[feeblebob]

BMW E39 M5 (1998)
0-30mph: 2.1
0-40mph: 3.0
0-50mph: 3.9
0-60mph: 4.9
0-70mph: 6.4
0-80mph: 7.8
0-90mph: 9.5
0-100mph: 11.5
0-110mph: 13.7
0-120mph: 16.3
0-130mph: 19.9
0-140mph: 23.8
0-150mph: 30.0
0-160mph: 44.6
Calculated 0-400m (s): 13.40
Calculated 0-400m (mph): 108.6
Calculated 0-1000m (s): 24.04
Calculated 0-1000m (mph): 140.4

Calculated 60ft (18.3m) (s): 2.37
Calculated 60ft (18.3m) (mph): 33.0
Calculated 330ft (100.6m) (s): 5.92
Calculated 330ft (100.6m) (mph): 66.8
Calculated 1/8 Mile (201.1) (s): 8.85
Calculated 1/8 Mile (201.1) (mph): 86.2
Calculated 1000ft (301.7m) (s): 11.28
Calculated 1000ft (301.7m) (mph): 98.9
Calculated 1/4 Mile (402.3m) (s): 13.45
Calculated 1/4 Mile (402.3m) (mph): 108.9
Calculated Mile (1609.2m) (s): 33.22
Calculated Mile (1609.2m) (mph): 152.2

Actual 0-400m (s): 13.40
Actual 0-400m (mph): 109.00

Not happy with the seemingly slow 0-150mph and 0-160mph, I pulled together some data and ran it through Calculator 2 to get some 'real' data according to the laws of physics for the following;

E39 M5
0-30mph: 2.22
0-40mph: 2.98
0-50mph: 4.11
0-60mph: 5.04
0-70mph: 6.48
0-80mph: 7.87
0-90mph: 9.42
0-100mph: 11.21
0-110mph: 13.69
0-120mph: 16.2
0-130mph: 19.16
0-140mph: 23.19
0-150mph: 27.93
0-160mph: 34.34
0-170mph: 45.35
0-180mph: 73.48

60ft Time: 2.42
60ft Terminal: 32.5
330ft Time: 5.99
330ft Terminal: 67.2
1/8 Mile Time: 8.93
1/8 Mile Terminal: 87
1000ft Time: 11.34
1000ft Terminal: 100.7
1/4 Mile Time: 13.47
1/4 Mile Terminal: 109.1
0-400m Time: 13.42
0-400m Terminal: 108.9
1km Time: 23.94
1km Terminal: 141.8
3/4 Mile Time: 27.13
3/4 Mile Terminal: 148.5
1 Mile Time: 32.98
1 Mile Terminal: 158.2
2 Mile Time: 54.37
2 Mile Terminal: 174.9
Top Speed (mph): 183

These cars are monsters even in the company of some very expensive machinery

Just grabbed this off the old forum, Neal started a thread and various people have been discussing the E39 M5, unfortunately some bad info floating around, but hey, who cares? :dunno:

Anyway, one of the guys on there runs some facts and figures through some calculation for various cars, and came up with this for the E39 M5.

Whaddya think?

 

[feeblebob]

And then this for the E60, some kid on there was on about his boss getting one. Wow. Tell us when YOU have one. Rant over, E60 M5 stats form the same calculation.

Oh yes. This thing makes the old E39 M5 look slow... 200mph delimted and more pace than a Ferrari F430 according to Autocar. Shame they're auto only...

BMW E60 M5 (2005)
0-30mph: 2.2
0-40mph: 2.9
0-50mph: 3.9
0-60mph: 4.6
0-70mph: 5.8
0-80mph: 6.9
0-90mph: 8.1
0-100mph: 9.8
0-110mph: 11.5
0-120mph: 13.3
0-130mph: 15.6
0-140mph: 18.1
0-150mph: 21.0
Calculated 0-400m (s): 12.82
Calculated 0-400m (mph): 117.3
Calculated 0-1000m (s): 22.56
Calculated 0-1000m (mph): 153.1

Calculated 60ft (18.3m) (s): 2.43
Calculated 60ft (18.3m) (mph): 33.2
Calculated 330ft (100.6m) (s): 5.88
Calculated 330ft (100.6m) (mph): 70.7
Calculated 1/8 Mile (201.1) (s): 8.59
Calculated 1/8 Mile (201.1) (mph): 92.9
Calculated 1000ft (301.7m) (s): 10.85
Calculated 1000ft (301.7m) (mph): 106.2
Calculated 1/4 Mile (402.3m) (s): 12.86
Calculated 1/4 Mile (402.3m) (mph): 117.6

Actual 0-400m (s): 12.80
Actual 0-400m (mph): 119.00
Actual 0-1000m (s): 22.60
Actual 0-1000m (mph): 154.00

Ignore the auto comment, see what I mean about strange ideas and bad information?...

 

[feeblebob]

Half a second over the standing quarter would not make the losing car look 'slow'...

I'm in no doubt the E60 is quicker, but I didn't understand the bashing the E39 took, it's not a huge difference, we're talking 400 vs. 507bhp, but in real world conditions. Both are big numbers.

Just my two-penneth.

 

[RICKROSS]

modern tires make a big difference to 0-60 figures nowadays, and severe clutch abuse, that is modern 'launch' control, may help a fraction too.
E60 M5 huge top end is amazing but E39 M5 real world, town, traffic and winding roads ability is still good after 13 years.

 

[feeblebob]

Absolutely, that's not in question

Was just wondering what anyone thought of the figures, realistic? Way over/under?

Need to compare the 60ft time to some of the drag strip guys who've been running recently.

 

[Mfreakin5]

Well if it's any consolation, my 1st ever run with the M5 at the 1/4 mile was almost exactly what you posted, 13.4 @ 107 mph so that should be a good benchmark because I suck behind the wheel at the dragstrip.

 

[VitaliyM5]

My 2 cents...

E39 rules.



LOL


The end.

 

[Trappygit]

Absolutely, that's not in question

Was just wondering what anyone thought of the figures, realistic? Way over/under?

Need to compare the 60ft time to some of the drag strip guys who've been running recently.

They look pretty accurate to me :M5thumbs:

They aren't comparable with drag strip times though because the first set of E39 data is actual road test data recorded on a road surface (not a grippy drag strip) and the second set is based on my calculator with a road surface and road tyres. If I increase the grip coeficient of the launch surface then the times will obviously improve.

 

[CSBM5]

Half a second over the standing quarter would not make the losing car look 'slow'...

It depends on the trap speeds as to whether a 1/2 second slower car "looked slow". In the cases of the two M5s, one trapping about 108mph and the other trapping about 115mph, if we assume the average here of 111.5mph, then that 1/2 second is about 163 feet at that speed which is about 10 E39-car-lengths. Whether a 10 car-length lead at the finish makes the car behind "look slow" is of course up to the observer's opinion I suppose.

Regards,
Chuck

 

[Trappygit]

It depends on the trap speeds as to whether a 1/2 second slower car "looked slow". In the cases of the two M5s, one trapping about 108mph and the other trapping about 115mph, if we assume the average here of 111.5mph, then that 1/2 second is about 163 feet at that speed which is about 10 E39-car-lengths. Whether a 10 car-length lead at the finish makes the car behind "look slow" is of course up to the observer's opinion I suppose.

Regards,
Chuck

Using my calculator (which essentially works out distance over time from acceleration data), I can tell you that the E60 would be 29.1 metres in front of the E39 at the 1/4mile point (or have traveled 373.2metres). It would also be doing 106.7mph.

 

[StatusQuo]

How quick does the E60 seem compared to the E39 in real life-anyone driven one?

 

[CSBM5]

How quick does the E60 seem compared to the E39 in real life-anyone driven one?

Yeah, a fair amount in E60 but mainly at the track where you can let the S85 wail which it needs to do (ie s62 makes more torque (power) than the S85 until after 5500 rpms. Below 4k or so it feels sluggish and below 3k downright dog-ish compared to the gut hit the S62 provides.

When you keep the S85 on the boil, it's a rocket...sort of like a 2-stroke motocross bike.

 

[feeblebob]

Hee, hee, you learn something new everyday, I had no conception that the actual distances would be that different

 

[BMVVette]

E60 M5 stats form the same calculation.

Oh yes. This thing makes the old E39 M5 look slow... 200mph delimted and more pace than a Ferrari F430 according to Autocar. Shame they're auto only...

I thought e60 M5's came in standard six-speeds too...

 

[gsfent]

I thought e60 M5's came in standard six-speeds too...

In the U.S. only.

Some people would debate the other transmission as an "automatic". While it can shift for itself, it has no torque converter. It a sequential manual gearbox (SMG) where the clutch is computer controlled instead of left leg controlled... But I understand some people, if you can put the transmission in D, and it shifts when it decides, it is shifting "automatically".
Regards,
Jerry

 

[BMVVette]

In the U.S. only.

Some people would debate the other transmission as an "automatic". While it can shift for itself, it has no torque converter. It a sequential manual gearbox (SMG) where the clutch is computer controlled instead of left leg controlled... But I understand some people, if you can put the transmission in D, and it shifts when it decides, it is shifting "automatically".
Regards,
Jerry

That makes sense...that was in the back of my head, but I wasn't sure if everyone had a chance to get a standard e60. And yeah, any "auto" transmission that doesn't have a torque converter is ok by me...at least it would feel directly connected. That's one thing I hate about regular automatics...among other things. :biggrinbounce: Thanks!

Ryan

 

[feeblebob]

Hence my comment about the statement from the original copied and pasted text, 'shame they're only available in auto', it isn't strictly speaking an auto, but I think the reference is generally understood.

 

[M5 Russ]

So how do the e39 figures stack up when you start tuning then ? I expect a tuned e39 making around 440bhp to be on par with the e60 times or at least much much closer. It would be nice to be able to see.

 

[feeblebob]

Agreed, would be interesting for Trappy to crunch the numbers. Also (and I know this stuff doesn't happen in the blink of an eye...), the effect of different wheels and tyres, as in rolling circumference, or indeed the Dinan diff.

 

[Trappygit]

Hence my comment about the statement from the original copied and pasted text, 'shame they're only available in auto', it isn't strictly speaking an auto, but I think the reference is generally understood.

Apologies for my ignorance! :imnotworthy:

OK then, can you keep the car in any gear at any speed? I like a car I can ring through a gear from tickover to redline and it would seem a shame to not be able to do so with a V10! If so, then I like them again :M5thumbs:

As for gearing/ wheel circumference, I'm going to open a HUGE can of worms and say "Gearing makes no difference what-so-ever to straight line performance". What gearing can do, is optimize the range of the power band used when driving (i.e. for tight track work, or for high speed runs). Sure it might affect your 0-60, but it will reduce the performance elsewhere and balance out overall. It might also feel faster because you're snapping through gears faster, but it won't be going faster.