Why is m5 faster that e63s
07-15-2016, 04:22 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Go and test drive both of them and decide what you like, and remember most of the time spent in a car is not 0-60, 80-120, etc. Some of the most fun to drive cars in the world are not necessarily the fastest, and vice versa IMO--ie a top fuel dragster.
07-15-2016, 04:40 PM
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 201 Likes
on
154 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/bmw/m...ck-comparison/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced...c_transmission
07-15-2016, 04:53 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A.D., U.A.E
Posts: 7,001
Likes: 0
Received 377 Likes
on
342 Posts
00 C200 & 00 C55 & 06 SLK55
Ahh, so weird..!
in EPC & many sites says, (2.65:1)..?!?!?!
http://www.sangeraparts.com/mercedes...=difrntal-assy
,,ZAYED,,
in EPC & many sites says, (2.65:1)..?!?!?!
http://www.sangeraparts.com/mercedes...=difrntal-assy
,,ZAYED,,
07-15-2016, 05:13 PM
#54
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,404
Received 1,884 Likes
on
1,321 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
I feel your discussion is going in circles but am curious to find out when you decide what you're going to buy and what stat puts you over the edge
Last edited by PeterUbers; 07-15-2016 at 05:18 PM.
07-15-2016, 05:32 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A.D., U.A.E
Posts: 7,001
Likes: 0
Received 377 Likes
on
342 Posts
00 C200 & 00 C55 & 06 SLK55
It will be great, if anyone can jack the car, to see the Ratio# stamped in the diff. cover, that will helps all "E63/E63S" fans here..
,,ZAYED,,
,,ZAYED,,
07-15-2016, 05:33 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 201 Likes
on
154 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
Ahh, so weird..!
in EPC & many sites says, (2.65:1)..?!?!?!
http://www.sangeraparts.com/mercedes...=difrntal-assy
,,ZAYED,,
in EPC & many sites says, (2.65:1)..?!?!?!
http://www.sangeraparts.com/mercedes...=difrntal-assy
,,ZAYED,,
... i think you are talking about the rear diff ratio and i was referring to final drive ratio.... yes the rear diff is a 2.65:1... and final drive ratio is 3.06:1
The following users liked this post:
gaspam (07-15-2016)
07-15-2016, 06:34 PM
#58
Final drive ratio and rear diff ratio are one and the same when using a trans gear which is 1:1 (5th gear in the E63)
and yes it is 2.65:1 regardless of what Motortrend or wiki wrote
and yes it is 2.65:1 regardless of what Motortrend or wiki wrote
07-15-2016, 07:32 PM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 201 Likes
on
154 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
final drive ratio is not the same as rear diff ratio.... final drive ratio is derived from rear diff ratio and other variables
fwiw mercedes also has final drive ratio as 3.06:1
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...999&year1=2016
http://www.daimler-financialservices..._65_AMG_en.pdf (page 26 - this one s63 but uses same gearing/tranny/diff)
Last edited by gaspam; 07-15-2016 at 08:30 PM.
07-16-2016, 01:34 AM
#60
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,404
Received 1,884 Likes
on
1,321 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
not a M5 but pretty close (m6 conv) vs e63s 4matic.. stock vs stock... roll race to 186mph ... pretty close most of the way
BMW M6 F12 vs. Mercedes AMG E63 S 4Matic - ROLL RACE - YouTube
BMW M6 F12 vs. Mercedes AMG E63 S 4Matic - ROLL RACE - YouTube
07-16-2016, 03:30 AM
#61
Member
The cars are very close in speed... the M5 is every bit as fast at speed .. probably even faster. With just drop-in filters and mufflers my M5 went 11.835 @ 120.87mph without using launch control in 2k'+ DA.
http://www.dragtimes.com/2013-BMW-M5-Specs-25676.html
I know you love your E63 (I love mine too), but don't let that blind you to the fact that M5 is a very fast car at speed and at least the E63's equal.
http://www.dragtimes.com/2013-BMW-M5-Specs-25676.html
I know you love your E63 (I love mine too), but don't let that blind you to the fact that M5 is a very fast car at speed and at least the E63's equal.
, I bow out now.And please spare me the "With drop in filters and mufflers I ran a..." crap. For $3000 I can buy an AMS tune for my 2016 E63 S which is completely stock otherwise and pull 700 CHP. So what...Let's talk stock to stock.
1. E63 S have run 11.6 TOTALLY STOCK without launch control.
2. The E63 has a much better 0-60 and a faster 1/4 mile. This is what 98% of performance car buyers want. The other 2% are trackers and could care less.
I like the M5, it's a very nice car, but don't let your RWD tail happy beast trick you into believing that just because you can feel more power that it's faster.
The M5 and E63 AMG NON-S are comparable, but not the S.
This article is an excellent article and these guys can drive so I believe what they're saying.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-65-7-roa0314/
Read what they had to say about the M5 Comp Package, it STILL wasn't as fast as the E63 S. The M5 was voted #1 mostly because the cats who wrote the article like RWD cars and the challenge and fun they bring to the advanced driver. I disagree. If anything I would have given the #1 spot to the Audi RS7, E63 S #2, and M5 CP for #3.
07-16-2016, 04:04 AM
#62
Member
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.
I love how everyone questions MB engineers and assumes and trashes the MCT but isn't smart enough to reckon that MB already thought about using DCT and passed on it for the E63 S. MCT is just another way of building a DCT, it is multi-clutch and does dual clutch shift. I think it's more accurate to say that MCT isn't as precise as a proper DCT, but most DCTs are not necessarily "Better". The numbers don't lie and MB put downs "Nutty" numbers with the MCT so I look at that more than anything else.
An MB mechanic told me that MCT IS DUAL CLUTCH SHIFTING while admitting it's not a DCT. He said the bottom line is that one gear is released while the other is grabbed simultaneously. If MB can build a PDK rival, look the F out. They will set world records if they can get it into an E63 S in the future. They will break every stigma about what a supercar should look like.
Last edited by proxygeek; 07-16-2016 at 04:09 AM.
07-16-2016, 04:07 AM
#63
Member
07-16-2016, 08:39 AM
#64
but they are not using a 1:1 ratio in final drive ratio... its calculated in top gear at a particular cruising engine speed
final drive ratio is not the same as rear diff ratio.... final drive ratio is derived from rear diff ratio and other variables
fwiw mercedes also has final drive ratio as 3.06:1
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...999&year1=2016
http://www.daimler-financialservices..._65_AMG_en.pdf (page 26 - this one s63 but uses same gearing/tranny/diff)
final drive ratio is not the same as rear diff ratio.... final drive ratio is derived from rear diff ratio and other variables
fwiw mercedes also has final drive ratio as 3.06:1
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...999&year1=2016
http://www.daimler-financialservices..._65_AMG_en.pdf (page 26 - this one s63 but uses same gearing/tranny/diff)
So which gear ratio will result in a final ratio of 3.06 may I ask? IE which trans gear can you multiply by 2.65 axle ratio to get 3.06 final ratio?
Yes the wagon has a more aggressive rear diff ratio of 3.06 but nowhere in this thread have I seen references to a wagon. I have only seen sedans that are still 2.65. Stop using round about arguments to bolster your erroneous post.
And since we are quoting magazines, let me also add that Edmunds has the final ratio of the E63s at 3.42
07-16-2016, 08:44 AM
#65
Sorry but I think DCT is largely overrated with the exception of PDK. PDK is the best DCT in the world IMHO. BMW DCT is excellent but I think efficacy is more important. MCT proves there are other ways to build a transmission to shift JUST AS FAST without being a proper DCT. MCT gear changes happen in 100 ms, so just because it's not a "PROPER" DCT, WHO CARES!? MB built a superb dual clutch shifting multi-clutch transmission (it's really 1 shaft instead of 2 shafts but it's still dual clutch) that can make better use of the torque characteristics of the M157.
I love how everyone questions MB engineers and assumes and trashes the MCT but isn't smart enough to reckon that MB already thought about using DCT and passed on it for the E63 S. MCT is just another way of building a DCT, it is multi-clutch and does dual clutch shift. I think it's more accurate to say that MCT isn't as precise as a proper DCT, but most DCTs are not necessarily "Better". The numbers don't lie and MB put downs "Nutty" numbers with the MCT so I look at that more than anything else.
An MB mechanic told me that MCT IS DUAL CLUTCH SHIFTING while admitting it's not a DCT. He said the bottom line is that one gear is released while the other is grabbed simultaneously. If MB can build a PDK rival, look the F out. They will set world records if they can get it into an E63 S in the future. They will break every stigma about what a supercar should look like.
I love how everyone questions MB engineers and assumes and trashes the MCT but isn't smart enough to reckon that MB already thought about using DCT and passed on it for the E63 S. MCT is just another way of building a DCT, it is multi-clutch and does dual clutch shift. I think it's more accurate to say that MCT isn't as precise as a proper DCT, but most DCTs are not necessarily "Better". The numbers don't lie and MB put downs "Nutty" numbers with the MCT so I look at that more than anything else.
An MB mechanic told me that MCT IS DUAL CLUTCH SHIFTING while admitting it's not a DCT. He said the bottom line is that one gear is released while the other is grabbed simultaneously. If MB can build a PDK rival, look the F out. They will set world records if they can get it into an E63 S in the future. They will break every stigma about what a supercar should look like.
MB only passed on the DCT because it would not hold the torque of the M157. Haven't you noticed that they use a DCT in the SLS/AMG GT/and a few other that are either NA or 4.0l tt? What do these all have in common? Lower levels of torque compared to the M157
Last edited by kponti; 07-16-2016 at 08:48 AM.
07-16-2016, 08:53 AM
#66
To be honest I don't care who is wrong or right in the actual numbers. However your assertion that the rear axle ratio and final ratios are different without adding in that final ratios are calculated while diff ratios are fixed is erroneous.
07-16-2016, 10:17 AM
#67
MBWorld Fanatic!
NO THEY ARE NOT. The M5 Comp is an improvement but it still isn't as fast as the E63 S (the article below proves this), the standard F10 M5 IS NOT comparable to the E63 S. I have driven one, I have raced them, they are not as fast, period. Please no BS stories how the standard stock F10 M5 is as fast as an E63 S, bull****, it's not. As I said, it's a nice car, but it's not as fast as the E63 S, it's just not. If you want to pull the "But it will smoke it on a roll" discussion, , I bow out now.
And please spare me the "With drop in filters and mufflers I ran a..." crap. For $3000 I can buy an AMS tune for my 2016 E63 S which is completely stock otherwise and pull 700 CHP. So what...Let's talk stock to stock.
1. E63 S have run 11.6 TOTALLY STOCK without launch control.
2. The E63 has a much better 0-60 and a faster 1/4 mile. This is what 98% of performance car buyers want. The other 2% are trackers and could care less.
I like the M5, it's a very nice car, but don't let your RWD tail happy beast trick you into believing that just because you can feel more power that it's faster.
The M5 and E63 AMG NON-S are comparable, but not the S.
This article is an excellent article and these guys can drive so I believe what they're saying.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-65-7-roa0314/
Read what they had to say about the M5 Comp Package, it STILL wasn't as fast as the E63 S. The M5 was voted #1 mostly because the cats who wrote the article like RWD cars and the challenge and fun they bring to the advanced driver. I disagree. If anything I would have given the #1 spot to the Audi RS7, E63 S #2, and M5 CP for #3.
, I bow out now.And please spare me the "With drop in filters and mufflers I ran a..." crap. For $3000 I can buy an AMS tune for my 2016 E63 S which is completely stock otherwise and pull 700 CHP. So what...Let's talk stock to stock.
1. E63 S have run 11.6 TOTALLY STOCK without launch control.
2. The E63 has a much better 0-60 and a faster 1/4 mile. This is what 98% of performance car buyers want. The other 2% are trackers and could care less.
I like the M5, it's a very nice car, but don't let your RWD tail happy beast trick you into believing that just because you can feel more power that it's faster.
The M5 and E63 AMG NON-S are comparable, but not the S.
This article is an excellent article and these guys can drive so I believe what they're saying.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-65-7-roa0314/
Read what they had to say about the M5 Comp Package, it STILL wasn't as fast as the E63 S. The M5 was voted #1 mostly because the cats who wrote the article like RWD cars and the challenge and fun they bring to the advanced driver. I disagree. If anything I would have given the #1 spot to the Audi RS7, E63 S #2, and M5 CP for #3.
My point about the drop-in filters and mufflers was to point out how lightly modded the car was. It was full disclosure. So anyone with 1/2 a brain would be able to say "oh the car was very close to stock and not tuned...and the mods likely had a minimal affect on the results".
Last edited by TMC M5; 07-16-2016 at 10:21 AM.
07-16-2016, 11:16 AM
#68
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,404
Received 1,884 Likes
on
1,321 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
07-16-2016, 02:53 PM
#69
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,404
Received 1,884 Likes
on
1,321 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
The MCT is in no way a dual clutch shifting anything! What you described is how just about every automatic transmission shifts.
MB only passed on the DCT because it would not hold the torque of the M157. Haven't you noticed that they use a DCT in the SLS/AMG GT/and a few other that are either NA or 4.0l tt? What do these all have in common? Lower levels of torque compared to the M157
MB only passed on the DCT because it would not hold the torque of the M157. Haven't you noticed that they use a DCT in the SLS/AMG GT/and a few other that are either NA or 4.0l tt? What do these all have in common? Lower levels of torque compared to the M157
http://www.mbscottsdale.com/blog/201...-transmission/
07-16-2016, 06:20 PM
#70
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 201 Likes
on
154 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
07-16-2016, 06:53 PM
#71
07-16-2016, 07:03 PM
#72
Member
The MCT is in no way a dual clutch shifting anything! What you described is how just about every automatic transmission shifts.
MB only passed on the DCT because it would not hold the torque of the M157. Haven't you noticed that they use a DCT in the SLS/AMG GT/and a few other that are either NA or 4.0l tt? What do these all have in common? Lower levels of torque compared to the M157
MB only passed on the DCT because it would not hold the torque of the M157. Haven't you noticed that they use a DCT in the SLS/AMG GT/and a few other that are either NA or 4.0l tt? What do these all have in common? Lower levels of torque compared to the M157
There are 1500 HP Porsche 911 Turbos running around on PDK so I don't believe it's purely a torque problem.
07-16-2016, 07:06 PM
#73
NO THEY ARE NOT. The M5 Comp is an improvement but it still isn't as fast as the E63 S (the article below proves this), the standard F10 M5 IS NOT comparable to the E63 S. I have driven one, I have raced them, they are not as fast, period. Please no BS stories how the standard stock F10 M5 is as fast as an E63 S, bull****, it's not. As I said, it's a nice car, but it's not as fast as the E63 S, it's just not. If you want to pull the "But it will smoke it on a roll" discussion, , I bow out now.
And please spare me the "With drop in filters and mufflers I ran a..." crap. For $3000 I can buy an AMS tune for my 2016 E63 S which is completely stock otherwise and pull 700 CHP. So what...Let's talk stock to stock.
1. E63 S have run 11.6 TOTALLY STOCK without launch control.
2. The E63 has a much better 0-60 and a faster 1/4 mile. [B]This is what 98% of performance car buyers want. The other 2% are trackers and could care less.[B]
I like the M5, it's a very nice car, but don't let your RWD tail happy beast trick you into believing that just because you can feel more power that it's faster.
The M5 and E63 AMG NON-S are comparable, but not the S.
This article is an excellent article and these guys can drive so I believe what they're saying.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-65-7-roa0314/
Read what they had to say about the M5 Comp Package, it STILL wasn't as fast as the E63 S. The M5 was voted #1 mostly because the cats who wrote the article like RWD cars and the challenge and fun they bring to the advanced driver. I disagree. If anything I would have given the #1 spot to the Audi RS7, E63 S #2, and M5 CP for #3.
, I bow out now.And please spare me the "With drop in filters and mufflers I ran a..." crap. For $3000 I can buy an AMS tune for my 2016 E63 S which is completely stock otherwise and pull 700 CHP. So what...Let's talk stock to stock.
1. E63 S have run 11.6 TOTALLY STOCK without launch control.
2. The E63 has a much better 0-60 and a faster 1/4 mile. [B]This is what 98% of performance car buyers want. The other 2% are trackers and could care less.[B]
I like the M5, it's a very nice car, but don't let your RWD tail happy beast trick you into believing that just because you can feel more power that it's faster.
The M5 and E63 AMG NON-S are comparable, but not the S.
This article is an excellent article and these guys can drive so I believe what they're saying.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...-65-7-roa0314/
Read what they had to say about the M5 Comp Package, it STILL wasn't as fast as the E63 S. The M5 was voted #1 mostly because the cats who wrote the article like RWD cars and the challenge and fun they bring to the advanced driver. I disagree. If anything I would have given the #1 spot to the Audi RS7, E63 S #2, and M5 CP for #3.
Also i think you misunderstood what he was saying..
And 3, you are wrong about most people caring about 1/4 mile. Obviously this thread was about roll racing to begin with right?
Last edited by notatroll; 07-16-2016 at 07:09 PM.
07-16-2016, 07:09 PM
#74
Member
Are you done ranting like a lunatic? I currently own an E63 S and owned an F10 M5 for two years. I will definitely say THEY ARE COMPARABLE IN SPEED AND POWER. End of story. I have owned other high performance cars and am not blinded by fanatical loyalty to any one brand (owned 2 AMGs, 2 M's, GT-R, CTS-V, SVT, SRT an Audi RS and 2 S models) or RWD (6 out of the 11 listed are AWD).
My point about the drop-in filters and mufflers was to point out how lightly modded the car was. It was full disclosure. So anyone with 1/2 a brain would be able to say "oh the car was very close to stock and not tuned...and the mods likely had a minimal affect on the results".
My point about the drop-in filters and mufflers was to point out how lightly modded the car was. It was full disclosure. So anyone with 1/2 a brain would be able to say "oh the car was very close to stock and not tuned...and the mods likely had a minimal affect on the results".
I got your "Light mods and the car will run this" BS and you really didn't make much of a point.
So go hump your F10 M5 and dream it's faster than the E63 S, in reality it's not and it's indisputable.
07-16-2016, 07:10 PM
#75
Member
