND links to the article itself having been provided, M&M continues to knowingly repeat the same lie, over and over and over again.

But M&M has a long history of lying in this forum. Here, I nailed him making another false claim, repeatedly: that 1) the M5 was tested by Autocar on a "dusty airfield", and that all Euro mags test their cars on "dusty airfields" with a passenger. I had challenged him repeatedly to back up this claim, which he had made multiple times in these forums, and he had repeatedly refused, so I simply went and read the article myself, busting him in yet another lie.

Here are two more lies I've nailed him in:
OK, now here's exhibit A: M&M the LIAR posting in our forums, in a thread he started ironically entitled "Let's get my credibility out of the way", that he'd run a 13.0 when he was "bone stock". Date of timeslip: May 2nd, 2004.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...99&postcount=1

At about the same time, M&M the LIAR posted a pretty photo in this bimmerforums.com post, from the South Africa Audi Club
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...1&postcount=22
(you will note that the photo from the SAAforum has vanished, which has a way of happening with M&M's "evidence").

This photo was a results page at the South Africa Audi forum. So, I decided to visit their forum, and what did I find: Why, M&M, trolling there (imagine that!). I also found a post, by M&M, made on April 23, 2004, entitled "Got me a quattro M3", wherein he bragged about mounting up semi-slicks on his car, and how they'd greatly affected his traction:
What a coincidence!!! Fits his car with semi-slicks and brags about how much they help his launch and 60' times on 4/23/04, then runs a significantly faster time on 5/2/04...So, in the same thread, I pointed this out, here, in my M&M is soooo busted post:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...9&postcount=68 But of course, M&M, in a thread he'd started trying to shore up his nonexistant credibility, couldn't resort to telling the truth, so he lied, again:

No, LIAR, you lose. And thanks to your own big mouth, I can now prove it. I went to the new South Africa Audi Club forum, where M&M (of course) still trolls, and found that at least there, he's a bit more honest (namely because he's posting with people who know him and who would easily call him out if he tried to lie about things like claiming his car was "bone stock" when it was actually modded)...

And lo and behold: from the South Africa Audi Club, we see that the ever-LYING M&M was singing a slightly different tune:


http://www.audiclubsa.org.za/cgi-bin...m=1111145504#9
So, there you have it: despite lying repeatedly in OUR forums about his having semi slicks mounted on his car, in the South Africa Audi Club forum, he let his guard down.

Busted again, liar.

RezF

Improviz,

You've certainly built a strong case with all the investigative work

You are the New Magnum P.I.

M&M

HAHAHAH Impro by BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOY! Where you been homie (sorry homo)? I missed you man. Say, you still trying to get me banned? Why don't you start a fund & I'll send you some money.

So this is a thread about the M5 & you bring up my semi's? What's next, my show size? BTW my favourite colour is blue if you're interested. BTW I admitted I tried semi's & posted it on THIS forum LONG before you "apparently" bust me. Shall I prove it to you. And there was no lying on my part. I ran my best time with Toyo's not with the semi's. Can you prove otherwise? Then don't go around calling people liars, loser.

Now, onto the test. The article wheer they tested the M5, CLS55 & SLK55 was a DIFFERENT test to the one you posted. Judging by the pictures in the test, looked like the cars were tested together as they were in the same shot most of the pics.

Not that it matters. We all know times change base on conditions but the M5 is faster in all the tests. That's a fact. At a worst case scenario they are level to 60. Then the M5 pulls away. I haven't seen a single test where the 55 was faster to any speed below 60.

I still don't know why everyone gets so defensive. These things happen. I'm not saying which car is better, just which is faster.

Soul-man, you should bring the SLK55 to the next event. I have a buddy with a chip + pulley C32 that would love to try you.

Improviz

Actually, I brought up first the fact that you deliberately lied about magazine test results despite my having corrected you and provided you with links on four separate occasions. The rest was just icing on the cake, to establish you as a liar, which I always delight in doing.

Perhaps, but you repeatedly claimed to have done your best run when your car was "bone stock", a flat-out lie, as I already showed in this thread.

Yes, and I did, by linking to YOUR OWN POST:
http://www.audiclubsa.org.za/cgi-bin...m=1111145504#9
From your own lying fingertips: YOU wrote that YOUR car had semis when you ran your best times. M3s do NOT come with semislicks "stock". End of story.

Another lie. Produce any such article. I linked to their website in the previous article; produce any other comparison test from their website of these two cars. You can't, because this is the one and only test. As if they'd run two comparisons of the same two cars within months of one another anyway....gawd, the lies just get lamer and lamer.

You lied, I proved it, and you lie some more. Same ol' song you've been singing since you arrived here.

vraa

Just keep it to the sheetmetal guys

M&M

Hey Chimpro, let's discuss my semi's on a thread about an M5. After I ran those times, I beat them with TOyos by 2 thousandths of a second. So yeah, I did run my best times bone stock. Anyway, What you do you define as bone stock. Let's say your car leaves the factory with Michelins & you change to Bridgestones. Is your car now modd'd? As long as you run a street legal tyre your car is stock bonehead. Freakin CSL leaves the factory with Pilot cups (as you Evos' & Sti's, GT3RS, 360CS). So now what? You gonna' call those cars modd'd?

You suck at teh arguing.

Improviz

No, let's discuss your posting false data about the CLS55 in a thread about an M5, along with the multiple other examples I provided of your posting false claims, *including* your false claim about your car being "bone stock" when you ran the 13.0 time for which you posted the timeslip in our forums, and your false claim about the M5 being tested on a "dusty airfield"....

This is *directly* related to this thread, because YOU deliberately posted inaccurate data about the CLS55 IN THIS THREAD, just as you have deliberately posted false claims in other threads to prove your points. And you have the audacity to claim that ***I*** suck at arguing? I suppose from your perspective, it sucks to get caught lying in your posts, but...

Speaking about your false data for the CLS55/M5 comparison: you claimed that there was another test. Just like before, when I challenged you to provide proof of your false claim that the M5 was tested on a "dusty airfield", I challenged you to provide proof of this false claim. And just like before, you have provided NO response. Where is it?

M&M

Why do you keep harping on this dusty airfield story? I admit I was mistaken there. I read a lot of articles & I confused that test with a Topgear test of a different car. What's the big deal? The nett result was that it was a cold surface that caused the poor traction not a dusty airfield. The traction was so poor that they couldn't use launch control. They lbrake torqued the M5 like an auto & it was still faster than the E55. Forgot to post that didn't you buddy? Glad you reminded me.

vraa

Okay Improviz and M&M, lets keep it a little more related to the topic on hand, rather than past issues

Sort out some problems through PM, I'm sure you guys can come to an agreement.

krispykrme

Will Disagree here. The M5 in us will most likely lose the european version of launch control like the M3 did. But BMWNA will probably allow it to launch at 1800 RPM. Magazines has never been able to get great time using the full blown european launch control.

If i remember corectly C&D actually gets better time using the 1800 RPM limi set by BMWNA on US M3.

Improviz

Hmm, really? And you researched this personally, eh liar?

So explain this:

Evo magazine tests E55 AMG: 0-60 in 4.8, 0-100 in 10.2, 0-150 in 22.8.

Evo magazine tests E60 M5: 0-60 in 5.0, 0-100 in 10.4, 0-150 in 22.9.

And oh, wow, they ran the 1/4 in 13.2@116!! Woo-hoo!!

krispykrme

i believe a article in autoweek states that M5 pulled 1.3G.

M&M

WOW Impro, my stock E46 M3 is faster than the M5. WHOOOOHOOOO! Hallelujah! Hell, even the E39 M5 is faster. Long live the E39!

krispykrme

This i agree with. I would like to have more low end grunt too. However, personally i just don't think adding a s/c or turbo is a great show for technology. It's far difficult to design and make a high rev big displacement engine.

E55 and M5 are different car and simply suited for different people.

Improviz

So, let me get this straight: Mr. Magazine Racer is disputing the times recorded by one of the most respected automotive magazines in the world?

Psst....hey, M:

^^^^^^^LOOK UP!!!^^^^^^^

M&M

Hey Chimpro, that makes one test. I guess I'm a liar again now. I'd like to use your line to squirm out as its pretty obvious the cars weren't tested on the same day or even under the same conditions. Say pal, did you mention that the Gallardo test with the M5 on the same day did 13.0 1/4 mile. I thought you might leave than out.

Nice try though.

Improviz

Ricky, this is a present issue; he knowingly posted false data about the Sport Auto comparison of the CLS55 and the M5 in this thread.

Surely the accuracy of one's information in a performance thread is related to the topic at hand, yes?