W211 BEAST

I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I've heard this several times before. But how in the **** did a MY 2005 E55 inherit anything from a MY 2006 CLS? A little bit of time traveling? Is the Delorean back in use?

mchapparone

Haha thanks...like I said, I will always miss that M5 and what's not to love about that wagon!

eightyseven

LOL got me there.

I know the steering rack was changed for either '05 or '06 sorry to misinform if I am.

Improviz

They actually introduced the CLS very early in 2005 as a 2006 model...maybe this was a mid-year change?

W211 BEAST

Lol. And the MY 05 E55 was out in 2004. And from what I've heard all the MY 05 E55s have the upgraded steering rack/suspension. All I'm saying is... why did the E have to get it from the CLS? Why couldnt the CLS get it from the E? Lol. jk jk. I'm not trying to start a war, just some friendly debate.

eightyseven

Maybe I'm confused more than I thought.

2005 E55 = first year of no free scheduled maintenance
2006 E55 = new steering rack?

W211 BEAST

Im sorry I didnt understand what you meant.

Edit: The new steering rack started in MY 2005 not 2006.

eightyseven

There was a reason I went with a 2004 instead of a 2005 and that is because of the scheduled maintenance.

I thought I had that confused with what year the steering rack was upgraded.

But now that you have confirmed the new steering rack in 2005, the point I was trying to prove is moot.

kip

I looked up the porsche 996 turbo also from the same site which I have have personal experience with:
13/16/21

True real life results I have had when trying to drive economically:
M5 12.5-13.5 l/100km I got results easily under 10l/km dont remember the lowest anymore..
E55 15.5-16.5 l/100km, lowest I have ever seen: 9.8 l/100km
996 TT lowest around 8l/100km, the turbo makes the difference and the displacement

True life results are very different and I mean especially in economical driving. In the E55 I just dont get it to drop whatever I do. Most of the times I dont try anymore

Blownbenz

Not sure if you have bought a car yet but I have owned both cars and will try to help.

I had a 2001 M5 that i sold to a freind and he still has it. I bough it it new and sold it with 70k on it. the car was flawless from day 1. The maf sensors go at about 40k but not really a big deal. The clutch is not weak. It wears prematurely because all BMws have a clutch delay valve that you can easily remove. This valve allows for smother engagement and less wear on the drive train. But it cause a loss in perforance and clutch life. I got rid of it and the car never had clutch problems again. I did this same mod on my 2 M3s also. The Vanos will eventually make noise but does not affect performance at all and wont need changing until 100k and will cost 2k to repair. Oil burning issues were only M5s built in the first half of 2000. all the rest do not have this problem.

My point is as far as reliability the M5 is better than the E55.
But the E55 will kill the M5 in a strait line. The M5 still feels better in the corners though. If your not worried about reliabilty go for the E55. I love mine but its still under warranty. If repairs is a major concern go with the M5.

The E55 has alot of potential to cost you money. The SBC brakes are major issues. The airmatic is problamatic. the super charger clutch goes also. The command system also has problems. Thats just off the top of my head. Dont go with a 2006 M5 they make the E55 and E39 M5 look like a camry as far as reliability goes.

mchapparone

From what I understand the E39 M5 does not have the CDV (clutch delay valve) and the E46 M3's do...which is why all the M3 guys take their CDV's out.

Having owned all three cars (M5, M3, E55) I can say they are all very different and each have their own perks of ownership...but I truthfully think you need to spend some good seat time in each car before making your final decision.

Blownbenz

The 2001 M5 defiantely have the clutch delay valve. I removed it myself. And yes I agree they are so different its a tough choice.

Improviz

OK, you're gonna have to convert those into mpg for them to make any sense for me!

True, but in my experience I've typically been able to reliably beat the EPA estimates by about the same in all of the cars I've had (or gotten as loaners), roughly 10-12% or so as long as I don't drive like a looney. So it's definitely not spot-on accurate, but it does seem, at least in my case, to be relatively accurate from vehicle to vehicle, the one notable exception being my wife's ML320 CDI, which just absolutely assassinates the EPA numbers on both city and highway, particularly with her driving...not sure how she manages it, but she cooks my MPG in that thing. In our "urban loop" (judging by their figures, EPA means "city" = "downtown Chicago" or something, not the 'burbs), she routinely scores 24-26 mpg in that thing, while I'm normally more like 22-ish. But I digress....

Yeah, these SC beasts are *extremely* sensitive to driving technique....if I leave tranny in comfort mode and drive it with very light throttle, I can average around 19-20 on my commute (about 50 miles, with 5-6 our "urban" loop and the rest highway), but in sport mode or w/even mildly (and I mean mildly) agressive throttle inputs, it drops to 15-16, and with full throttle you can see the gas guage drop!!