BoBcanada

I'll beat your M6 with new Z06 which already in US

MJ1133

I'll beat your Z06 with my F16

vyruz

i smell a kos khesh, kuni!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :v

SoulBladeZA

I know I'll get flamed for this and called a BMW shill and what not, but I just LOVE being devil's advocate. So you are patting yourselves on the back because AMG's new engine with 1200cc more than the M5 V10 only makes 3 horsepower more? Wow 3 horsepower! That's alot All things indicate to the M5 being more than 507 crank HP too, not that it matters really. I just find it ironic.

The 6.2 makes 3 more hp than the 5.0 and it's some kind of interstellar record? The 'Vette engine is even worse at 7.0 and the same power as the 5.0. Yes yes I know they have more torque, but only because they are bigger. I'm not here to flame AMG, the 6.2 will be more drivable than the 5.0, but harping on about 3hp seems stupid to me.

BoBcanada

it makes much more torque too...

SoulBladeZA

Didn't I say that?



Torque is directly related to engine size. In my experience a well tuned engine will confirm to this theorem: (Yes I devised this myself)

Engine capacity/torque(in nm not pound/foot) = or < 10, then the engine is a worthy powerplant IMO. Which the new AMG beast certainly is. 6204cc/630nm =
9.85.

Other examples:
BMW 130i - 3000cc/300nm = 10
BMW M5 - 4999cc/520nm = 9.61
BMW M3 - 3200cc/365nm = 8.77

Yes yes I know I don't have any Merc engines in there, but all the ones I am interested in all use forced induction and don't apply to my little experiment

As you can see I am in no way dissing the AMG V8, as it follows the trend of < 10 being well-tuned IMO.

Now for the 'Vette engine
7000cc/657nm = 10.66. Greater than 10 oh noes! 500hp from a 7.0 V8 is a bit less than expected. If they could get it to the 10:1 ratio which is by no means the be all and end all of a good engine, the HP would pick up automatically. I'm sure you can see this is by no means a scientific test, but you can see my reasoning behind it I'm sure. The Viper engine likewise at 8300cc and only 500hp aswell has an even higher ratio than the Corvette. I'm sure you have realised by now that higher = worse. If these two could get their torque ratios up to match their engine sizes, the HP would grow in leaps and bounds.

This doesn't affect just big engines. Look at the Opel (Vauxhall) Astra 2.0 for example. It has nearly the same HP as the 320i, but 20 less torque.
BMW 320i - 2000cc/200nm = 10
Astra 2.0i - 2000cc/180nm = 11.11

See my point? The reason I typed all this you ask? To show that I think the new AMG V8 is a winner but that celebrating over 3hp is stupid

BoBcanada

Im not celebration 3 hp here, im celebrating that it's N/a with just as much power, while BMW guys were whining about AMG able doing it by only slaping a turbo or supercharger, And now we have 2 cylinder less and more hp and more torque which is there always with no buttons to push! Which also as eceonomical as well. 16l/100 <-- kinda economical lol

Btw this engine is capable of producing 580hp with better exhaust and headers, at least so the rumours!


P.s M5 v10 sounds very nice too tho... but i like the rumble of AMG better!

SoulBladeZA

One button isn't that much to push I actually like playing with it. The change in exhaust note is addictive

LOL @ 16l/100 km. The M5 is very close or the same to that. It's really bad Heh.

BoBcanada

yeah its close to that when its in 400hp mode right? I heard new m5 is over 20 liters when pushing it, MY 05 E55 eated 18 in city and 20-23 liters when i pushed it...


So you already have your m5? Can you post some pics?

SoulBladeZA

Haven't had time to take some nice ones in the daytime yet, but I took these the night we got it







I don't see a remarkable change in fuel consumption between 400 and 500 mode, but if you push it you can almost see the needle drop

BoBcanada

SLK55 should be about the same to a 100km/h right? How does the difference feels betweeen those 2?

I like the rear of m5 but the front not really... But you have to give repsect for a saloon that pulls 0.98gs on the skidpad!!!

BenzoBoi

beautiful garage there buddy!~!

Vetluver

This is very important. It's not just the torque it's the area under the torque curve.

Peak HP is important but when building a street or autocross engine I believe that having a flat broad torque curve is best.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's why the E55 with a compressor has such tremendous acceleration from 20-40 and 40-60 times. As I recall it set the record for those tests.

When I built my SBC I went for a balance between the peak HP and great low end torque, makes it great on the street. Just my $.02.

I love low down grunt.

Vetluver

Bigger is always better. At least that's what MY wife tells me.

VelocitE55

The botton line is this. I remember all the debates and **** talk about how AMG could never approach BMW M in terms of output using NA engines, how the only way AMG could make good power was by "slapping a Supercharger" onto an archaic V8. The fact that the new 6.3 makes more hp (albeit 3hp) and substantially more torque (465 vs 384) all while utilizing TWO LESS CYLINDERS speaks volumes. Sure, sure...AMG used 1.3 (actually only 1.2L more, the new 6.3 is actually 6,208cc) to make the extra power but hey, now they have the MOST POWERFUL NA production engine ever produced! As one Mag put it "Look out BMW M, AMG is coming right at you!!"

DRCrowder

why is it that noone ever speaks to drivetrain loss? The MB has no shot at the M5 on the highway due to that as far as I can tell. The M5 should be putting 30 - 50 more hp to the wheels.

skratch77

no the bmw people would say that there m power engines were all about making over 100hp/l someting mb hasnt done yet even with there blown F/I engines

this engine is making 80hp/l something bmw did 20 years ago

supersprint dyno'd an m5 and put down 549hp with there exhuast and a swidish mag got 471whp on a bone stock m5.

will see when someone puts the 6.3 on a dyno to see if its underated but for now the m5 is making more like 550hp stock

W210

Exactly, I'm not F1 want-to-be, just wanting to get from A to B in a most effortless and comfortable manner. I enjoy the freedom I can pass literally any car on the street without any fuss.

If I need a 4-door track car, the M5, a 4-door street car, the E55. Now if I were really serious about track, I'll probably get a Porsche, Lotus or Z06 instead.

VelocitE55

Nonetheless, things have changed significantly at Mercedes AMG, and BMW has more than a few reasons to worry!

BTW, I think the new M5's technology is truly awesome, its a phenimonal car by anyones standards. If it wasnt so goddamn ugly, I might consider owning one! Still, I will prefer AMG till the day I die!

SoulBladeZA

Yeah they are very close 0-100. My father and I are going to line up side-by-side when the M5 has 5000km on. SLK vs M5 will be interesting at our altitudes (6000ft above sealevel ) On a hot day that accounts for about 30% peak HP losses, factor in drivetrain losses and you lose even more HP M5 with launch control did 5,14 0-100km/h tested by a local magazine. The other big local magazine tested at the coast got 4.6 0-100 using LC. The SLK has a bigger disadvantage than the M5 at these altidtudes, but the test will be interesting nontheless Also our neighbour's E55 when we run at Wesbank Raceway (10 mins outside JHB). Can't wait!

Rafal

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think I saw E55 tested on the Highveld
0-100 at around 4.5-4.7sec ie. same as at sea level?
The supercharged engine did not seem to mind the 6000ft altitude as much as the atmo engines.
PS. I love your garage

SoulBladeZA

Well all I can quote are the 2 magazines that I read:

CAR Magazine, they test in Cape Town:
M5 0-100km/h or 62mph - 4.64 seconds
E55 0-100km/h or 62mph - 4.95 seconds

Topcar Magazine, they test in Johannesburg (Highveld altitude):
M5 - 5,14 seconds
E55 - 5,34 seconds
SL 65 - 4,79 seconds

Now let me just clear some things up before my head gets bitten off
The Kompressor cars take less of a % loss than the N/A cars, but they still take a knock at Highveld altitudes. The BIG factor here is fuel quality. The best available pump fuel inland the 93 octane, which is US standard 89 octane I believe. CAR magazine at the coast on the same day tested using 95 octane for the M5 and 97 octane for the E55, the recommeded fuel for the cars I believe, also note that these aren't the US standard octanes. Also note that CAR magazine tests with 2 people in the car, a full gas tank and 30kg of equipment. I'd be happy to provide scans Keep in mind 95% of cars usually test slower in South Africa due to fuel, atmospheric conditions and in some cases very high altitude.

Thanks

RezF

But none of those BMW guys whining are auto engineers. It is very easy for them to create an argument out of a lame excuse!
FYI, The BMW at 507 has been by a number of valid accounts underrated.
I do not know the answer to the following question: but ask your self, what is more of an engineering feat: increasing the displacement to get the hp, or increasing the number of cylinders .
All aside, the torque on the M5 has been a consistent disappointment by anyone's standards. The achilles heal of an otherwise fantastic engine