Let's hold off until we see what the 63 can do. It isn't as though the motor needs to be revved to 6,000 rpm to come to life. It still has considerable low end torque - we are just spoiled with more low-end torque than 99% of the cars out there.

I think we will be pleasantly surprised with this new motor. Will it be able to run 11.6 second quarters with less than $4,000 invested? Probably not. But I suspect that the car will still be quicker down the strip than 12.5 @ 118 mph. And if it is actually fun to drive, with a communicative chasis and direct steering, then it is a great evolution.

Don't get me wrong, I am addicted to the 55K torque, but I think we are too quick to pre-judge the 63 NA motor as relatively anemic below 4,000 rpm. This is not the M5's motor.

And let's not make the mistake of prognosticating what the car can do. Lest we create expectations of world domination that can't be met. How many guys were on this board a year ago saying more hp + 10 cylinders + 8,500 redline + 7 gears = faster than an E55 under any circumstance? We don't hear from them very much these days. Let's at least learn from that.

 

my point exactly

 

No, you have this totally backward.

M5 due to its lack of torque and being a manual, it is difficult to launch it well.

The E55 being a slushbox and tons of torque as long as you don't lose traction from your rear tire, you can punch it and go.

The M5 takes a lot of skills to launch, especially since the US version got a weak Launch control. As far as I know no one has been able to launch US M5 as good as the european M5 and no one i know for sure has come close to 4.1 0-60 times.

 

I can't stop laughing my head off every time I read this, followed by all the apologetic justifications why this is still such a superior car...by people who spent their money on this heap of s...t. What a load of rubbish!
I will do 4.4 sec 0-60 ten times in a row in my E55 followed by a 12.3 sec 1/4...

 

If drag racing only ,gets you off,good for you.
Some people buy cars for more then just a 1/4 mile.

 

Car & Driver driving a US spec M5 got 0-60 in 4.2 with a cripple LC.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....ticle_id=10436

And seeing as this isn't with the full blown LC, it can be done as many times as you want.

 

Worth noting the same magazine tested the CLS55 at 4.2 and the E55 at 4.3 for 0-60 times, just to give some context.

 

Hey, Sherwin, I thought you'd buggered off...did you think I'd forgotten my earlier pledge? Troll elsewhere.

In the test you cite, the M5 actually was tested at 4.2, not 4.1, seconds 0-60--a tie with the CLS55 tested in the same article, then went on to hit a 12.5 @ 118 1/4 mile, beating the CLS55, which ran a 12.6 @ 114, by 0.1 seconds. But the CLS55 was a tad bit slower than the E55 Car & Driver had tested in this article, which ran 4.3 to 60 and then on to a 12.5 @ 116 mph 1/4 mile.

Unfortunately, the M did not fare so well in the other two US mags, even when European launch control was used. Of course, as is typical, you quote only the fastest test, conveniently failing to note that Road & Track tested both the M5 and M6 with EUROPEAN launch control in this article; here are the test results:

M5 M6
0-60: 4.1 4.1
0-100: 9.5 9.2
1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 115.8 mph 12.4 @ 118.1 mph

Again: both of these cars were tested in Europe, and had European launch control, which is stated clearly in the article. Their times are comparable to, but do not match, the times that R&T got in the three-year-old E55, which they tested in this article, with test results here:
0-60: 4.2
0-100: 9.4
1/4 mile: 12.4 @ 116.4 mph

And the other test you failed to cite, Motor Trend, tested the CLS55 faster to 60 and the 1/4 mile than the M5. So your ridiculous earlier predictions of an 11.9 @ 120 mph 1/4 mile for the M5 once it was tested stateside are shown to be wrong; the car is running about the same times it ran in Europe, the mid-to-high 12's. Very impressive, but one win, one tie, and two losses aren't what you were promising.

And, FYI, your claim that anyone could do this as many times as they want is BS; Car & Driver on their website, in this forum response to a reader's question, admitted that they had trouble getting this time:
So, it is hardly something that can "be done as many times as one wants", given that event test drivers had great difficulty doing it and could not do it consistently....but you already know this as it was widely discussed and disseminated on the BMW forums that you frequent.

In other words, you're here, yet again, spreading your typical lies and disinformation. Go away, or be outed again.

 

I posted the C&D test. Is that lying? I fail to see where I lied.

 

Not lying. Just either uninformed or disingenuous when you said:

"And seeing as this isn't with the full blown LC, it can be done as many times as you want."

That implies it can be done consistently. Have never heard anyone say that. Car & Driver said just the opposite.

And not sure why anyone really cares that much about magazine tests when we have real world 1/4 time slips for these cars now. It was fun to speculate for a year or so before the M5 showed up. Fun to speculate for any unreleased car, as many of us did/do for the C6Z06, the 997TT, etc. But once the cars are out and running, magazines (some of which post "corrected" times) are secondary to the real world.

 

Intresting would CLK63 be faster then E55 or E63, Stock that is. It will weight about 3600 pounds.

 

You lied in stating the following:

Which you bloody well knew was bull**** when you wrote it, because you participated in the thread on the M5 board where they discussed, and quoted, the Car & Driver message board response outlining the technique they used to hit that 4.2. Here is the thread. As can be seen, in the first post in the thread, the author quoted the section I quoted above, directly.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=64436

And who do we see in post # 4 in the same thread? Why, none other than (gasp) you:
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...47&postcount=4

So, there it is: the guy starts a thread, quotes Car & Driver's statement that this technique was very difficult and inconsistant, and pow, three posts down, there you are in the thick of it...only to come over here, with full knowledge of what Car & Driver's editor had to say, and lie about it, falsely claiming that one could do this as many times as one wants.

This, by any standard, is a lie.

And if you keep this **** up, you'll get the same "exposure" as before. Get lost, now.

 

Take it easy there...dosnt worth wasting your time.....


Can someone translate this...

Mercedes E63 AMG - M5 killer21 Maart '05 - 16:32 in Mercedes door wouter

Een oplettende Duitser spotte een bijzondere Mercedes E en sprak de bestuurder aan. De bestuurder bleek een testrijder voor AMG te zijn die een nieuw speeltje aan het testen was. De Mercedes-Benz E 63 AMG met V8 Bi-Turbo motor. Volgens de testrijder in ieder geval goed voor 550 PK, net iets meer dan de 507 pk van de BMW M5.

De acceleratie van 0 tot 100 zou 4,0 seconden in beslag nemen en in beste Duitse traditie is de topsnelheid waarschijnlijk begrensd op 250 km/u. Van de BMW M5 gaan geruchten dat deze zonder begrenzing 330 km/u zou halen en de E63 heeft bijna 50 pk meer....

 

Quick and dirty version:

An attentive German came across an unusual AMG E-Class and addressed the driver. The driver turned out to be from AMG, who was testing an E63 AMG with V8 Bi-Turbo engine. Power should be at least 550 PS (543 HP), quite a bit more than the 507PS (500 HP) of the BMW M5. The 0 to 100 km/h acceleration should be less than 4 seconds and in best German tradition the top speed has probably been limited to 250 km/h (155 mph). There are rumors that a derestricted BMW M5 can achieve 330 km/hour (205 mph) and with almost 50 PS (43 HP) more the E63 would . . .

If it's really a biturbo, the power claims sound awfully conservative. Likewise, I'm suspicious of the 205mph rumor on a stock deresticted M5.

 

Im sure the M5 can do over 300, but 330....?

 

I still don't see the signifance of my post on the M5 board. There I stated that as a consumer we should be presented with the option.

Anyway, the blip method is very easy & repeatable. I bet anyone can be consistent with it. You blip & keep blipping until you reach the desired revs, then on the next blip you stomp. You see I've tried it as opposed to reading about it.

So I still don't see what part of what I said is a lie? Please explain to me slowly.

 

TO: AMG
FROM: BoBCanada

Dear AMG devision scrap your N/a sisy engine and CAN YOU GIVE US THE REAL TWIN TURBO BEAST ALREADY!!! HOW LONG WE HAVE TO WAIT. LIke DOOOD COME OOOOON.


sincerely yours
BOB

Really i cant wait for the new twin turbo engine! Btw is it confirmed that it IS going into E class?

 

There was a previous thread with a person who actually took a photo of the new E63 and said he talked to the test driver. he said that it was a bi-turbo v8. Looks like AMG will be looking to reposition the E class in the range again, possibly more performance, whereas the CLS63 is more luxurious.

 

Find a post on M5Board from any US M5 owner who claims that he/she can consistently launch well with the blip method. I don't recall ever seeing one. Maybe none is as good at it as you seem to believe you are?

 

Car & Driver said it is inconsistant, and I'll take their word over a proven liar like you, Sherwin, any day.

Btw, for those of you who would like to see sherwin go away: click here, and then click here. The folks over at Audiworld, where he trolled (before this) as 343bhp, found a nice way of getting rid of him, and it worked.

Bye, Sherwin. You truly are one dumb son of a beeyutch.

 

Why bye, I'm still here. Can we stick to the topic though. Funny how you choose to believe certain mags when it suits you. Anyway, to each his own.

 

Agree, but Sherwin Singh has been on my ignore list forever.