AMS Article E28 B7/2 turbo vs E28 M5 available for download

raymondw · 10th May 2003, 17:45

Recently, I scanned two Auto Motor & Sport articles about the E28 M5. One article is a comparison between the E28 M5 and E28 B7/2 turbo. The other is just an artice about the E28 M5.

These articlesare now available for download at the E34 M5 FAQ's:

http://bmwe34m5.com/faqs/?<br /> th...nt_id_select=5

This comparison between two of the rarest and most desirable E28's, the BMW Alpina E28 B7/2 turbo and the E28 M5 was published by Auto Motor & Sport in 1987, just a few months before the E28 production stopped

==============================

http://bmwe34m5.com/faqs/?theme=1&le...nt_id_select=5

This article was published by Auto Motor & Sport in 1985, only a few months after the introduction of the E28 M5.

Gustav · 10th May 2003, 18:11

Thanks very nice.

I was VERY impressed with the 0-200 km/h figures on both cars. I never thought the M5 E28 would under 20 s

And the Alpina number is equally impressive

I knew it was fast, but 16,1 is almost unbeleivable fast in 1987

and beats every standard BMW to date icl. the M3 CSL

Also a 110 liter tank is very good, reminds me about my B6 3,5 that had the extra tank too

johann · 10th May 2003, 18:26

0-200 times are indeed suspiciously good.

Is the E28 M5 realle faster than the E34 M5?
And 16 s to 200 for the B7 is unbelievably fast!

Mr Janne · 10th May 2003, 18:40

I have always thought that the 0-200 km/h times in the B7 vs M5-test are wrong. The M5 for example has the same times up to 160 km/h as it has in the first AMS test and then suddenly it becames silly fast between 160 km/h and 200 km/h. So my conclusion are that all the times are right except the 0-200 times.

Gustav · 10th May 2003, 18:42

Yes for sute the 0-200 km/h time for the M5 can't be true. But the B7 Turbo maybe if the boost was raised

Mr Janne · 10th May 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Gustav
Yes for sute the 0-200 km/h time for the M5 can't be true. But the B7 Turbo maybe if the boost was raised

No, it can´t be true. It accelerates to 160 km/h in 12,8 seconds which is very fast and seem reasonable but that it just would take it 3,3 seconds more to reach 200 km/h when the standing kilometer time is almost equal to the M5´s isn´t possible, I think.

kees · 10th May 2003, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Janne
No, it can´t be true. It accelerates to 160 km/h in 12,8 seconds which is very fast and seem reasonable but that it just would take it 3,3 seconds more to reach 200 km/h when the standing kilometer time is almost equal to the M5´s isn´t possible, I think.

It is possible if the driver took a wrong turn...off a cliff...

Very nice articles Raymond. Thanks for posting!!

raymondw · 10th May 2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally posted by johann
0-200 times are indeed suspiciously good.

Is the E28 M5 realle faster than the E34 M5?
And 16 s to 200 for the B7 is unbelievably fast!

Hehe, I was also amazed by the 0-200km/h time, but I quickly realized that this is an error. Compare the 1987 figure for the 0-200km/h with the 0-180km/h figure in the 1985 article. They are identical

Therefore, the 0-200km/h in the 1987 article should read 0-180km/h. Nevertheless, these figures are quitte impressive for cars that date back to 1984.

The E28 M5 definitally feels faster then the E34 M5 3.6, but in reality it isn't. The margin isn't much though.

Erik · 16th May 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by raymond woertman

Therefore, the 0-200km/h in the 1987 article should read 0-180km/h. Nevertheless, these figures are quitte impressive for cars that date back to 1984.

You are right Raymond, he times are for the 0-180 kph jump.

A small error by Sport Auto.

Erik