New M5 beats E55 by 10-15 CL to a 155 mph?Autocar first test-drive of the M5...
09-14-2004, 08:05 PM
#51
Super Member
Originally Posted by Bilal
krispykrme, if you can't even select optimum gear to accelerate then how many downshifts do you think it will take to get into M5's powerband, @around 6-8000rpms. The car has been very aggressively geared, not exactly like a 360M, maybe slightly longer times between shifts, but shifting 7 gears manually is a hell of a task, on track or off. The E55 has only 5 right now, but in future, the E63 will be equipped with 7G Tronic, that can skip gears on kickdown and perform a 2 gear downshift in 0.2 seconds.
In my book, these cars will be very close. In the real world where you'll be driving in 7th gear at 60mph, you will need to shift 4 gears!!! to get into the action, and the E55 will be long gone by then, but still, all I'm saying is the M5 is faster right now, I seriously hope to be pleasantly surprised.
In my book, these cars will be very close. In the real world where you'll be driving in 7th gear at 60mph, you will need to shift 4 gears!!! to get into the action, and the E55 will be long gone by then, but still, all I'm saying is the M5 is faster right now, I seriously hope to be pleasantly surprised.
If you take a look closely at M5' gear ratio, you will probably find that the 7th gear is actually very very tall. Most likely at 60 mph cruise, I will probably in 5th or 6th.
Also, you are not really shifting 7 gears per se (may be on up shift, but not down shift). If SMGIII like it has been said before can hold two gears instead of one (i.e. similar to DSG). In reality down shift by one gear would be much quicker as the gear would already be engaged. The problem arises is when you need to down shift two gears and I do not know how smart the new SMG is in rev matching when down shifting two gears. I had problem with SMG not willing to engaging when down shift more than one gear. So yes, this could be slower than the automatic on AMG.
09-14-2004, 09:48 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by M&M
Here's some numbers:
E55
0-100 km/h in 4.92
1/4 mile in 12.89 @ 173 km/h
1km in 23.8 @ 233 km/h
M5
0-100 in 4.58
1/4 mile in 12.61 @ 185 km/h
1km in 22.7 @ 246 km/h
M5 is mph faster over 1km, which is just over 1/2 mile.
Now for the surprise & the wonder of gearing & lower mass. Remember M5 has peak torque of 520NM @ 6100rpm. But it has plenty torque low down. Here's the rolling runs starting at 80.
At 80 in 3rd gear M5 is at 4100 rpm, in 4th its at 3100rpm & in 5th its at 2600rpm.
80-120 km/h
3rd gear M5 2.77 E55 3.83
4th gear M5 4.17 E55 5.78
5th gear M5 4.82 E55 7.35
Notice even though in 5th M5 is at 2600rpm it still is almost 3 seconds faster that 700NM E55. Why? Well M5 is at 2600rpm but E55 is at 1500rpm. Long gearing to match the E55's torque playeau vs short gearing to match M5's high rpm horsepower. Also M5 is 200kg lighter. Not wise to give up 200kg to a car that's pushing more horespower & is using gearing to get more torque to the wheels at any speed in any gear.
120-160 km/h
3rd gear M5 3.05 E55 4.40
4th gear M5 4.24 E55 6.21
5th gear M5 4.91 E55 7.50
I reckon MErc should consider some weight saving techniques. Short gearing always gets more torque to the wheels due to a gear ratio being a torque mutiplier & the fact that you are always higher up the rev-range compared to a longer-geared car.
E55
0-100 km/h in 4.92
1/4 mile in 12.89 @ 173 km/h
1km in 23.8 @ 233 km/h
M5
0-100 in 4.58
1/4 mile in 12.61 @ 185 km/h
1km in 22.7 @ 246 km/h
M5 is mph faster over 1km, which is just over 1/2 mile.
Now for the surprise & the wonder of gearing & lower mass. Remember M5 has peak torque of 520NM @ 6100rpm. But it has plenty torque low down. Here's the rolling runs starting at 80.
At 80 in 3rd gear M5 is at 4100 rpm, in 4th its at 3100rpm & in 5th its at 2600rpm.
80-120 km/h
3rd gear M5 2.77 E55 3.83
4th gear M5 4.17 E55 5.78
5th gear M5 4.82 E55 7.35
Notice even though in 5th M5 is at 2600rpm it still is almost 3 seconds faster that 700NM E55. Why? Well M5 is at 2600rpm but E55 is at 1500rpm. Long gearing to match the E55's torque playeau vs short gearing to match M5's high rpm horsepower. Also M5 is 200kg lighter. Not wise to give up 200kg to a car that's pushing more horespower & is using gearing to get more torque to the wheels at any speed in any gear.
120-160 km/h
3rd gear M5 3.05 E55 4.40
4th gear M5 4.24 E55 6.21
5th gear M5 4.91 E55 7.50
I reckon MErc should consider some weight saving techniques. Short gearing always gets more torque to the wheels due to a gear ratio being a torque mutiplier & the fact that you are always higher up the rev-range compared to a longer-geared car.
09-14-2004, 10:29 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, FL
Posts: 1,337
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
7 Posts
Porcelain Bus
This thread blows. 
. I bet Kain wishes he started it. I'd still prefer the 2006 Z06 at 3000 lbs and 500 hp.
By the time the M5 is released, I would be driving my E55 for 2 years. Glad I didn't wait for the M5.
. I bet Kain wishes he started it. I'd still prefer the 2006 Z06 at 3000 lbs and 500 hp. By the time the M5 is released, I would be driving my E55 for 2 years. Glad I didn't wait for the M5.
09-15-2004, 12:55 AM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr Chill
By the time the M5 is released, I would be driving my E55 for 2 years. Glad I didn't wait for the M5.
For those waiting--- do enjoy all the BS flying around about it.
09-15-2004, 02:03 AM
#57
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It truly is a pitiful sight to behold the hysterical backpedaling taking place. The fear practically emanantes from the computer screen. The 10-15 car lengths bussiness is a bit outlandish I agree, but throwing these little cheap shot barbs around after hearing news you don't like is childish and incredibly immature.
09-15-2004, 02:54 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 E55
i bought my car for it's all around luxury of it... if it had different gears it could be more racing mode and more fun but i like it as it stands added i put the mods i want to soon.. but besides that, i think the gear ratios of my e55 is pretty smooth and it works good for me so far... i think i prefer the luxury of the non so high revs of my 4 door .. otherwise if i really wanted to get a high reving car i'd go get a sports car with 2 doors perhaps even an viper. but as it stands, we'll have to wait and drive one (m5) urself to purely know what u really enjoy, some may enjoy high revs and rev their cars like ricers and some might like less high revs with more torque... i think of it as almost like fighters.. little asian guys are high revers, doing a million kicks and punches to add up to that high torque muscle freak with one hugh punch and both almost equal out in power.. but for now i think i'll just sit back in my e55 and enjoy it..
09-15-2004, 03:06 AM
#59
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of 10-15 carlenghts...
Going off on the numbers M&M posted, on the 75 to 100mph run, the M5 does it in 3.05 seconds, and the E55 in 4.40 seconds. 75 mph is 33.5m/s, and 100 mph is 44.7m/s, a difference of 11.2 m/s. This gives the M5 an acceleration of 3.7 m/s^2, and the E55 2.5 m/s^2.
distance (x) = x(0) + v(0)*t + 1/2*a*t^2, from distance being the integral of velocity, which is the integral of acceleration. so v = a*t, and x = 1/2*a*t^2.
Now, where will the E55 be when the M5 reaches 100mph? We know that the M5 reaches 100mph after 3.05 seconds,
so x(0) = 0, v(0) [starting velocity] = 33.5m/s, t = 3.05 seconds, a = 3.7m/s^2.
this gives 33.5(3.05) + 1/2*3.7*3.05^2 = 119.4 meters.
The E55 would be at 33.5(3.05) + 1/2*2.5*3.05^2 = 113.8 meters.
a difference of 5.5 meters. If we assume that a car is roughly 5 meters, this equates to about one carlength.
IF, and this is a BIG IF, we assume that both cars hold the same acceleration to 155mph [69.3m/s] or if they're affected by a constant, then we can use the same calcuation to see how far the M5 would be ahead at that speed.
So: M5:
69.3m/s - 33.5m/s = 35.8m/s / 3.7m/s^2 = 9.7s
At 155mph, it would have travelled: 33.5(9.7) + 1/2*3.7*9.7^2 = 499.0 meters
Likewise, the E55 would have travelled: 33.5(9.7) + 1/2*2.5*9.7^2 = 442.5 meters.
a difference of 56.5 meters, or about 11.3 carlengths.
Note: don't take this calculation as fact, as I projected some numbers for it. I do not know how M&M derived the numbers in his post, so I wouldn't know how to calculate a 75 - 155 run.
Going off on the numbers M&M posted, on the 75 to 100mph run, the M5 does it in 3.05 seconds, and the E55 in 4.40 seconds. 75 mph is 33.5m/s, and 100 mph is 44.7m/s, a difference of 11.2 m/s. This gives the M5 an acceleration of 3.7 m/s^2, and the E55 2.5 m/s^2.
distance (x) = x(0) + v(0)*t + 1/2*a*t^2, from distance being the integral of velocity, which is the integral of acceleration. so v = a*t, and x = 1/2*a*t^2.
Now, where will the E55 be when the M5 reaches 100mph? We know that the M5 reaches 100mph after 3.05 seconds,
so x(0) = 0, v(0) [starting velocity] = 33.5m/s, t = 3.05 seconds, a = 3.7m/s^2.
this gives 33.5(3.05) + 1/2*3.7*3.05^2 = 119.4 meters.
The E55 would be at 33.5(3.05) + 1/2*2.5*3.05^2 = 113.8 meters.
a difference of 5.5 meters. If we assume that a car is roughly 5 meters, this equates to about one carlength.
IF, and this is a BIG IF, we assume that both cars hold the same acceleration to 155mph [69.3m/s] or if they're affected by a constant, then we can use the same calcuation to see how far the M5 would be ahead at that speed.
So: M5:
69.3m/s - 33.5m/s = 35.8m/s / 3.7m/s^2 = 9.7s
At 155mph, it would have travelled: 33.5(9.7) + 1/2*3.7*9.7^2 = 499.0 meters
Likewise, the E55 would have travelled: 33.5(9.7) + 1/2*2.5*9.7^2 = 442.5 meters.
a difference of 56.5 meters, or about 11.3 carlengths.
Note: don't take this calculation as fact, as I projected some numbers for it. I do not know how M&M derived the numbers in his post, so I wouldn't know how to calculate a 75 - 155 run.
09-15-2004, 04:06 AM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
Lets just wait and see... 
Next week Autocar will show some comparisions...I doubt that BMW is that stupid to make M5 slower then E55 in a straight line...M5 should be faster then E55...
Me personally dont trust magazines...
...
Real life can prove different...I hope Topgear make a 1km race M5 vs E55....
Next week Autocar will show some comparisions...I doubt that BMW is that stupid to make M5 slower then E55 in a straight line...M5 should be faster then E55...
Me personally dont trust magazines...
...Real life can prove different...I hope Topgear make a 1km race M5 vs E55....
09-15-2004, 04:45 AM
#61
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
I seriously don't know where the thread headed after I packed up and went to bed last night.
Those numbers posted from autocar magazine are blistering, they practically eliminate the E55 from any speed to any speed.
As for belmondo I seriously don't know whats up with him. He is right in saying we should wait for some facts, but when presented with them, he starts citicizing autocars' credibility. Ok, so the 10-15 CL quote was pretty lame, but when they presented next weeks numbers, he went completely off the hook. I'm not going to comment anymore on his posts, the ignore function is what I'm gonna use.
M&M thanks for the numbers and calc, as you say, a frightening thought is the new E63, with its puny 500bhp and 600NM and long 7 gears, it may not match the M5's potential, AMG should be seriously worried.
All in all, we E55 members should bow down to the M5's superior performance, hats off from us guys.
Those numbers posted from autocar magazine are blistering, they practically eliminate the E55 from any speed to any speed.
As for belmondo I seriously don't know whats up with him. He is right in saying we should wait for some facts, but when presented with them, he starts citicizing autocars' credibility. Ok, so the 10-15 CL quote was pretty lame, but when they presented next weeks numbers, he went completely off the hook. I'm not going to comment anymore on his posts, the ignore function is what I'm gonna use.
M&M thanks for the numbers and calc, as you say, a frightening thought is the new E63, with its puny 500bhp and 600NM and long 7 gears, it may not match the M5's potential, AMG should be seriously worried.
All in all, we E55 members should bow down to the M5's superior performance, hats off from us guys.
09-15-2004, 07:07 AM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by M5 RUS
All E55 owners get a Chips and pullies and headers...
to
M5....
and headers...to
M5.... ( i still would like to know where the in gear times were from, a previous post said from the next weeks autocar article comparison 
)then it will still only be on par. I think its funny that people said the m5 was not meant for straightline speed but now the news is out that it MAY be quicker than the e55 and by a decent margin everybody has forgotten that it still isn't its forte and has been jumoing on the wagon
. If it turned out that it was slower than the e55, then the "but it handles better" comments would have come out. :p
09-15-2004, 07:44 AM
#65
Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bologna, Italy
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW Z4 M Roadster
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62407c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62437c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62437c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432d.jpg
09-15-2004, 08:20 AM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MB - World
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gabri343
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62407c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62437c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62410d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62414d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62419d.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62437c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432c.jpg
http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/62432d.jpg
09-15-2004, 09:14 AM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2004 E55
This thread is bordering on rediculous!!!
An E55 is the fastest 4 door in the WORLD and will stay that way until we see an M5 post a 12.39@117 in the 1/4 mi. STOCK!!
Until then, all you Bimmer fans keep imagining how great your car will be.
BTW-Any takers on the 1st year of production of the M5 to be more reliable than the '03 E55(1st yr.) -- I Don't think so-o-o-o!! 
An E55 is the fastest 4 door in the WORLD and will stay that way until we see an M5 post a 12.39@117 in the 1/4 mi. STOCK!!
Until then, all you Bimmer fans keep imagining how great your car will be.
BTW-Any takers on the 1st year of production of the M5 to be more reliable than the '03 E55(1st yr.) -- I Don't think so-o-o-o!!
09-15-2004, 09:32 AM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: .
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Originally Posted by Kens-E55
This thread is bordering on rediculous!!!
An E55 is the fastest 4 door in the WORLD and will stay that way until we see an M5 post a 12.39@117 in the 1/4 mi. STOCK!!
Until then, all you Bimmer fans keep imagining how great your car will be.
BTW-Any takers on the 1st year of production of the M5 to be more reliable than the '03 E55(1st yr.) -- I Don't think so-o-o-o!!
An E55 is the fastest 4 door in the WORLD and will stay that way until we see an M5 post a 12.39@117 in the 1/4 mi. STOCK!!
Until then, all you Bimmer fans keep imagining how great your car will be.
BTW-Any takers on the 1st year of production of the M5 to be more reliable than the '03 E55(1st yr.) -- I Don't think so-o-o-o!!
A head to head test will be out next week. I know how much you guys love speculation but here's an unconfirmed peview i've seen:
0-62 & 1/4
M5: 4.58 12.61
E55: 4.92 12.89
If you think a 12.89 is slow for the e55 the conditions may not have been good in which case the same can be said for the m5's time.
You can't blindingly pull the best number ever recorded an use it for a fair comparison, the M5 has to have the same track, ambient conditions etc to be comparible.
09-15-2004, 09:41 AM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bilal
I seriously don't know where the thread headed after I packed up and went to bed last night.
Those numbers posted from autocar magazine are blistering, they practically eliminate the E55 from any speed to any speed.
As for belmondo I seriously don't know whats up with him. He is right in saying we should wait for some facts, but when presented with them, he starts citicizing autocars' credibility. Ok, so the 10-15 CL quote was pretty lame, but when they presented next weeks numbers, he went completely off the hook. I'm not going to comment anymore on his posts, the ignore function is what I'm gonna use.
M&M thanks for the numbers and calc, as you say, a frightening thought is the new E63, with its puny 500bhp and 600NM and long 7 gears, it may not match the M5's potential, AMG should be seriously worried.
All in all, we E55 members should bow down to the M5's superior performance, hats off from us guys.
Those numbers posted from autocar magazine are blistering, they practically eliminate the E55 from any speed to any speed.
As for belmondo I seriously don't know whats up with him. He is right in saying we should wait for some facts, but when presented with them, he starts citicizing autocars' credibility. Ok, so the 10-15 CL quote was pretty lame, but when they presented next weeks numbers, he went completely off the hook. I'm not going to comment anymore on his posts, the ignore function is what I'm gonna use.
M&M thanks for the numbers and calc, as you say, a frightening thought is the new E63, with its puny 500bhp and 600NM and long 7 gears, it may not match the M5's potential, AMG should be seriously worried.
All in all, we E55 members should bow down to the M5's superior performance, hats off from us guys.
How do you know those random numbers are from magazine in hte first place? Can the person who posted them give link, where did he pull htem from? POsting numbers without any explanations and than 2-3 posts later stating that they are from autocar ? You are in UK? Please confirm than, instead of arguing for something you dont have info. As to your beloved Autocar MAgazine------I dont know much about them BUT THEY DISCREDIT THEMSELFS WHEN THEIR WRITER WRITES THAT HE BEING IN M5 LETS THE DUDE in E55 stop spinning, get the GRIP AND THEN BLOWS HIM BY 10-15 CL. than in the "next weeks preview" posts numbers from same magazine that M5 is marginally faster than E55 and adds some speeds in every gear probly calculated by him since he thinks that somehow being an engineer he is hte one who knows the truth.
C'mon buddy, I've seen Kain make more sence in his posts in this forum than this.
First Poster, BobCanada clearly posted pics from the magazine, noone is asking him where did he get his info, dont you think?
Last edited by Belmondo; 09-15-2004 at 09:46 AM.
09-15-2004, 10:16 AM
#71
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbo
Originally Posted by reggid
if the numbers posted earlier are correct ( i still would like to know where the in gear times were from, a previous post said from the next weeks autocar article comparison )then it will still only be on par.
I think its funny that people said the m5 was not meant for straightline speed but now the news is out that it MAY be quicker than the e55 and by a decent margin everybody has forgotten that it still isn't its forte and has been jumoing on the wagon . If it turned out that it was slower than the e55, then the "but it handles better" comments would have come out. :p
( i still would like to know where the in gear times were from, a previous post said from the next weeks autocar article comparison )then it will still only be on par. I think its funny that people said the m5 was not meant for straightline speed but now the news is out that it MAY be quicker than the e55 and by a decent margin everybody has forgotten that it still isn't its forte and has been jumoing on the wagon
. If it turned out that it was slower than the e55, then the "but it handles better" comments would have come out. :pAnd all the comments about M drivers being ricers because of the high revs??
Come on! So you AMG drivers only rev to 3000rpm then when you get your 4.* time to 60....
I think that everyone who likes fast cars likes to rev to the red line.
09-15-2004, 10:44 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zlaatan
just that the E55 fans ALWAYS comment on the straight line numbers when comparing the 2 cars.
Would that be reasonable to assume that people in forums usually drive 99% of hteir time to work and back home? I bet majority of htese guys with E55's or M5's drive 5 days a week to work and not on Hockenheim Track. What would they talk about, hteir personal experience every day or some numbers form a far away track that they have 0- chance duplicating ? If you go to the track same 5 days a week and have an opportunity to outhandle every Benz there and DO so. Please talk about it , I dont see why anybody would object to that.
09-15-2004, 12:39 PM
#73
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belmondo,
you have no class - your replies to bilal just go to show how immature, hot-headed and pathetic you are in accepting E60 M5 is quicker than E55. I have both E55 and M5 (E39) and am awaiting the new E60 M5.
I also am waiting to be pleasantly surprised by BMW Engineering. You should appreciate what car manufactures provide as an alternative to what you have. Competition is what drives manufactures to provide the best and allows people like you to choose and drive the best money can buy.
If it were not for the E39 M5 you and I would not be driving the E55 at its current performance bandwidth.
Get a life, enjoy your E55.
you have no class - your replies to bilal just go to show how immature, hot-headed and pathetic you are in accepting E60 M5 is quicker than E55. I have both E55 and M5 (E39) and am awaiting the new E60 M5.
I also am waiting to be pleasantly surprised by BMW Engineering. You should appreciate what car manufactures provide as an alternative to what you have. Competition is what drives manufactures to provide the best and allows people like you to choose and drive the best money can buy.
If it were not for the E39 M5 you and I would not be driving the E55 at its current performance bandwidth.
Get a life, enjoy your E55.
09-15-2004, 04:34 PM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by M5_MASTER
Belmondo,
you have no class - your replies to bilal just go to show how immature, hot-headed and pathetic you are in accepting E60 M5 is quicker than E55. I have both E55 and M5 (E39) and am awaiting the new E60 M5.
I also am waiting to be pleasantly surprised by BMW Engineering. You should appreciate what car manufactures provide as an alternative to what you have. Competition is what drives manufactures to provide the best and allows people like you to choose and drive the best money can buy.
If it were not for the E39 M5 you and I would not be driving the E55 at its current performance bandwidth.
Get a life, enjoy your E55.
you have no class - your replies to bilal just go to show how immature, hot-headed and pathetic you are in accepting E60 M5 is quicker than E55. I have both E55 and M5 (E39) and am awaiting the new E60 M5.
I also am waiting to be pleasantly surprised by BMW Engineering. You should appreciate what car manufactures provide as an alternative to what you have. Competition is what drives manufactures to provide the best and allows people like you to choose and drive the best money can buy.
If it were not for the E39 M5 you and I would not be driving the E55 at its current performance bandwidth.
Get a life, enjoy your E55.
MASTER( of BS I guess) there is no fkn way I will go into BMW forum and register just to post a reply to someone who disagrees with unpublished/made up numbers. None of my 100 posts remotely suggests that I own/drive E55 but it does not mean that I absolutly have to "accept" unpablished BS. What an "immature, hot-headed and pathetic" and just plain wrong assamption.
Surely MASTER you will ACCEPT right now the numbers from 2003 June Road and Track test from more than 1 year ago that showed E55 at 0-60 @4.2 and 1/4 mile 12.4@116.4mph=186.24km/h ,wount you? Futhermore in your post #2 you will accept there fore that E55 is faster than M5 with UNPUBLISHED numbers that will come out when they come out. And surely you will not be "immature, hot-headed and pathetic " in accepting it right now. Thank you Master. If we cant accept R&T numbers why should anybody accept UNPABLISHED numbers from autocar?
Its not about the cars at this poin -----its about the BS that is accociated with them.
Here is link to the post buy the guy with the June 2003 R&T magazine that published those numbers, e-mail him may be he can fedex that copy to you.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...e55+1%2F4+time
After your acceptance speach in post number two please find it within yourself to let this BS thread die.
Last edited by Belmondo; 09-15-2004 at 04:37 PM.
09-15-2004, 04:45 PM
#75
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
Here's a question.
If two cars weigh the same,
have the same hp but at different rpm's
have the same quick ratio 7 speed gearing
one car has more torque than the other by about 100NM
one car only revs to 6500rpm, the other at 8250rpm,
which one will be faster?
Please no math, just plain facts and truth....
If two cars weigh the same,
have the same hp but at different rpm's
have the same quick ratio 7 speed gearing
one car has more torque than the other by about 100NM
one car only revs to 6500rpm, the other at 8250rpm,
which one will be faster?
Please no math, just plain facts and truth....
