DRCrowder

Wow the CLS55 in that link is 1960kg as opposed to the E55 @ 1835. I thought the CLS would be the same weight.

M&M

Yeah its the same story with the M5. Dry weight is 1710kg. THey tested it at 1820, but that's with fuel & driver (I think).

DRCrowder

Actually, If you go to www.bmw.co.uk they list the curb weight for an E60 M5 is 1830kg, same as an E55.

Do you have any comparisons with a 1830 55K car?

M&M

REad the fine print. That's the EU unladen weight. 90% fuel & 75kg passenger.

M&M

Seems both E55's they tested weighed the same as the CLS they tested.

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm

Test in sport auto 01/2003
Gewicht 1944 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

HEre's a 530hp BRabus tuned E55:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/brak82003-1.htm
Test in sport auto 8/2003
Gewicht 1975 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,5 s

DRCrowder

ahh ok so I went to Mb.uk and they list the dry weight as 1630kg to the weight disparity vs those tests is still the same

MBAMGPWR

How fast does your E60 M5 go, M&M? You know, the one you tested for the 4-page foldout in "Trolling Magazine". I heard the tectonic plates didn't move much last week, so your 1/4 mile times should be pretty good. Oh wait...

M&M

Dr, each manufacturer has their own way of rating weight. BMW use the EU unladen standard. That's 90% fuel & a 75kg passenger. But either way when the mags test they find that the weight difference is about 130kg between an M5 and a CLS55/E55.

enzom

Still stock for now, but I don't know if I can wait until the M5 finally shows up on our shores.


M&M - In answer to your question, I don't believe it is reasonable to rely on tests done on European cars unless you are in Europe. I don't know what kind of fuel/octane is available there. I don't know what equipment is required to be included by EU/British laws that are not required here and vice versa (Noise restrictions, etc.) Do the cars sold in Europe have different tires than those sold on our shores, for example?

As a prime example, not too long ago, European cars did not require catalytic converters. As we all know, there is a huge performance difference in otherwise equal cars where one has cats and the other does not. For that reason, the European-spec cars (porsches, Ferraris etc) were always developing more power (and hence quicker) overseas. I know that cats are required now in Europe, but there may be other differences in Euro-spec and US cars (weight, equipment, etc.) that make European tests on Euro-spec cars inapplicable to what we'll see here on our shores.

adx

It is amazing how much of a frenzy there is on which vehicle is faster, better, etc., especially since the new M5s are not our yet for a side by side comparison. Why don't we all wait until such a comparison is done instead speculating which is the better of the two.

DRCrowder

1. It is interesting for car-nuts to discuss cars, if the discussion is civil.
2. It is entertaining to mess with trolls (I'm not refering to anyone in particular)
3. It is not madatory for you to read these types of threads (whenever I read a post like yours I think of all of the people that want Howard, O & A and others off the air just becasue they don't like them, there are other channels...)

M&M

Enzom, fair enough. So is it not fair to compare the Euro tests of the M5 to the Euro tests of the E55? IS that not better than comparing times done in Europe to that of a US owner going to a drag strip. That's all I've been saying. Autocar got 13.1 @ 115mph for the E55 they tested.

The traction was very poor. But as mentioned their technique also involves a laden car with pump fuel, untouched tyre pressures, no cooling of intercoolers, etc.

Under the same conditions (but obviously a few years later) they got the M5 to do 12.8 @ 119mph. But here's the killer. I believe the traction was so bad they couldn't even use launch control. As the E55's times proved, the traction is really bad on their airfield. Its pretty dusty their & often dust gets onto the testing area.

Anyway, they brake torque'd the M5 to get their time. Imagine a car with a torque peak @ 6100rpm, being launched at 1500rpm. Way out of powerband. & yet it trapped 119. So even without launch control the M5 was 0.3 faster & 4mph on the same surface.

Here's a compialtion of the tests of E55 vs M5:

http://www.fastsaloons.com/cardetail...arlist=134,288

enzom

The link is nice, but it still doesn't represent a same day comparison test, or does it? (I can't really tell.) And yes, I don't believe that comparing my US drag strip results with Euopean magazine stories is an apples to apples comparison. That's why I have said repeatedly - when the M5 owners take their cars to the strip, we will see how fast they are. And I am not saying that the M5 won't be faster. We don't know, and will not know, until we really see them run where we do.

And even in the Autocar comparison you linked us to, those are not really representative times. People don't run on dusty airfields. Who knows if the E55 run was with ESP on/off. If it was on, did it react at the 330 foot mark to reduce engine power because it broke traction? Did the car lose speed with tire spin on the crappy surface (E55, I presume, will be more prone to break traction given the narrower crappy tires and torque advantage)?

In any event, it simply isn't sound to create a comparison between two runs under bad conditions. It just isn't. And that they are both bad results doesn't make the comparison fair or appropriate.

adx

DRCrower,

A complete misread on my post. This thread is going back and forth on which car is faster. My suggestion in my post if read carefully, is to wait until both cars have had an actual side by side comparison. Which means, let's wait until the new M5 is out before speculating on which car is faster. BTW, you are right that it is not mandatory to read this thread but since it is hear, I do and have read it and also do enjoy watching Howard Stern (assuming that was who you were referring to).

krispykrme

When did our car went on a diet.

Our base car weighs 1855 KG not 1835 KG. Although it's not 2045 kg. But the figure above is wrong.

I hate this type of thread. I should be getting my M5 toward december of 2005 or Jan 06 ( I have been moved ahead on the wait list). Depends on whether new RS6 will be available, i should still have E55 around at that time. Perhaps at that time a video comparing the two at drag strip would suffice.

This is getting totally out of hand.

Improviz

I posted the link to the VIDEO of AMS's test (<<<<clicky-click here to see it, as you obviously didn't watch it the first time around). It clearly shows that:

1) the CLS and M5 were tied at 4.7 sec. 0-100;

2) the 0-200 time was 14.8s for the M5, and 15.5s for the CLS.

So, as I've pointed out before, THE DATA ON THE PAGE YOU KEEP LINKING TO IS FALSE.

However, since you seem hell-bent on not believing the video itself, here is the link to Auto Motor und Sport (AMS)'s comparison of the M5 and CLS55.

And lo and behold: both cars' 0-100 km/h times are 4.7, just like the video said.

Got that? Good. Now please stop posting links to Internet sites with typos.

Belmondo

What do you know about diet?

I'm yet to see a htread that you dont hate. I understand you are a big dude but still where do you fit all that hate ?? You'll blow up one day like M3 motor, mark my words. Stop hating for your own good.

Improviz

...that Car & Driver also tested the SL65 recently. Here's their test results page:

Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 13.4 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.3 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 11.9 sec @ 123 mph

Note the corroboration with Auto Motor und Sport's test below. 200 km/h (125 mph) took AMS 12.6 seconds; Car & Driver's 0-130 sprint took 13.4. Since it took the C&D car 1.5 seconds to get from 123-130, linear interpolation shows that it should have taken it just about another 0.5 to get from 123-125, which would put it there in 12.4 seconds, just about spot-on with the AMS test.

Clearly.

M&M

Impro, when you gonna' learn that environmental conditions can make a huge difference to times, especially a turbo car. There's no argument about the speed of a CL65. I mean its pretty obvious it should be VERY quick. It should be 'cos it costs $60 000 more.

But anyway, the point is that this thread stated that the M5 & SL55 both did 13.8 to 124. Obviuously not tested on the same day. So I just added a 3rd car (CL65) also not tested on the same day that did the same time. Sure other mags have got it quicker, but this is SA's test & the results are published & will stand no matter how many times you jump up & down & protest. Hell, you should try writing a letter to the editor & complaining.

Point is conditions on the day will dictate the time. What happens if they test 100deg heat? How will the bi-turbo respond with pump fuel (or any fuel for that matter)? Anyway, I did post a link to a different CL65 they tested & it was a bit quicker. 0.6 quicker to 124. So I guess both CL65's were duds?

But we digress, I accept the 65's are very impressive & will go very quickly in the right conditions.

VelocitE55

Yawn.

Frank Wiesmann

As long as cars are not tested on the same day, there are too many factors involved that can manipulate the results. Secondly, manufacturers óften tweak cars in these tests, making the numbers inaccurate. Third and foremost, it takes a significant number of extra horses to walk a car in the real driving world. I remember aan encounter with a W211 E55 form a colleague of mine on the German Autobahn in my friends E46 M3, and the AMG in front of us slowly crept away from 110 to 160, but since we were in his wind tunnel, he didn't suddenly vanish into a spec in the distance. I suspect the difference would hav been greater had we raced from side to side, but even then both cars reach the limiter so fast that they not put enough distance between each other to vanish from view. Only with both cars completely deristricted and a totally empty freeway would this be possible(the latter is, unfortunately, almost never the case). To sum it up, I think a race between an E60 M5 and a W211 E55 would be a dead race. Now is that a bad thing? They are both ultra fast, just with different advantages (comfort vs. sport). Personally, I would even choose the AMG over the Bimmer if it were slower.

Have a Happy New Year everyone!

MrAMG

Salud!

clk55fan

After reading this thread it seems to me pointless to speculate what the
M5 #s are or 2b. I guess when the M5 gets to our shores, we will have some
more conclusive numbers and finally put this to rest.

2 me, to those who want to debate the speed of the e55 & m5 that's ok.

From the tech tidbits I have read in C&R, R&T, MT, it does appear that the
v10 may have the edge on top speed & the 1/4 mile...and just a little.

So what! even if that is the case, I believe most, if not all e55 owners,
if they had to do it all over again would still buy the e55. I believe car owners are passionate about:

1. visual lines of the car
2. the sound of the engine
3. the fit, finish, ergonomics
4. the drivers features
5. the comfort features
6. the performance of the majority of time intended use
7. name

And if the car floats your boat in those categories then thats what you get.


So what if one is better by fractions of a second in the 1/4 or at the
oval or at the track. 95-99 percent of the owners of these cars
may NEVER be able to experience the maximum limits of what these cars are
capable of. But 95-99 percent of them will enjoy 80-90% of the car's
ability.

************************************************** ***
Being able to perform a 'kill' on a car on public roads in my opinion is
downright DANGEROUS and seriously immature. Take the race to the
track guys where BOTH drivers will have a more comfortable frame of mind
to race and where innocent bystanders or drivers lives will not be at risk.
(My cousin was killed in a drag race on public roads last year.
His neck was broken upon impact)
************************************************** ***

I have a clk55 and for me my next car WILL BE A E55 or maybe a E65
regardless of how fast the M5 will be. Sure the M5 is a drivers car.
If I had the capability to drive and appreciate the M5 on roads
in Europe, maybe my thoughts would change.

For the US, the E55 gives me 100% satisfaction 90% of the time,
the M5 would give me 100% satisfaction 70% of the time.
(The roads around here are generally straight and the corners are 90 degrees)
Now that's where putting my hard earned $$ to maximum fun and use.

If one is a driver who will be tracking the car often...definitely buy the M5.
If the car will be use for sometime tracking and majority of the time
transportation to work, home and pleasure get the E55. So what if the
M5 beat you at the track, the E55 owner will always get more pleasure
off the track, and isn't that what counts, what you the driver most of the
time, not what the perception of some numerical time value represent,
some of the time?!

Just my 2 cents.

Have a Happy and SAFE New Year, all.

Improviz

Say it with me, and say it loud: CONTEXT. Remember that one of my goals throughout this thread has been to demonstrate how you very carefully and deliberately choose the worst possible results for a particular car and use *only* those.

For example, let's have a look at this technique in depth, shall we? Whenever you're comparing a BMW to an AMG car and there is more than one test available for each, you will invariably pick the fastest test for the BMW and the slowest for the AMG.

For example: in the first post you made in this thread with data, here is the data you presented for the E55:
Well, that's fine and dandy, but you very conveniently failed to note that they also tested the car on 1/2003, and got a bit better out of it:

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

Now then: I wonder which of the two times is more representative of what the car will actually do? Hmm, gee, let me hazard a guess...the latter, the one you chose *not* to present? Let us see...keeping in mind that 100 km/h is just over 60 mph, so it takes a few extra tenths to get there, and that 100 mph is 160 km/h, let's see how the American mags did in the car, shall we??

Motor Trend's test of E55 AMG:
0-30 mph 1.8
0-40 mph 2.4
0-50 mph 3.2
0-60 mph 4.2
0-70 mph 5.3
0-80 mph 6.5
0-90 mph 8.1
0-100 mph 9.7
0-100-0 mph 15.2 14.4
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.39 @ 116.21

Interesting....and now we see in Road and Track:
Road & Track's test of E55 AMG (pdf)
0–20 mph: 1.1
0–40 mph: 2.4
0–60 mph: 4.2
0–80 mph: 6.4
0–100 mph: 9.4
1/4 mile: 12.4@116.4

And we see in Car & Driver:
Car & Driver's test of E55 AMG:
0-60: 4.3
0-100: 9.9
1/4 mile: 12.5@116

Gee, looks like pretty much every test is right in line with the Sport Auto test you chose *not* to use, and yet you chose the slow one anyway...why might that be?

Similarly, as I showed in the post to which you're replying, all tests I've seen of the CL65/SL65 absolutely smoke the single example that you keep citing....and I keep pointing it out, but you keep using it. Why might that be?

Oh, and then there was the bogus CLS55 data you kept using. I showed you in a different thread entirely that AMS's numbers for the CLS55 in the M5/CLS55 comparison were NOT the ones you were using, and posted the video of the test to prove it. Did that stop you? No. You came back into this thread and used them again. Again, I posted the video. Again, you used the data. Why might that be? So I posted the link to the magazine itself. I suppose you'll still use the data even after that... Why might that be?

Yes, and *my* point is that you are intentionally cherry-picking your data--something for which you have admonished people in this very thread--to use the worse possible data for Mercedes, each and every time. Why might that be?

Further, in other threads you have touted an M3 (which you claimed as "stock", but which I showed was not) as running much faster times than the mags got as evidence that the mags were not testing the car to its full potential, *and* you have claimed to have made such runs yourself. And yet, when Belmondo produced a timeslip showing an E55 running a 12.1, you refuse to accept the number, citing your cherry-picked magazine test as your proof. Why might that be?

Oh, and then there was the time you were debating the acceleration of the M3. Track-challenge.com posts several times for the M3: most are virtually identical, but one is significantly faster than the others. You used the latter.

Why might that be?

Finally, you keep claiming that the E60 M5 runs away from the E55 up high. Let's examine this statement. The AMGs lose a great deal of momentum off the line due to traction control intervention and/or excessive wheelspin; the M5 has much less torque, wider rear tires, and a posi, so it will have a launch advantage. And the monentum gained at launch definitely factors into a car's 0-xxx speed: comare the 0-60 times and 5-60 times of a Turbo Porsche, WRX STi, Evo, or Audi S4 if you doubt this.

Case 1: Audi S4 vs. BMW M3. Car & Driver tested them as follows in May '03:

Car M3 S4
0-60: 4.8 5.0
5-60: 5.3 5.9
0-100: 12.3 12.8
0-150: 32.7 34.4
1/4 mile: 13.5 13.6

Now, as you have vouched in your trolling at the Audi S4 forum, even though these cars' 0-xxx times are fairly close, an M3 will walk the S4 in a rolling-start race. Why? Because the S4 does not gain the momentum of the AWD launch in a rolling-start race, which is why the times are so close standing-start but the gap grows rolling-start. This shows more as speeds rise: for example, the M3's 60-100 split is 7.5 s, while the S4's is 7.8. But the 100-150 split is 20.4 for the M3, while it is 21.6 for the S4. And if we remember that the M3 loses only 0.5 comparing 5-60 to its 0-60, while the S4 loses 0.9, we can see that without the momentum gained by the launch, the S4 would lose far more in the split.

Case 2: Mercedes E55 vs. Audi RS6, same issue
Car E55 RS6
0-60: 4.3 4.4
5-60: 4.7 5.5
0-100: 9.9 10.7
0-150: 24.5 30.9
1/4 mile: 12.5@116 12.8@108

Again, as we all know, in a rolling-start race the E55 will pull the RS6, hard. And do the math again on the 60-100 and 100-150 splits *with* the launch advantage, then look at the 5-60 times to get a feel for what they'd be without it.

So, with that in mind, for an M to walk an E55 in a rolling-start high speed race as you have claimed, it would have to pull a significant split in its xxx-yyy speeds over the E55.

But we see that, in the two tests you've provided, looking at the standing-start 140-200 splits:
Sport Auto: 140-200: 6.4 s
Auto Zietung: 140-200: 6.4 s

For the E55, we have 7 seconds flat for this split, 0.6 apart.

And the margin really does not grow with speed: look at the 100-200 splits. M5:
Sport Auto: 100-200: 9.3 s
Auto Zietung: 100-200: 9.5 s
E55: 10.0 s

So, in one test the 100-200 gap increased to 0.7, in another it shrunk, to 0.5.

For the CLS55, the difference was also 0.7. Take away the launch advantage of the M5, and this will dissipate imo.

We will find out soon enough, once Car & Driver publishes a rolling-start 5-60 for the M5 and CLS55 (hopefully, as I'm sure there'll be a shootout), but for now the available data simply does not support your argument (which is why you cherry-pick for half of your claims, and refuse to provide data supporting the other half).

VelocitE55

M&M got tore up! What else can a troll possibly say?