Fairbird

I think my stage 1 was quicker by few 10's , the problem I'm measuring in kph

CliffJumper

Sorry, but I think you should try out a DCT again. There are many reasons why I chose an E63s over a BMW, but transmission (even my 2016 w/ latest updates) is definitely not one of them. The DCT is the 2nd best automated transmission in the world (PDK is a notch better) for ALL conditions. It's better in every way (speed of shifts, smoothness, being in the right gear, quickly adapting to changes like sudden braking to acceleration) with the possible exception of being able to handle less torque than the MCT. The DCT (and PDK) being freakin excellent doesn't mean the MCT is worse in absolute terms, but on a relative basis... There's no question which is superior.

TMC M5

Are you talking 100-200 kph? I think my files are on my computer at home. I will have to check to see what it ran 100-200 kph.

PeterUbers

Ok

Whose complaining about anything? I gave him more considerations about why one car would be "faster"

Please give us a list of pet peeves of yours for us to avoid

TMC M5

Some more complete data:

http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=888938

I am aware that the 2-2.5% decline is advantageous, but I test all my cars on the same private road. That is why I need to wait until the weather cools to test the E63 S. I have no doubt it will run sub-9s 60-130mph with just the drop-in filters. But I am not sure it will post a better time than the M5. But there are a number of other reasons why I went with the E63 S over the M5. They are both great cars and each has its strong suit (and I am 1000% in agreement with Cliff Jumper on his points on the DCT vs MCT).

Fairbird

Yes , I did 6.6 with tune only . 7.8 stock if I'm not mistaken

TMC M5

I thought I posted it some place:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/f10...ml#post3757449

7.34s 100-200kph on the 8.57s 60-130mph run.

gaspam

dont feed the troll

Fairbird

so this is stock ? yes m5 from the roll faster if that's the case

TMC M5

The only mods were K&N drop-in filters and Supersprint Mufflers...that is it. Then again I also ran on a cool fall morning here in Maryland so it may not be directly comparable to the conditions you ran under.

efiftyfizzle

Good info... it's going to be hard to mimic exact environments unless you have the same car side by side, same day, same time, etc...

cm60k

I think the main point that let M5 roll champ is "-"the higher diff. Ratio"-",

MB always put lower diff. for traction & top speed range, but that will NOT help to be faster in mid Roll,,!?!

M5 got "3.15" Ratio, which typically quicker in Roll, this is the main trick that BMW using in their cars, to make them faster than others..!

{.."E63 2.65 VS M5 3.15"..}

,,ZAYED,,

Fairbird

Sure , I'm at 2500 ft elevation . 90F weather .
I did this just now , not stock though

gaspam

i believe the 2.65 e63 ratio you are quoting is from the rwd variants... the newer awd variants have 3.06 ratio

TMC M5

The M5 would not be replicating a 7.34s 60-130mph in those conditions.

5.9s 100-200kph is REALLY fast. I have an old spreadsheet here at work with some of my old cars 60-130mph and 100-200 kph times. My FBO GT-R (intakes, turbo inlets, full catless exhaust) on 93 octane tune did a 60-130mph in 7.04s with a 100-200kph time of 6.04s.

BTW, you should put the SD card in your vbox to log the runs.

Fairbird

I think I can do better , my old S4 B5 did it in 5.4 sec in same conditions , was fun

notatroll

Thank you for doing this to get the actual date. Would love to see how your e63s does against those numbers.
People might think Im trolling but Im not I prefer everything about the e63 vs the m5. Im not a big fan of how the m5 sounds and honestly thats a big deal.. Looks can be subjective, speed is a factor that can be altered but the sound is a whole experience that you cannot change

efiftyfizzle

That's the W.3 Weistec Kit, right? Could you also post 60-130mph times so we can compare with the folks here in the U.S. that used mph metric?

Fairbird

I'll do when test it next time .
Yes this is w3

notatroll

From what I can see here, the older less powerful NON PP rwd e63 AMG accelerates from 60-130mph same as the NON CP M5 at 9.4s for both. Which if we believe these tests is faster than both awd e63s and M5 CP. Hard to say which is faster. Only way to find out is go out and race against each other or get actual vbox data. But I still do believe the m5 would be faster because of the gearing. Speaking of gearing, the e63 amg seems to have shorter gearing. The shorter gearing is supposed to accelerate faster right? Or does the longer gearing in m5/m6 has a longer power peak throughout the rpm range? If that makes sense

nynd

We should end this discussion as if you're really looking for the "Faster" car, it does't matter as there is always someone out there faster. If you want speed - tune the crap out of either until your hearts contents (or wallets empty). There is so much more to when buying a car - it comes down to what you like and WHAT PUTS A SMILE on your face. Start an M5 and listen... then start an E63 and listen... Your money - You decide which car is for you - just like you decide which wife or girlfriend makes you happy - or not! lol

PeterUbers

Amen, you can analyze the crap out of all these stats... specs.... Buy what makes you happy

notatroll

I feel your negative energy.
I feel your positive energy but we should not end this discussion. There is much to learn about this cars.

cm60k

No my friend,

i'm talking about (2103-2016 5.5l Bi-turbo), "W212 E63/E63S 4-matic & W218 Cls63/Cls63S 4-matic"..!,

the diff. Ratio for both is (2.65:1)..!!

,,ZAYED,,

gaspam

not a M5 but pretty close (m6 conv) vs e63s 4matic.. stock vs stock... roll race to 186mph ... pretty close most of the way