Improviz

Hopefully there will be some video of the AMGs getting stomped!!

APK1013

I never said I stomped anyone. I barely beat a CL55 off a light from which I got a great launch.

Improviz

There was a video posted here some time back (before the infamous server crash, which toasted it along with everything else) featuring a drag race exactly like what you're describing: a W210 E55 (which always tested within a tenth or two of the M5's in the magazines) racing a W211 E55 at a dragstrip.

The W210 got a fantastic hole shot, jumping out to about a 1-1.5 car lead, but within seven seconds, the E55 caught up and was even, and by the end of the 1/4 mile he was well ahead.

This, along with personal experience with mid-12 cars, is why I doubt your story.

Note: I've got this video if anyone wants to host it, btw....

mb10175

Bijan, is that you?? <<--Benvo

Anyway, I have to say that certain people make the BMW community look bad. I give respect where it is due, and I have to say that AMG cars most definitly deserve it. I was in an E55 that this kid at my school has and when he slammed that gas down, my jaw dropped. I have driven many M5's, and I must say that there is NO way that the M5 won this race unless the car was rebadged, or the dude couldn't drive.

On second note, to eliminate any bias, I own an M powered car myself.

Cheers to all of you who are putting your foot down when bs shows up.

APK1013

All I have to say is my car is not stock. Take that to mean what you want it to mean.

Improviz

Pulleys (a few horsepower if even that), chip (no gain there from what I've read in Car & Driver's tests of Dinan chips) and exhaust (10-15 tops). That still leaves you with a 100 horsepower deficit over a stock supercharged AMG.

Even a *supercharged* M5 cannot match the time of a *stock* supercharged AMG:

Car & Driver tests supercharged M5: 12.8 @ 114

Car & Driver tests stock E55 AMG: 12.5 @ 116

Motor Trend tests stock CL55 AMG: 12.38 @ 114

Of course, if you'd ever stop talking and start doing, stop chickening out and actually show up at Moroso to meet SGC and/or Dr. Chill, we could see some good hard numbers for your mighty M5.

But instead, we get what you've given us all along, talk and empty promises.

Quit talking smack, and come back when you've got enough sack to go to the track!!

In the meantime, here's a nice video for you to watch:

Mardeth

There are two supercharged M5s that are in the building process which will be pumping around 800hp. Im willing to believe that theyll run in the high 10s with their superior grip over the E55 etc. Anyway not a really fair comparison (or is it both being SC engines).

Im not sure what kind of exhaust mods he has done to his M5 but for example headers give around 25rwhp and if the whole exhaust has been changed 35-40rwhp. And Powerchip does work well on modded cars...

In all fareness Improviz, in my opinion the story that recently was posted in here about an E55 beating a 911TT X50 sounds as incredible as his story.

enzom

Why is that as incredible as the M5 story? How many E55 owners are running low 12's at 115 - 117 mph traps? We can't really screw up a shift with a slushbox, so these times are easily repeatable. A 6-speed X50 driver has three chances to screw up his shifts, nevermind worrying about bogging his launch. The only 911 TT I saw at Englishtown ran a 12.8 @ 115 mph on a relatively warm day. Maybe he is a crappy driver and sure the X50 adds some ponies, but the cars are much closer in straightline performance than a supercharged CL55 and an E39 M5.

If I didn't run as strong as I did the one time I took my E55 to Englishtown, I may not have believed it myself.

APK1013

E55's are running 12.0's stock!!! That is amazing, and I know that the CL55 will not do that, so you can't judge my claim by a race with an E55. I will go to the track and show you my slips after a few runs, but please realize that a CL55 is not going to put down those types of numbers. By the way, all your E55's are fast as hell.

enzom

APK - Post them for us. I almost bought an E39 M5 before I got my second 540 in 2001. Many of us here are not of the "us vs. them" mentality. In fact, there are a number of us that have gone from BMW's to AMG's. So let us know how you do. I bet you'll run a low 13 which is nothing to sneeze at.

APK1013

Now that we have all calmed down and this discussion is reasonable, I want to make a point. There are stock M5's that run high twelves. Here is an example:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=39741

This should help to prove that a modded M5 can run with a CL55 if he gets a good launch.

RRevolution

APK, I'd recommened you just saying that you "goofed up" because Improviz & Eleanor Owner, are pretty respected people on the board & I wouldn't want to test their knowledge against AMG vehicles.

I'll admit, I've even made claims such as you have in the past, and just ended up looking stupid in front of people. I'd suggest you just confess that you lied so you don't embarass yourself in person & on video, because I'm sure many people will bring a camera and host this online.

Last thing you want is people from other boards to see this happening. Anyways, good luck with whatever happens.

zdkdeeier493

Oi mate! Yeah its me. Glad to have some respectable BMW owners on the forum like yourself. Hey, if anybody needs help with their car whether it be a BMW or MB, ask this guy...he knows his stuff.

APK1013

Don't call me a liar because I didn't lie. Don't worry, I'll bring my own camera for sure!

DRCrowder

come'on now, that's not fair.

ANYTHING can happen on the street..

... maybe the CL55 was new and he was only going 3/4 throttle...
... maybe he took dsc off and spun the tires...
... maybe he had a bad water pump like eleanor owner and was at 3/4 power...
...bald tires...
... 1 ton of sand in the trunk...

You never know.

RRevolution

Sounds good. So atleast we can get the point of view from more than 1 person. Good luck, I hope you don't back out like the other past 2 times.

Improviz

I mean, really, dude...."I know that the CL55 will not do that"...I've posted about a dozen times now the Motor Trend test results showing that stock for stock, the CL55 has been tested a the same times as the E55. Why do you keep insisting that it is not as quick, when the test data clearly shows otherwise?

Do you realize how silly it makes you look to keep parroting the same argument, which has been refuted innumerable times, over and over and over? Do you think anyone actually believes you? What is your purpose in spewing nonsense like this, when scientifically conducted magazine tests show that you're absolutely, flat-out wrong?

I mean, what, do you think that there is some silent majority on this board which reads your posts, then reads the Car & Driver/Motor Trend/Road & Track tests, and thinks to themselves "Gee, Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and Road & Track are full of sh*t. I know this because APK1013 says they're wrong, and he is the Way, the Truth, and the Light!!"

Step back, take a deep breath, and consider what it is you're attempting to argue: that the three most respected car magazines in America are all wrong, but you are right!

It boggles the mind that anyone could even be so pompous and ignorant as to continue such a weak argument for this long...simply staggering. You really do give new meaning to the word "denial". These cars are all virtually identical in acceleration times, as the aforementioned mag tests clearly show.

APK1013

You are calling me bogus while you claim to beat M5's with your 2001 CLK55!! You are the crazy one, not me. A monkey driving an M5 will smoke your car. You still haven't responded to the fact that a stock M5 ran 12.8. I am a modded M5. You have no idea what I have done to my car because I haven't posted that for a while now. 12.8 to 12.4 for the CL is pretty close, and a great launch will cover that, so my story is very plausible in every sense.

mb10175

Improvitz, I have found a couple of flaws in your argument, although I still feel that the aforementioned AMG cars will outrun his M5.

To begin, BMW is notoriously known for overdriving the water pump and steering pump. To say that pullies will only increase "a few horsepower if even that" is a baseless statement. When I dynoed a 330 with and without pullies, I found that there was a 12 HP/4lb/ft TQ gain with pullies. This, was only pullies. While dynoing E46 M3's, we noticed a 9HP gain to the wheels with pullies being the sole modification. Not to mention increased throttle responce as another benefit.

As far as the chip argument, Yes, dinan claims "For the first time in 20 years, BMW has provided the driving enthusiast with all of the power that can be mustered as a result of engine management tuning. BMW detonation control systems, high speed engine management computers and sophisticated adaptations have left no additional power for we tuners to extract from software, as much as we hate to admit it. " Mind you, other performace tuners actually extract more power with more agressively tuned software. Dinan is known to be extremely conservative, and very pricy. Dinan said the same thing about the software for the 325/330 models, yet Jim Conforti, designer of the "Shark Injector", extracted over 7 HP and 10 ft/lbs Torque. Not to mention the increased throttle responce, raised rev limiter, remapped VANOS unit and added benefits when using high octane gasoline.

As far as the exhaust argument, there is no way that an M5 would pull 10-15 HP out of an exhaust system. Keep in mind that Naturally Aspirated cars do not benefit from an exhaust system as cars with Forced Induction such as your MB AMG cars will. Even with high flow cats, an x pipe, no resonators, and new mufflers, I doubt there will be more than a 7hp gain. On second note, the sound of an M5 with an exhaust system is intoxicating.

The second flaw I find with your argument is the fact that you are not reading into the reviews from car and driver that you post, rather you post the final result. It maybe unclear as to what I am saying at first, but I will clarify:

Car & Driver tests stock E55 AMG: 12.5 @ 116
I don't doubt this for a second. I have been in "Eleanor Driver's" car and it is no doubt, an amazing machine.

Motor Trend tests stock CL55 AMG: 12.38 @ 114
Once again, great time- My cousin owns two of these.

Car & Driver tests supercharged M5: 12.8 @ 114
This is where I find a flaw in your statement that "Even a *supercharged* M5 cannot match the time of a *stock* supercharged AMG:" I have always said that half the truth is often a lie.
Had you read the article closely you would have taken the following into consideration before making that statement:
As taken from the article, "With its insensitive clutch, sudden throttle, and overwhelming torque, this isn't an easy car to launch. Still, it cleaved down the quarter-mile in 12.8 seconds at 114 mph and hit 60 mph in just 4.4 seconds. "
Compared with a stock M5's 4.9-second 0-to-60 clocking and 13.4 seconds at 108 mph in the quarter-mile (May 2003), that's good"

Thats all fine and dandy, but here is where the incongruity is: "But it's not up to the performance of a naturally aspirated Dinan S2-M5, which did the 0-to-60 trick in 4.1 seconds and whacked through the quarter in 12.7 seconds at 113 mph (November 2002)"

So, to reiterate:
A Supercharged M5 is faster than a stock M5
The Naturally Asperated Dinan S2-M5 is faster than the RMS Supercharged M5 (based on the reasons listed above).
Car and driver states "The Dinan car made it to 110 mph in 12.0 seconds; the RMS M5 gets there in 12.1. But the RMS M5 gets to 120 mph in just 14.1 seconds compared with the Dinan's 14.4, and the Superfast's advantage only grows from there. Ultimately, the RMS M5 rips to 150 mph in just 23.5 seconds, whereas the Dinan takes 25.1 seconds and a stock M5 takes 29.2. A gentler clutch and a bit more software tuning by RMS should make the Superfast easier to launch and improve its transitional part-to-full-throttle response."

Hence, by deductive reasoning, I feel that the way you presented the statement about a supercharged M5 vs an E55 or CL55 doesnt quite fit right. Test conditions are very important, and this is why it is possible for the M5 guy to have won the race- most likey due to circumstances that can not be accounted for.

At over 600 HP and 500lb/ft Torque, I feel that it is safe to say that a properly launched and driven supercharged M5 will take on the AMG Supercharged V8's.

Another thing, do the AMG cars have LSD's? I hate to say it but straight line performance is far from the most important aspect of "The Ultimate Driving Machine" (without referencing BMW's slogan whatsoever). This is why the E60
M5 out did the CLS 55 in car and drivers review, which Eleanor Driver pointed out to me himself.

Anyway, looking forward to reading your responses and to tell you the truth I am leaning towards a C55 over an M3 for my next car. Only thing stopping me is the fact that I wont have a 6speed .

Improviz

So, I really don't know where you're getting the idea that this is so farfetched, particularly when you're trying to argue that you beat a car which has tested out one full second faster than yours.

And I hate to break this to you, but there are a lot of M5 and M3 owners who have reported coming out on the losing end in their encounters with CLK55s:

E46 M3 owner vs. his Dad's CLK55: four races, four wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: two races, two wins for CLK55

E46 M3 owner: multiple races, M5 vs. M3 vs. CLK55; CLK55 wins all

CLK55 owner vs M3: two races, one win for CLK55, one tie, both on video

CLK55 owner vs his brother's M5: multiple runs, dead even (M5s are faster than M3s)

M5 owner who switched to CLK55 reports CLK55 is just as quick

M3 owner reports runs with W210 E55: dead even race

(note that W210 E55 is about 300 pounds heavier than W208 CLK55, with same HP and gearing, so from a roll CLK should be quicker, i.e., based upon these results it would pull M3)

add another E46 M3 owner to the list:

add still another E46 M3 owner to the list:

E46 M3 owner reports: beaten by two lengths by CLK55:

E46 M3 owner reports: beaten by one length by CLK55:

And here are four more for you, where the 2001 CLK55 was tested faster than the M3:
Motorweek's test of CLK55 AMG: 13.4@107

Motorweek's test of E46 M3: 13.5@107

Edmunds' test of CLK55 AMG: 13.48@106.3

Edmunds' test of M3: 13.5@105

But as I told you before: I'll be more than willing to show up and run some M3's and M5's--as soon as you actually show up at the strip with SGC and/or Dr. Chill!

So, are you going to show up this week?? Or are you going to wuss out again and not show? Stop trying to wriggle, and answer: when are you going to stop talking and show up at Moroso???

Improviz

The Dinan S2 M5's are not hitting the numbers claimed for the package, nor have they been dynoing out at the claimed horsepower numbers. Search the M5 board, and see for yourself. There are some seriously unhappy campers out there with the package....here's one of them:

As to the traction issues of the supercharged M5: I did read those in the article, but that doesn't change the fact that they were unable to match the stock times of any of the S/C AMG cars. And you are missing an important fact: that the S/C AMG cars are not without traction issues of their own:

From Road & Track's 0-100-0 shootout:

So, bear in mind that these S/C Benzes are also traction-challenged, and are capable of much quicker times with more traction.

I do agree, however, that a true 600 hp M5 should definitely outrun a 500 hp E55! But it seems that, at least judging by the trap speed, this one was a bit short of 600 hp.

mb10175

In responce:

You mentioned nothing regarding the validity of your statement on HP increases due to certain modifications as per my earlier rejoinder.

"But unlike the E55 AMG sedan where the computer helps to generate the best runs, here the electronics interferes by cutting the power too much" Validates my point.

Do you really think that a supercharged M5 without extensive ECU tuning will even come close to E55 "[that] are also traction-challenged, and are capable of much quicker times with more traction." at lauch? As far as I'm concerned, you are blinded by smoke and mirrors.

Yes, I own 3 BMW's. But hell no, I am completely neutral when arguing between MB and BM's. I think you need to eliminate some of your bias and factor in real world situations when analyzing an event or possible occurence.

Improviz

Wrt the Dinan tuning, I addressed it in the first paragraph of my response, and also gave a link to an individual who had purchased this product for his car as proof.

Furthermore, Car & Driver performed scientific tests of so-called "performance chips" a few years back, in an article entitled "Chips Ahoy", and among the tuners tested was...drumroll, please: DINAN. Guess what? They got NO measurable increase in performance in the two BMW cars they tested for the article. The only car to show any noteworthy performance gain by the addition of a chip was a VW Passat with a turbo, which would be because that chip actually did something to enhance performance--namely, increased the boost of the turbochargers.

As to the underdrive pulleys: the reason I didn't respond was because I didn't think it worthy of a response. I don't believe pulleys add a significant amount of horsepower. Can you show me some independently-generated data which shows otherwise? Hint: vendor dynos don't count.

And frankly, it's rather disengenous of you to complain of my failing to address all of your points when you don't address all of mine.

In what sense does the operation of the Mercedes Traction Control system validate your argument that tuner chips increase horsepower in any way, shape, or form?? You're saying that because the Mercedes Traction Control system cuts engine power and applies brakes in response to spin, this "validates" your claim that an aftermarket chip produces more power?? Hardly. Try again.

Wow, you got two facts wrong in one paragraph: my compliments.

Wrong item number one: you're stating that the M5's ECU did not have extensive ECU tuning. Here is the article again: it says no such thing. It says that the engine could benefit from some *more* tuning by the tuner, which hardly indicates that the ECU was stock: English lesson: "more" in this context means "additional", unless you're prepared to believe that they're pumping 11 psi into that motor with no modifications to its timing curves. That engine would light up like a firecracker with that much boost and stock internals (i.e., 11.5:1 compression or thereabouts) running stock timing curves. So, who was it who wasn't reading the article carefully?

Wrong item number two: you're totally screwing up my argument. My point was this: you can't whine about test conditions (lack of traction) slowing down the M5 when it is well known that lack of traction also slows down the supercharged AMG cars.

As far as I am concerned, I am not concerned with what concerns you. This is particularly true given the rather spiteful tone you've taken with me from the get-go, and given your sudden materialization from the ether onto this board...I was polite in my response, even despite your basically calling me a liar and a careless reader in your initial post, but this makes two ill-mannered responses, so you've spent your capital of goodwill from this poster.

Would you care to repeat the latter sentence in English? I'm having a bit of trouble with this dialect of Gibberish.

I believe I did exactly that: I'm looking at real-world dyno results for Dinan S2 M5's, a real-world test of a supercharged M5, and real-world reports from a Road & Track test of an SL55. Is there some other world from which you'd like me to get the data upon which I base my observations?

mb10175

I am going to respond to all of these arguments tomorrow, I don't have time right now. I dont appreciate your snide responces. My posts were derived from my reasoning, and were not intended to attack another party. I think you are making an *** out of yourself.

And, also.

Improviz

Let's see how the attacks started from your first post:

And then, you follow that little gem up with this:
So, in your first post to me, you basically accuse me of poor reading comprehension, lousy reasoning skills, telling half truths ( = lie by your definition)...and you have the gall to complain about personal attacks??

Can you say pot/kettle?

Here is my response. Not one personal attack against you, i.e. I ignored the ones listed above...but in your second response you pressed on with more of them: So, that's two posts in a row with personal attacks against me, not one leveled against you...and then you whine like a baby when I respond in kind. Can you say "hypocrite"?

Words cannot express the sense of disappointment I feel at having to wait until tomorrow to be dazzled once again by your towering intellect.

I believe I did both...I presented reasoned responses to your "arguments", and in response to your continous unprovoked personal attacks against me, counterpunched.

Welcome to the Internet. If you can't stand the heat, don't start brushfires.

Lol, so what level were you stooping to when you insulted my intelligence and my integrity in your very first post to me, then insulted me again in your second? And now you inject high-school level insults and profanity into the mix.

And fwiw, I believe my reasoning holds up to scrutiny one helluvalot better than anything you've presented thus far.


[NOTE: the above quotes were from mb10175's post before he edited it...]