E55 vs M5
06-21-2009, 10:54 PM
#26
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Orange County, California
Posts: 11,921
Received 796 Likes
on
495 Posts
2020 Audi R8 V10, 2016 AMG GTS, 2018 E63S Edition 1, 2018 Porsche GTS Cab, 2012 C63 BS
Do I sense some hostility in your voice....
, That's right Vic, it's for sale...what's wrong with that?... Just selling it like you sold yours a few months back. No Biggie. Actually has a buyer. Never direspected your stable, mad props to you for swingin your shake and bake sig. 
Let me know when you need an extra hand to drive one of them. 
, That's right Vic, it's for sale...what's wrong with that?... Just selling it like you sold yours a few months back. No Biggie. Actually has a buyer. Never direspected your stable, mad props to you for swingin your shake and bake sig. Let me know when you need an extra hand to drive one of them. FYI Shake is my nephew who made the sig. Im the last person who pushes buttons here, you should know this more than most. Where is Jangy when I need him, now that is a conspiracy theorist
I think these BMW vs. AMG arguements will gone on forever. I know one thing, when Im in my M6 and come to a light against an AMG, I know my odds are bad, very bad
06-21-2009, 11:01 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Its all good Jody how long have we known each other on the forums? The internet has not tone hence my smileys after each statement. The "for sale" statement was nothing more than that, a statement. Sorry if you perceived it as anything else.
FYI Shake is my nephew who made the sig. Im the last person who pushes buttons here, you should know this more than most. Where is Jangy when I need him, now that is a conspiracy theorist
I think these BMW vs. AMG arguements will gone on forever. I know one thing, when Im in my M6 and come to a light against an AMG, I know my odds are bad, very bad
FYI Shake is my nephew who made the sig. Im the last person who pushes buttons here, you should know this more than most. Where is Jangy when I need him, now that is a conspiracy theorist
I think these BMW vs. AMG arguements will gone on forever. I know one thing, when Im in my M6 and come to a light against an AMG, I know my odds are bad, very bad
I have known you and your AMGs since day 1. Actually you inspired me to buy both my cars...
The E and then the CL...that's how long I have known you!. LOL! I guess I am a little Butt hurt after you left the family...
I like the CL65, I love it matter of fact but it has to go, just cleaning up at this point.
07-30-2009, 02:08 AM
#29
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all,
Just curious about this one... Has anyone gone up against an m6 or m5 at REALLY high speeds? It seems to me once past 170+ MPH, the e55 will have the advantage. I have yet to see any m5 or m6 break the 40 second barrier in the 0-300 kph or 186 mph. Supposedly an early sl55 did it in 32.5 seconds. I believe that time to be off a bit, but it is known that a sl65 can go 0-300 kph in 31.9s; or 28.5s with an ECU.
It seems to me that all of the data I've been reading points to the e55 being faster 170-200 mph. Of course the E55 stops at 200 mph while the m6 will keep climbing slowly... Keep in mind the coefficient of drag that comes into play in a big way at these speeds... The E55/63 with a Cd of .27 is substantially lower than that of the .31 from the M6.
Here is some reference data: http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=77116. It is interesting to note the m6 here did 0-300kph in 41.5 seconds and even had 30 or so more hp than stock!
Just curious about this one... Has anyone gone up against an m6 or m5 at REALLY high speeds? It seems to me once past 170+ MPH, the e55 will have the advantage. I have yet to see any m5 or m6 break the 40 second barrier in the 0-300 kph or 186 mph. Supposedly an early sl55 did it in 32.5 seconds. I believe that time to be off a bit, but it is known that a sl65 can go 0-300 kph in 31.9s; or 28.5s with an ECU.
It seems to me that all of the data I've been reading points to the e55 being faster 170-200 mph. Of course the E55 stops at 200 mph while the m6 will keep climbing slowly... Keep in mind the coefficient of drag that comes into play in a big way at these speeds... The E55/63 with a Cd of .27 is substantially lower than that of the .31 from the M6.
Here is some reference data: http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=77116. It is interesting to note the m6 here did 0-300kph in 41.5 seconds and even had 30 or so more hp than stock!
Last edited by Big4x4; 07-30-2009 at 02:12 AM.
07-30-2009, 05:13 AM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Its a big ask to get an E55 to 200mph with its 2.65 gearing... I dont think you will get there - the gears are too tall. An SL with 2.82 might get close, but I think 100mph+ the M's are quicker ...
Stock for stock forget it. Heaviliy modded 55 and properly cooled might keep up, but without better gearing, forget it.
Stock for stock forget it. Heaviliy modded 55 and properly cooled might keep up, but without better gearing, forget it.
07-30-2009, 12:04 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Hello all,
Just curious about this one... Has anyone gone up against an m6 or m5 at REALLY high speeds? It seems to me once past 170+ MPH, the e55 will have the advantage. I have yet to see any m5 or m6 break the 40 second barrier in the 0-300 kph or 186 mph. Supposedly an early sl55 did it in 32.5 seconds. I believe that time to be off a bit, but it is known that a sl65 can go 0-300 kph in 31.9s; or 28.5s with an ECU.
It seems to me that all of the data I've been reading points to the e55 being faster 170-200 mph. Of course the E55 stops at 200 mph while the m6 will keep climbing slowly... Keep in mind the coefficient of drag that comes into play in a big way at these speeds... The E55/63 with a Cd of .27 is substantially lower than that of the .31 from the M6.
Here is some reference data: http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=77116. It is interesting to note the m6 here did 0-300kph in 41.5 seconds and even had 30 or so more hp than stock!
Just curious about this one... Has anyone gone up against an m6 or m5 at REALLY high speeds? It seems to me once past 170+ MPH, the e55 will have the advantage. I have yet to see any m5 or m6 break the 40 second barrier in the 0-300 kph or 186 mph. Supposedly an early sl55 did it in 32.5 seconds. I believe that time to be off a bit, but it is known that a sl65 can go 0-300 kph in 31.9s; or 28.5s with an ECU.
It seems to me that all of the data I've been reading points to the e55 being faster 170-200 mph. Of course the E55 stops at 200 mph while the m6 will keep climbing slowly... Keep in mind the coefficient of drag that comes into play in a big way at these speeds... The E55/63 with a Cd of .27 is substantially lower than that of the .31 from the M6.
Here is some reference data: http://www.carforums.net/showthread.php?t=77116. It is interesting to note the m6 here did 0-300kph in 41.5 seconds and even had 30 or so more hp than stock!
Steve Bez knows where it's at. E55 below 100, M5 above 100 and the 205mph delimited top speed's only being done by the propellor...BUT that's when we bring out the 6L V12 twin turbos....
I want to know if Vic;s getting the BS next....with the economy in the ****** i'll be living vicariously for a while.
-Rob
07-30-2009, 12:43 PM
#32
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 E55 AMG
07-30-2009, 05:55 PM
#33
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How am I wrong? Do manufacturers not post truthful drag coefficients? The lowest ever posted for the M6 stock is .31 (most are .32). E55 and E63 are always .27.
Basically I want to see if there is any proof an M5 or M6 that can break 41 seconds in the 0-186 mph (0-300kh) test. There is a video on youtube of an E55 doing it in 38.xx seconds...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xgc2XJ0hE
Basically I want to see if there is any proof an M5 or M6 that can break 41 seconds in the 0-186 mph (0-300kh) test. There is a video on youtube of an E55 doing it in 38.xx seconds...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xgc2XJ0hE
07-30-2009, 06:21 PM
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
How am I wrong? Do manufacturers not post truthful drag coefficients? The lowest ever posted for the M6 stock is .31 (most are .32). E55 and E63 are always .27.
Basically I want to see if there is any proof an M5 or M6 that can break 41 seconds in the 0-186 mph (0-300kh) test. There is a video on youtube of an E55 doing it in 38.xx seconds...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xgc2XJ0hE
Basically I want to see if there is any proof an M5 or M6 that can break 41 seconds in the 0-186 mph (0-300kh) test. There is a video on youtube of an E55 doing it in 38.xx seconds...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xgc2XJ0hE
The CD figures are truthful but miss out on one very large factor which directly relates to the way a vehicle "slips" through the air...
07-30-2009, 10:05 PM
#35
I was bored. On the top end, M6 > E55 > M5 but then you never know what the weather conditions were, road conditions, or if any of the cars had mods. Like I said I was bored.
M6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6l4f2SXq_Y&feature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:35
310 @ 0:41
320 @ 0:47
= 19 sec. 280-320
E55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQXtO...eature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:37
310 @ 0:43
320 @ 0:52
= 24 sec. 280-320
M5 E60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCb8r...eature=related
280 @ 0:15
300 @ 0:26
310 @ 0:34
320 @ 0:44
= 29 sec. 280-320
M6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6l4f2SXq_Y&feature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:35
310 @ 0:41
320 @ 0:47
= 19 sec. 280-320
E55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQXtO...eature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:37
310 @ 0:43
320 @ 0:52
= 24 sec. 280-320
M5 E60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCb8r...eature=related
280 @ 0:15
300 @ 0:26
310 @ 0:34
320 @ 0:44
= 29 sec. 280-320
07-30-2009, 11:01 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
///M5 Beast
The EURO LC helps the M5/M6 get out of the hole alot quicker than the retarted US LC, which sucks and most of the time the owners arent doing them right and just burns rubber. The EURO LC actually works!! and you actually launch hard without barely any wheelspin.
But the lack of TQ does suck and its hard to make up for it, even coming from my 335i, im getting about 350-380RWTQ at about 3k rpm!!. My next car will most likely be a E60 M5, first thing i will prob do is a flash for EURO LC.
But the lack of TQ does suck and its hard to make up for it, even coming from my 335i, im getting about 350-380RWTQ at about 3k rpm!!. My next car will most likely be a E60 M5, first thing i will prob do is a flash for EURO LC.
07-30-2009, 11:24 PM
#37
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transferred,
If you are trying to refer to Frontal Area, it won't even get close to overcoming the .27 Cd of the E55.
The overall CdA (Aerodynamic Coefficient) of the M5 is:
.31 Cd * 2.31 m^2 (best estimate) = .7392
For the M6, we get:
.32 Cd * 2.18 m^2 (best estimate) = .6976
For the E55, we get:
.27 Cd * 2.26 m^2 (best estimate) = .6102
For the SL55, we get:
.30 Cd * 2.01 m^2 (best estimate) = .6030
The BMW's are way off the mark in terms of aerodynamic efficiency.
By the way, nice find cahiil55k!
If you are trying to refer to Frontal Area, it won't even get close to overcoming the .27 Cd of the E55.
The overall CdA (Aerodynamic Coefficient) of the M5 is:
.31 Cd * 2.31 m^2 (best estimate) = .7392
For the M6, we get:
.32 Cd * 2.18 m^2 (best estimate) = .6976
For the E55, we get:
.27 Cd * 2.26 m^2 (best estimate) = .6102
For the SL55, we get:
.30 Cd * 2.01 m^2 (best estimate) = .6030
The BMW's are way off the mark in terms of aerodynamic efficiency.
By the way, nice find cahiil55k!
07-31-2009, 10:35 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Disagree strongly. That was a great rumor when the two came out but the timeslips tell a different story. Top end, yes. But, up to 120 it isn't even close. OP is talking about street racing. I've played with my cousin MANY times and I kill him light to light and even on rolling starts going about 60. He gets me from 120 -130 and up. As someone said, once we hit 4th, lag. That is also why i believe the guys that mess with gearing and end up needing 4th to get through the 1/4 end up with worse ets.
The "great" M5 isn't even a good dig against the E63. V10 to V8 both non-aspirated. I dunno of any BMW that was made to dig. They are all high revving with crappy low end.
The "great" M5 isn't even a good dig against the E63. V10 to V8 both non-aspirated. I dunno of any BMW that was made to dig. They are all high revving with crappy low end.
07-31-2009, 10:52 AM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
I was bored. On the top end, M6 > E55 > M5 but then you never know what the weather conditions were, road conditions, or if any of the cars had mods. Like I said I was bored.
M6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6l4f2SXq_Y&feature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:35
310 @ 0:41
320 @ 0:47
= 19 sec. 280-320
E55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQXtO...eature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:37
310 @ 0:43
320 @ 0:52
= 24 sec. 280-320
M5 E60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCb8r...eature=related
280 @ 0:15
300 @ 0:26
310 @ 0:34
320 @ 0:44
= 29 sec. 280-320
M6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6l4f2SXq_Y&feature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:35
310 @ 0:41
320 @ 0:47
= 19 sec. 280-320
E55
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQXtO...eature=related
280 @ 0:28
300 @ 0:37
310 @ 0:43
320 @ 0:52
= 24 sec. 280-320
M5 E60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCb8r...eature=related
280 @ 0:15
300 @ 0:26
310 @ 0:34
320 @ 0:44
= 29 sec. 280-320
07-31-2009, 06:10 PM
#42
Super Member
Transferred,
If you are trying to refer to Frontal Area, it won't even get close to overcoming the .27 Cd of the E55.
The overall CdA (Aerodynamic Coefficient) of the M5 is:
.31 Cd * 2.31 m^2 (best estimate) = .7392
For the M6, we get:
.32 Cd * 2.18 m^2 (best estimate) = .6976
For the E55, we get:
.27 Cd * 2.26 m^2 (best estimate) = .6102
For the SL55, we get:
.30 Cd * 2.01 m^2 (best estimate) = .6030
The BMW's are way off the mark in terms of aerodynamic efficiency.
By the way, nice find cahiil55k!
If you are trying to refer to Frontal Area, it won't even get close to overcoming the .27 Cd of the E55.
The overall CdA (Aerodynamic Coefficient) of the M5 is:
.31 Cd * 2.31 m^2 (best estimate) = .7392
For the M6, we get:
.32 Cd * 2.18 m^2 (best estimate) = .6976
For the E55, we get:
.27 Cd * 2.26 m^2 (best estimate) = .6102
For the SL55, we get:
.30 Cd * 2.01 m^2 (best estimate) = .6030
The BMW's are way off the mark in terms of aerodynamic efficiency.
By the way, nice find cahiil55k!
07-31-2009, 09:07 PM
#43
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 M6 2007 S550
I know its an M6 but watch and weep......(M6 is stock vs E55 AMG KLEEMAN 640 HP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
Last edited by MR SOZE; 07-31-2009 at 09:43 PM. Reason: info
08-01-2009, 10:24 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hoboken,NJ
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 Eurocharged C63 AMG
I know its an M6 but watch and weep......(M6 is stock vs E55 AMG KLEEMAN 640 HP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
How is this even possible??? Is that E55 really making 640hp and that M6 is stock? I just can't believe it.
08-01-2009, 03:25 PM
#47
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LS430
It's M5/M6 Board vids, a site that some said stages the race and makes the M cars look amazing. I'm not buying that a K4 E55 lost to a stock M6 especially how he got pulled on.
08-01-2009, 11:05 PM
#48
Actually in daily driving the E55 does not need any upgrades to beat an M5. As said many times in the past M5s shine at much higher speeds. And regarding that M6 vs E55K4 youtube video, it is in no way a 640hp E55K4 or it has a terrible power curve. I've pulled 2+ car lengths on M6s in lower speed runs under 120mph and was still gaining ground when we let off. I'm only making 575bhp/631tq with my mods. I can't even imagine how bad a stock M6 would be beaten by a true 640hp E55.
08-02-2009, 01:43 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I know its an M6 but watch and weep......(M6 is stock vs E55 AMG KLEEMAN 640 HP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17bTXt7paA
This is video is so funny !!! anything with the M5board is FAKED !!!
I smell M5board people here ....... those video are pure
It might be just a regular E500 against a M6
