Magazine test: M5, RS6 Plus, CTS-V, C55, S60R

SUPRA · 9th January 2005, 19:02

"Is the BMW M5 the world's finest supersedan?"

I can translate the question the Dutch magazine was asking, but not the reply. Anyway, hbelow's the data so go figure yourself.

Acceleration was done from 10 km/h due to a wet track, rolling start. The track times are on dry surface as far as I can understand.
The Volvo S60R is sloooow...

and the Caddy is a real sleeper

- dangerously quick!

tifosi · 9th January 2005, 19:15

M5 got beaten by RS6+ in most categories...

deedee545i · 9th January 2005, 19:32

What a surprise!!! I didn't quite expect to see such result!!

Deckard · 9th January 2005, 19:35

M5 is the fastest on the track

MortenDK · 9th January 2005, 19:56

The acceleration results arent suprising, the RS6+ is a 4wd so it has WAY more grip on wet (and dry). If they went for 200 or something, im sure the M5 would win.

tifosi · 9th January 2005, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortenDK

The acceleration results arent suprising, the RS6+ is a 4wd so it has WAY more grip on wet (and dry). If they went for 200 or something, im sure the M5 would win.

yes, but the advantage of AWD is mostly launching from start, which isn't how the test was done. i'd suspect the reason for RS6+ fast acceleration time is mostly due to its torque.

nevertheless, Deckard is right, M5 should be the fastest track car among the competiton.

greg_h · 9th January 2005, 21:00

Something seems wrong with these numbers. Is it because the track was wet? I have driven the CTS-V several times and have raced it with my E39 M5, I can't imagine it being faster than the new M5 even under the wet conditions stated in the test.

Kayani_1 · 9th January 2005, 21:24

I agree with you. A recent Car and driver review as well as Motortrend review showed M3 with only 333hp beating CTS-V in accelertion runs as well as handling. The M3 was also better on the track. These tests were conducted side by side on the same day under identical conditions.

There is no way 500hp M5 would be slower then 333hp M3. After 0-60mph the M5 would truely put a distance between it and the M3

. So I dont fully buy the accelertion figures for M5 they are showing.

But either way seems like they picked M5 and it is the best over all sport sedan. Even when you bring the best of the best to match up with it. It will be faster on track without a doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg_h

Something seems wrong with these numbers. Is it because the track was wet? I have driven the CTS-V several times and have raced it with my E39 M5, I can't imagine it being faster than the new M5 even under the wet conditions stated in the test.

kees · 9th January 2005, 21:25

The acceleration times seem totally wrong...the 10-160 times is 12.2 seconds, which is what BMW quote for the 0-200 time. From what I can determine, the test was done on a wet racetrack which due to rubber deposits is always going to be slippier than a regular road in the wet. Also, it's probably safe to assume that testers left DSC on, which will kill acceleration as well.

Either way, there are 2 conclusions we can take from this test:
* The RS6 is great at accelerating in the wet (no surprise there)
* The CTS-V is great at accelerating in the wet (interesting - most likely because it had relatively low power and managed to get it all down on the ground)
* The Autovisie testers weren't very scientific about this test (note there is no 10-160 time for the Citroen because they ran out of space) - although their presentation of the results attempts to make it look as if they were

absent · 9th January 2005, 21:54

Nothing against the Dutch but I'd rather wait for a real test ,done by some Brit magazine.