Bilal

Eaten alive, chewed hard and spat out, Owned and ****-Raped.

M&M, The M5 and E55 are pretty evenly matched, the winner on the day will be the one who gets the better launch, PERIOD.

And the data he keeps citing for the E55 is for the Estate/Wagon version, the car that weighs 100-150kgs more than a stock E55 sedan/saloon.

M&M

Impro, you losing your touch man. I posted that test of the E55 where it did 14.6. Look again. I posted all the E55 runs I could find. Anyway, I agree that the cars will be close but you are wrong that the M5 won't walk away at higher speeds. Maybe if you studied physics at college you would understand. M5 had more power & weighs less. But if has more advantage because of gearing & high rpm power, less drivetrain loss, etc. It will get more power to the wheels at higher speeds than a stock E55. That is a fact that you cannot dispute. Unless the E55's aerodynamics are vastly superior there is no way it can keep up with a car that gets more power to the wheels.

Improviz

I'm disputing it. Prove it. Moving on:

M5 is rated at 500 horsepower USA, per Motor Trend

As can be seen from viewing this dyno plot, E55's are routinely dynoing at 420-430 rwhp and 480+ rwtq. At 18% driveline loss, this particular vehicle comes out to 516 crank hp, 585 crank torque.

Weighs less? According to Motor Trend, the two weigh virtually the same:

M5: 4050 pounds. E55: 4100 pounds.

Let's double-check that E55:
MBUSA's spec for E55: 4087 pounds

Hmm, wow....less than 50 pounds will make such a *huge* difference in acceleration...why, at 1/10 in the 1/4 mile per 100 pounds, that's 0.05 seconds!!

Btw, I did study Physics in college; in fact, I've got a Masters' degree in Engineering, and would wager that I've studied a bit more of it than you have. What is your profession, and degree?

Improviz

Good catch, Bilal!!

M&M

Impro, what happened between this super SL55 & M5 from 180-200km/h in the original thread?

Bilal

Teh M5 will walk away from E55 W211, we're getting an engine upgrade and a new transmission, so we''l meet again, it was brief, but since the new M5 is superior once its launched and we have M5 owners beating W211',s we can hold off for 7-8 months until our new engine gets here. You guys will have to wait 6 years... And once the new AMG's start arriving and eating E60's, we'll see the Beemer owners saying their cars are faster still, as in <cough> apk1013 <cough>.

M&M

Bilal & IMpro, as early as post # 5 & the # 39 I posted the E55's that did 14.5 to 200, so stop saying I'm posting the slowest E55 numbers.

Bilal, what upgrade is the E55 getting. I heard supercharging is out. Is it going to be along the lines of the C55 / C32 where the new car is barely faster than the one it replaces?

You see torque will go down without s/c & horsepower I doubt will go up much.

Improviz

You probably posted the second set accidentally....my point that in your first post in the thread, where you disputed the numbers, you deliberately posted both the slowest test numbers you could find for the E55 and CL55, stands. As do the other points I made.

And as usual, you are failing to address the demands for proof of dubious assertions you've made, but in your time-tested fashion, are cherry-picking posts for points for which you have half-answers and changing the subject.

Improviz

Well, let's have a lookee here, M&M, shall we? On your favorite website for cherry-picking data, it seems that they have a Sport Auto test of a different SL55 from 4/2003. The "super SL" as you call it was tested in 4/2004. Let's have a look at their numbers, shall we?

"Super SL" as you call it (along with E60 M5 numbers):
0-xxx.....4/2002 SL55....E60 M5
0 - 40 Km/h...1,4 s.......1,5 s
0 - 60 Km/h...2,2 s.......2,3 s
0 - 80 Km/h...3,1 s.......3,5 s
0 - 100 Km/h...4,3 s.....4,5 s
0 - 120 Km/h...5,6 s.....5,9 s
0 - 140 Km/h...7,1 s.....7,4 s
0 - 160 Km/h...9,4 s.....9,2 s
0 - 180 Km/h...11,2 s...11,6 s
0 - 200 Km/h...13,8 s...13,8 s

Another SL55, tested one year later (4/2003), from your cherry-picking site:
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,3 s

Now, keeping in mind that the chief limiting factor of the SL55 (as observed here by Road & Track) is its traction, the interesting thing is that if the "Super SL" was in fact "super", one would expect its 100-200 km/h split to be much faster than the (presumably) "non-super" SL tested in 4/2003, yes? Well, let's see:

100-200 km/h time for "super SL": 9.5 seconds
100-200 km/h time for "non-super SL": 9.7 seconds

Wow, there sure seem to be a lot of "super SL's" out there, M&M!!

And, um, wasn't it you who was using the "super M3" numbers from Sport Auto before in an earlier post, despite their having tested no fewer than four other M3's significantly slower??

Do as I say, not as I do!!

M&M

What happened to both these SL's from 180-200?

Improviz

Start answering my questions and addressing my points and I'll address yours, but I'm not going to allow you to set the direction of the discussion by cherry-picking certain points and ignoring others.

M&M

OK, I'll tell you what happened between 180-200. My made up 0.4 seconds on the fastest SL they have ever tested. THis SL is faster than the 500hp SL they tested & its faster than the 530hp E55 they tested. Yet the M5 made up 0.4 seconds in just 20km/h (12.5mph).

Surely to make up 0.4 seconds at those speeds(120mph+) its all about hp. Do you know how much 0.4 seconds is? That 3-4 carlengths.

ANd what questions do you want answered?

Improviz

Remember how I mentioned that he always picked the fastest E46 M3 ever tested by Sport Auto when making his comparisons? Apparantly, he's in the mood to keep proving me right today:

Look at this post and the follow-up:

M&M

What cherry pick. I posted the fastest M3 test & the fastest CLK55 test? What's the point of comparing slowest laps?

And to answer your question, I have a BSc degree & an Engineering degree (electronic).

Improviz

Here are the links you posted:


Cherry-picked "super M3" test you posted:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=236

Slower M3 tests from the same site you deliberately did not post:
http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=222

http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=245

http://www.track-challenge.com/tracktest2_e.asp?Car=145

And of course, you picked the slowest CLK55 test, now didn't you:
Slower CLK55 test you picked:

Another one you intentionally avoided:

And I have a BSEE, an MSEE, and a minor in Mathematics with extra Physics work. Which means that I studied at least as much Physics as you, now doesn't it?

So, care to lay off the ignorant ad-hominem?

Bilal

Well, the C55 vs C32 debate, if you want to go off the subject as many of your posts indicate. AMG Always wanted a large V8 in their cars. The W203 pre-facelift cars and the SLK R170 could not house such an engine and it was cheaper to build a smaller engine that fit than do body mods. So the 32K engine was born. Since the C facelift came out, and the new SLK, AMG had a chance to replace this engine with the V8 and make it fit by grafting a CLK front nose. The SLK R171 was destined from day one to have a V8....

As for the new V8 its all specualtion at at this stage...so nothing definite. But as AMG are aware of the competition (507Hp M5 and 400Hp M3 replacement) they have to make more powerful engines, as history dictates.....so lets see...

M&M

OK but when one discusses lap times, its normally the fastest ones we are interested in. That's the point of going around a lap.

Maybe when discussing on road performance all the tests should be considered & an average worked out, but on a track that's not the case. And I did post the fastest CLK test. Check again. Did you want me to post the 1:20.6 lap then?

Improviz

Unfortunately, the car we're discussing here is the CLS55 and its E55 cousins, not the SL55. And the M5 has a rather substantial aerodynamic advantage over the E55, and presumably, the M5 (although I am unable to locate Cd data for the M5 here, at BMW's spec page.

Cd of SL55, per MBUSA: 0.30, top up:

Cd of E55, per MBUSA: 0.27:

Which is why I always suspect tuners' horsepower gains: they don't often stand up under scrutiny. Go to M5board.com and look at the dyno plots for the Dinan M5's for example.

Against a car with a lower Cd. Against the E55, it didn't do so well. E55 ran 180-200 in 2.4, here, and M5 did it in 2.2, here. Based upon the acceleration data from time-speed contrasted with time-distance below, this is nothing.

No. Time-speed != time-distance. Witness the Car & Driver test of the E55 and the RS6.

.......RS6.....E55
0-100: 10.7 9.9
1/4 mile: 12.8 12.5

Or, better still, your beloved M3 and the Audi S4:
.......S4.....M3
0-100: 12.8 12.3
1/4 mile: 13.6 13.6

Do the math.

Read back through my points. I proved you wrong on several issues, and you ignore them and press on with others. Admit you were wrong on a few points for once, and start answering questions.

In the meantime, I'm going out...it's NYE. Happy New Years, all!! (Even you, troll!! :p )

M&M

Bilal, I hope you're right 'cos competition is good & makes everyone improve their product. The end result is that the consumer is the winner as he gets to choose from a wide variety of high quality products.

So I hope Merc counter the M5 'cos that will force the viscous cycle t continue. BUT, I don't see how. You see to make power you need displacement, pressure or revs. We know the displacement wil be about 6.3l.

Now to get close to 100hp/litre you need revs (without FI). Its that simple. But it does not suit the profile of an AMG customer to have a high revving car & that it totally against AMG's philosophy.

If we look at the new generation of engine's like the SLK350, it makes 77hp/l. That get's harder to maintain the larger the engine gets, but lets say AMG can do it. LEt's throw in some fat & say 80hp/l. On a 6.3l engine that equates to 500hp. I think that's what the current rumours are stating anyway.

THe torque is directly related to the displ, so we are looking at 500hp, 450lb/ft. Of course the weight will go up a bit, but their will be the 7G-tronic 'box. I doubt that will help acceleration much as for a low revving, big V8 with a flat torque curve, long gears are the best.

So, I say the E5 replacement won't be much faster than the car it replaces. I actually think the 55's will become classics.

M&M

Same to you. All he best for the new year. May the AMG gods reign upon you severe horsepower & ///M beating handling.

We shall debate further in the new year. Be careful & watch out for the freaks that come out on NYE.

Jon200

U really are full of it are you Muppet & Muppet? Have you read every single word of the original thread, it was a QUESTION being asked. Wish you would grow up and stop your silly trolls for once now, tell me one thing, can you beat a E55K, CLS55, Sl55, SL65? If not, leave it at that already

have a nice life

cant wait to see what u come up wif now

Jon200

Amen

VelocitE55

Seeing as so many points have already been made(and proven wrong), I have only one thing to say....TORQUE WINS RACES!

Happy New Year to all of you MB AMG fans. Regardless of the what the M5 ends up doing, we know our cars will always be superior.

M&M

Torque does not win races. Ask any F1 driver. Do we really want to get into that debate now. Horsepower, by definition, is the rate at which torque is applied. Our man Impro will get links to the definition of horsepower.

Also, if torque wins raced then the E55 replacement is doomed 'cos it will have 100NM less torque than the E55.

Jon, lighten up. This is just a debate & I'm giving my opinion.

Bilal

M5> 500bhp and 500NM, if the AMG engine has 500bhp and 600NM and 7G Tronic, and possibly lighter cars due to less reinforcements, it could be as quick as M5, if not faster. 7G tronic should help the car get into its powerband very quickly. 100NM more than M5 still. But its just speculation so nothing definite. We should find out by Sept this year....