From Car and Driver:
Power (SAE net): 500 bhp @ 7750 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 384 lb-ft @ 6100 rpm

384lb-ft? my CLS500 has almost that much. When will people start to understand that acceleration is all about torque. These companies keep throwing up all these big HP numbers with unimpressive torque numbers, with the exception of the GM LS2 (400hp-400lb/ft)

The new M6 puts up about what I would expect from that kind of torque; (from Car and Driver):
Curb weight: 3900 lb
Zero to 62 mph: 4.6 sec It weighs less than the E55 and the CLS55, with more HP but it's slower. That proves my point...torque rules!!!

I still remain underwhelmed by BMW, they are about 5 years behind Benz on performance.

 

You aren't the only one man. Plus they look ugly.

 

Torque is not everything.... the m5 is still faster then stock E55.... handles better....sounds like F430, but its ugly and has terrible interrior.

Would i buy one? Yes! BUt not for long New E63 will be something else!

 

7 closely spaced gears really put the M5 in the meat of the powerband. Torque isnt everything, nor is it the benchmark for outright performance. Consider the Ferrari F430 only makes like 343ft lbs of torque, yet manages to accelerate 0-60 in high 3's. It's all about the gearing.

 

Lets see what AMG can massage with the 7spd tranny with the new NA V8. I hope the gearing is perfect for it to slaughter the M5.

 

I'm pretty sure that with minor upgrades the M5 still wouldnt be a big deal for the current E55. I know I said torque isnt everything, but it is a very good equalizer.

 

IMO, the new 500 HP M5 is just barely superior to the current E55. However, the 500 HP M5 will soon be slaughtered by the next gen AMG E-class (the E63).

This is a recurring pattern. . . the last gen M5 barely leapfrogged the N/A (pre-2003) E55, and then got creamed by the S/C (2003 and later) E55. Basically, the pattern that I am seeing is that the M5 enjoys one year of slight superiority over the AMB E-class, followed by 3-4 years of the M5 getting stomped.

Sounds like the BMW marketing gurus went to the same tard school as the BMW design morons.

 

After reading my latest C&D on the plane yesterday, the new Z06 will rock everyones world. They tested it 0-60 in 3.6 and 1/4 mile @ 11.7 with a trap speed of 125mph with a price tag under $70K.

That thing must look sick with 325 rubber in the back and pulled over 1g

Congrats to American muscle going head to head with any Euro exotic.

 

m power was never about low end grunt.Every mpower engine was about hi revving hp while staying NA

i not to sure that mpower is 5 years behind on making NA power I think they are at the very least 5 years ahead of there competition in NA engines.

v10 block is using an magnisium/allum alloy mix like the F1 blocks are made out of

it will be years before you see any other car maker using this in there street engines

why dont you wait and see how the new mb NA engines do against the new m power engines then we can compair there strenghs and weakness.

0-62 times right now for most of these cars are limited to traction not that they dont have enough tourqe.

and if bmw wanted more tourqe they can make it no worries.

mclaren f1 lm back in 95 has 520ftlbs and 680hp staying NA and keeping the heart of M power true and not going the FI route.

 

Man I would love to get one of these beasts. I used to have Mustangs when I was younger and always wanted a Vette. When I got older and could afford 1 I had a wife and 2 kids. Go figure. So I need a 4 door. Maybe I can trade the wife in on a new z06? Hmmm.....

Mez

 

Huh?

From Car and driver:
2006 BMW M5:
Manufacturer's performance ratings:
Zero to 62 mph: 4.7 sec http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2

2003 MB E55:

0 to 60 in 4.3 seconds
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=3

 

True, look at the weight of the cars you're comparing.

The Ariel Atom only has 284lb/ft of torque but does 0-60 in 2.3sec

 

one is to 60 and the other is to 62

one car has like 150 more ftlbs and is not even a half second faster

and on that link they say man 0-60 time.

 

yeah but the M5 is supposed to be the "new generation" sedan and it's still SLOWER than a 3 year old E55?

 

But it eats the E55 in the higher powerband.

 

compaired to the older m5 it is a really good jump in performance.

like I said 0-60 times for these cars is now limited by traction now.

 

That's great, it only took em 3 years to catch up

 

If horsepower is king, I've got a 2 year old, 4500lb sedan that's rated at 7hp LESS that will outrun an M5 anyday of the week.

 

Thats the one thing the really pisses me off about bmw

they take like 6 years for a new model to come out and there comp puts out like 2 models every 2 years.

and then your stuck waiting even longer because they take so long for a new model that everyone wants one and you end up having to wait more

in the mean time there comp puts out new cars to match the newer bmers real quick

if your car is stock and has 7hp less than the m5 I dont see it beating it up top weighing 4,500 lbs enless your racing down hill lol

 

My car runs a 12.4 1/4mile, see my sig

 

Go away troll... all this been discussed many many many times, search and read... comparing the 2 is so yesterday man.... get over it.

Btw if you still wanna chat about it, go to m5board.com they like to talk about it!

 

Slower? I havent seen any head to head race where the E55 was faster. Ive even seen a video with M5 beating a chipped E55 (cant be sure if it was chipped obviously...). A 5L NA engine beating a 5.5L SC engine is impressive in my mind.

 

Dont forget it has 2 more cylinders and 2 more gears.... my bet is tho that new 6.3 V8 with 7g tronic will be faster :v

 

People need to realise that torque and horsepower AREN'T entirely different things.
Horsepower is a product of engine revs and torque (theres a certain formula but it involves multiplying revs and torque)

Engine accelerates fastest around max power. Why? Put it this way: torque is a measure of how much an engine can pull in one revolution, while power is that amount of pushing (say 5000rpm) 5000 times a minute. So 384lb/ft torque at 7000 rpm is much more effective than 516lb/ft @ 2650 rpm. This is why ferraris, porsches etc go so hard with so little torque. No its not just coz they're lighter (weight is only part of the story), its coz they rev high (especially ferraris) so more power can be produced.

Consider the torque/power curve of the AMG supercharged 5.4 - max torque of 700nm from around 2650rpm - 4600rpm? But at WOT, change to second gear, does it drop below 4600rpm? It does all its acceleration past its max torque. And after 4600rpm, the torque stops plateauing and drops quite steeply (superchargers parasitic drag at high rpms).

The acceleration in a 55 feels quite linear from standstill to redline because the torque is massive at low rpms and drops off a lot at high rpms.

Someone with a more technical mind correct me if im wrong im only a little boy.

*edit* added more detail

 

The issue of torque and power will go no forever. Torque is a static measure of a turning force. HP is the rate of delivering this force.

Another analogy .... torque is how hard the engine can punch - power is how quickly it can punch... Bit like Tyson throwing a few punches a round and Sugar Ray Leonard throwing (with respect) much weaker punches but a 100 per round - who does the most work ?

So you can see they are unavoidably intertwined. What determines which is the quicker car - the one with more torque and less power or the one with less torque and more power? .... unfortunately - it depends on too many variables but generally the one should be quicker at get away and the other quicker on a flat out run...

In an outright top end run the car with more power should out run the lower hp car (all else equal) as it is able to do more work ... rate of force produced is higher ... at lower rpm the higher torque motor will produce more power as - given the same rate (rpm) - it can do more work; so low to mid range it should be quicker. The only problem with high torque low down is -> traction ... this makes an already problematic issue worse... and as has been stated before traction in these cars is critical... off the mark for example the E55 should stomp an M5 and the M5 pull away at top end ... assuming all equal on the aero front. This is one reason I cannot comprehend why the E does not have an LSD.... (go figure).... The E cannot make use of its low down torque advantage as the traction limit is reached earlier. Reckon need an LSD and some serious 315's or something at back.

This also explains why MB have gone the 6.3 NA route ... best of both worlds - but have to say I enjoy driving a high torque car any day of the week than driving a high hp , high revving motor - its far more easy to drive fast and sooo intoxicating. And finally - how often are you wacking your cars top end ??? I probably never will ...

Rgds Steve.