I've also heard that BMW aren't releasing any true performance figures and that the M5 will astound everyone - let's hope it's true

 

Yeah, you are probably right. But logically thinking I think that this performance can't be used on normal roads, especially catch split seconds difference between other rivals . My M3 is too fast for roads in my country where we have several autobahns. :noSMG:

 

That would be awesome. But so far I am dissappointed with the SMGII but only when starting. The launch control simply doesnt work In Germany we tried the M3 CSL with launch control with the different revs not to spin the tyres but we got beaten by manual (M3 3,2 E36) cars becasue of bad starts...

So hopefully they will work more on the launch control.

 

That data cannot be confirmed.. all you have to do is think logically about the situation..

With "only" 252 kW, tested times=

M3 manual 0-100 Kph=4.7 secs
M3 SMG 0-100 Kph=4.8 secs
M3 CSL 0-100 Kph=4.65 secs

The M5 is only slightly heavier than the M3, with an additional 135 kW, a 378 kW MONSTER of an engine, with a new faster shifting 7spd SMG 'box, shorter gear ratios, and that magnificent M differential.. no car manufacturer puts power on the road like a BMW, especially an M car.. The E55 is heavier than the new M5, with 23 kW less power, crappy auto 5spd 'box and NO, repeat NO M differential.. and electronic gadgetry that cannot put the power on the road..
And YET.. is can do a 4.7 0-100 Kph

SO this is why I say think LOGICALLY about it.. as I'v said im my previous thread.., BMW ARE playing games with the public.. the new M5 will run way faster than the current times floating around.. Its just marketing.. they are going to give merc and audi and some sports marques a whack from behind..the facts are there for all to see.. its LOGICAL!! There is NO WAY the E60 M5 with all that power can run the same time as the M3.. NO WAY!! Just wait and see..

I totally agree!

En example with the new Audi:

I mean this is what Audi is saying about their "new" parade: Audi RS6 plus Acceleration 0-62 mph s: 4.6

The road performance is unequalled by any other model in the field of competitors. A mere 4.6 seconds elapse for the standard discipline of sprinting from 0 to 100 km/h. The Audi RS6 plus hits 200 km/h in just 17.3 seconds.

Nevertheless in BMW's press release it says that the new M5 will be the fastest in its class. Whatever numbers are given out to the public. I believe in that sentence!:flag:

 

That data cannot be confirmed.. all you have to do is think logically about the situation..

With "only" 252 kW, tested times=

M3 manual 0-100 Kph=4.7 secs
M3 SMG 0-100 Kph=4.8 secs
M3 CSL 0-100 Kph=4.65 secs

The M5 is only slightly heavier than the M3, with an additional 135 kW, a 378 kW MONSTER of an engine, with a new faster shifting 7spd SMG 'box, shorter gear ratios, and that magnificent M differential.. no car manufacturer puts power on the road like a BMW, especially an M car.. The E55 is heavier than the new M5, with 23 kW less power, crappy auto 5spd 'box and NO, repeat NO M differential.. and electronic gadgetry that cannot put the power on the road..
And YET.. is can do a 4.7 0-100 Kph

SO this is why I say think LOGICALLY about it.. as I'v said im my previous thread.., BMW ARE playing games with the public.. the new M5 will run way faster than the current times floating around.. Its just marketing.. they are going to give merc and audi and some sports marques a whack from behind..the facts are there for all to see.. its LOGICAL!! There is NO WAY the E60 M5 with all that power can run the same time as the M3.. NO WAY!! Just wait and see..

Good, good, good....at least it's going to be faster then E55 by 0.2 sec to 200km...14.4 against 14.6...

 

That data cannot be confirmed.. all you have to do is think logically about the situation..

With "only" 252 kW, tested times=

M3 manual 0-100 Kph=4.7 secs
M3 SMG 0-100 Kph=4.8 secs
M3 CSL 0-100 Kph=4.65 secs

Acceleration time is dependent on torque/weight - not horsepower - of a given engine. Also, we're getting to the point where traction of current tire technology is being reached and therefore the greatest limiting factor in acceleration.

 

I hope you're right, but don't forget the antipollution omologation features. They make engines feel their effects just from idle speed, getting the accelerations worse.

I have no doubts in thinking the new M5 has the best engine in its class, also BMW has the advantage of a proper and updated engineering for the power unit. One of the things I've ever appreciated of BMW is the respect in fitting the engines. See what Mercedes-Benz and VW-Audi do: the 5.5 V8 Kompressor and the 6.0 W12 are fitted in so many different versions in so many models... This way, who buys those cars doesn't feel the sense of exclusive powertrain that only BMW (and few others) can give to its M Power fans.
Probably, this is the real big difference between BMW owners and the rest of world drivers.

Let's wait for the first rough testdrives! :noSMG:

 

Exactly... the E55 IS HEAVIER than the M5.. no matter how much more torque that merc POS has, it doesnt help if you cant put it on the road, the M5 outpowers the E55 and that's what counts.. including ALL of its rivals!!

Tyre technology is improving almost on a daily basis.. so that is DEFINATLEY not the limiting factor.. I mean look at tyres like the Pirelli Corsas.. I've had the privelege in the last month of driving both the Challenge Stradale and the GT3 RS, and let me tell you tyre technology is DEFINATLEY evolving.. They are both fitted with the Corsas and they grip like nothing on this earth.. And they are only going to get better..
Put more simpply..the M5 is going to eat the E55 and all the other AMG's for breakfast, lunch and supper..!! kinggf

Acceleration time is dependent on torque/weight - not horsepower - of a given engine. Also, we're getting to the point where traction of current tire technology is being reached and therefore the greatest limiting factor in acceleration.

 

That data cannot be confirmed.. all you have to do is think logically about the situation..

With "only" 252 kW, tested times=

M3 manual 0-100 Kph=4.7 secs
M3 SMG 0-100 Kph=4.8 secs
M3 CSL 0-100 Kph=4.65 secs

I have no idea where you got those numbers but they are completely wrong. Official 0-100 km/h time for the E46 M3 is 5.2 s and 4.9 s for the M3 CSL. Maybe your times are correct for 0-60 mph but they're definitely not correct for 0-100 km/h.

E46 M3 weighs 1570 kg (3460 lbs), M3 CSL weighs 1385 kg (3050 lbs) and the new M5 will weigh approx 1755 kg (3870 lbs). The M5 is considerably heavier than CSL so the extra weight and power of the M5 seem to level eachother out making the 4.7 s a realistic number.

 

That data cannot be confirmed.. all you have to do is think logically about the situation..

With "only" 252 kW, tested times=

M3 manual 0-100 Kph=4.7 secs
M3 SMG 0-100 Kph=4.8 secs
M3 CSL 0-100 Kph=4.65 secs

The M5 is only slightly heavier than the M3, with an additional 135 kW, a 378 kW MONSTER of an engine, with a new faster shifting 7spd SMG 'box, shorter gear ratios, and that magnificent M differential.. no car manufacturer puts power on the road like a BMW, especially an M car.. The E55 is heavier than the new M5, with 23 kW less power, crappy auto 5spd 'box and NO, repeat NO M differential.. and electronic gadgetry that cannot put the power on the road..
And YET.. is can do a 4.7 0-100 Kph

SO this is why I say think LOGICALLY about it.. as I'v said im my previous thread.., BMW ARE playing games with the public.. the new M5 will run way faster than the current times floating around.. Its just marketing.. they are going to give merc and audi and some sports marques a whack from behind..the facts are there for all to see.. its LOGICAL!! There is NO WAY the E60 M5 with all that power can run the same time as the M3.. NO WAY!! Just wait and see..

I'm no engineer but 0-60(mph) or 0-100 (kph) times are affected greatly by the gear and rear end ratios used aren't they? A car with more torque/ horsepower than another can have slower acceleration times because of differences in gearing and/or rear end ratios. Don't we have to wait for those before trying to make comparisons of acceleration times?
ChuckG
"03 M5 Carbon Black

 

Acceleration time is dependent on torque/weight - not horsepower - of a given engine. Also, we're getting to the point where traction of current tire technology is being reached and therefore the greatest limiting factor in acceleration.

Someone need to go back to class because this is just plain wrong. Do a search here and you will read a number of posts on the subject.

By your logic a 530d should be faster than the old M5. Wrong now isn't it...

 

Sorry Guys,

I think the data isn't true, too, BUT:

It is confirmed.

With a declared Nurburgring Lap Time of 7:55, the acceleration from 0-100 km/h has to be at least 4,3 sec.

I bet the Geneva data is the true.

One possible reason: They heard MB will bring the CLS55. Now they are playing cat'n'mouse!

 

I think I have found another proof for the playings, BMW do on us:
You remember the Flyer?

In such flyers, it's normal that the that the exact times are described. We just see <15 secs, <5 secs...

Of course, they know the true times, they just don't want to tell them (L.O...)

 

Sorry Guys,

I think the data isn't true, too, BUT:

It is confirmed.

With a declared Nurburgring Lap Time of 7:55, the acceleration from 0-100 km/h has to be at least 4,3 sec.

I bet the Geneva data is the true.

One possible reason: They heard MB will bring the CLS55. Now they are playing cat'n'mouse!

The 0-100km/h and nurburgring times are almost totally unrelated, since you don't start from a stop on the ring and you don't use 1st gear either!!

Someone need to go back to class because this is just plain wrong. Do a search here and you will read a number of posts on the subject.

By your logic a 530d should be faster than the old M5. Wrong now isn't it...

Its not completely wrong but a bit misleading. Everyone should remember to consider the whole package (engine torque & power curves,gearbox & diff ratios, tyre sizes, tyres quality, mass, inertia, efficiencies etc etc etc)when analysing performance potential. A good "approximation" is Power/Weight though.

If the diesel would rev 8250rpm it would be a chance....lol

 

Alpina B7 - 500 hp, 700 Nm, 2056 kg, 0-100 km/h 4.6 s, 0-200 km/h 14.6 s.

This car has 4.1 kg/hp, M5 has 3.5!

I think M5 performance will be even better than 4.7 and 14.4.

 

Alpina B7 - 500 hp, 700 Nm, 2056 kg, 0-100 km/h 4.6 s, 0-200 km/h 14.6 s.

This car has 4.1 kg/hp, M5 has 3.5!

I think M5 performance will be even better than 4.7 and 14.4.

Thats one heavy car almost an AMG!!! What engine is used in that car is it NA? On another look of the numbers, hmm i doubt it. It probably doesn't have 7 speeds either.
Numbers are influenced greatly by road and ambient conditions which throws another spanner in the works.

Either way the M5 will be quick and for the most part unusable unless your clever and avoid the usual risks of coppers spoiling the fun.

 

Alpina B7 - 500 hp, 700 Nm, 2056 kg, 0-100 km/h 4.6 s, 0-200 km/h 14.6 s.

This car has 4.1 kg/hp, M5 has 3.5!

I think M5 performance will be even better than 4.7 and 14.4.

Autocar tested the B7 and came up with 0 - 62mph 5.5 secs which in my view is more sensible for a car weighing in at 2056Kgs with 500bhp

Alpina themselves state 0 - 60 4.8 secs which equates to 0 - 62 in 4.96 secs and standing Kilometre at 23 secs

http://www.alpina-automobile.de/downloads/testberichte/en1091783395autocar_B7_0804.pdf

 

just reading the opening statement- you are missing one important parameter. torque. from 0-60 tq is what really moves your car. and the m5 has far less than the e55. once speeds go over 5000 rpms and stay there- everything else equal, the higher hp car has the advantage.

alex
few cars

 

Someone need to go back to class because this is just plain wrong. Do a search here and you will read a number of posts on the subject.

By your logic a 530d should be faster than the old M5. Wrong now isn't it...

Well, it's not completely wrong. From a standing start, the torque the engine makes along with weight and mechanical advantage (gearing) will have the most significant effect on elapsed time/distance. You will frequently see diesel cars with very low 0 - 50 kph times. However, once rolling, the parameters affecting accleration are much more complex, i.e., force needed to overcome wind-resistance and continuing to ACCELERATE mass are not linear equations. On-the-road acceleration is much more dependent upon the peak engine output, i.e., HP. Wow, I must have had very little sleep on-call last night.......... hmmm :cheers:

 

The force needed to accelerate a car is my right foot! :1:

 

ACTUALLY.. I dont know where YOU get your info from.. I get my test stats and comparisons from reputable magazines and net sites.. TOPGEAR magazine, DRIVE magazine, the european version of CAR magazine.. and they all say the same things.. the info that I quoted for the M3 and CSL..

Weight will not be an issue for the M5.. look at how heavy the (996) 911 Turbo is.. expect a SOLID 4.5 sec for the new M5,maybe even 4.45 sces..
As I said.. wait and see.. in cars of this much kW, torque doesnt really matter for a standing start.. sure, yes in lower powered cars it does, but NOT when you have 378kW under your foot!

I have no idea where you got those numbers but they are completely wrong. Official 0-100 km/h time for the E46 M3 is 5.2 s and 4.9 s for the M3 CSL. Maybe your times are correct for 0-60 mph but they're definitely not correct for 0-100 km/h.

E46 M3 weighs 1570 kg (3460 lbs), M3 CSL weighs 1385 kg (3050 lbs) and the new M5 will weigh approx 1755 kg (3870 lbs). The M5 is considerably heavier than CSL so the extra weight and power of the M5 seem to level eachother out making the 4.7 s a realistic number.

 

Whats important is power (and torque) as a function of vehicle speed. If you have more power at the same road speed then you have more torque aswell. One can go round and round in circles saying its torque not power thats important and vice versa. They are related as everyone knows so saying one is more important can't be true in a general case.

The M5 has less power than E55 below 5000rpm or so but thats Ok since traction is the biggest problem at speeds below 60MPH so the E55 shouldn't get much advantage there if any due to launch control and similar tyre quality.

 

I have no idea where you got those numbers but they are completely wrong. Official 0-100 km/h time for the E46 M3 is 5.2 s and 4.9 s for the M3 CSL. Maybe your times are correct for 0-60 mph but they're definitely not correct for 0-100 km/h.

E46 M3 weighs 1570 kg (3460 lbs), M3 CSL weighs 1385 kg (3050 lbs) and the new M5 will weigh approx 1755 kg (3870 lbs). The M5 is considerably heavier than CSL so the extra weight and power of the M5 seem to level eachother out making the 4.7 s a realistic number.

 

ACTUALLY.. I dont know where YOU get your info from.. I get my test stats and comparisons from reputable magazines and net sites.. TOPGEAR magazine, DRIVE magazine, the european version of CAR magazine.. and they all say the same things.. the info that I quoted for the M3 and CSL..

Weight will not be an issue for the M5.. look at how heavy the (996) 911 Turbo is.. expect a SOLID 4.5 sec for the new M5,maybe even 4.45 sces..
As I said.. wait and see.. in cars of this much kW, torque doesnt really matter for a standing start.. sure, yes in lower powered cars it does, but NOT when you have 378kW under your foot!

I get my numbers from official BMW specs. I would really like to see a test where a magazine got your numbers for 0-100 km/h because every single test I've seen so far was right there with the official specs. I think you are confusing 0-60 mph and 0-100 km/h which are two completely different things.

You really should check your numbers because they are way off for 0-100 km/h but very likely 0-60 mph times. All the magazines you listed measure 0-60 mph times.

 

Given the copious amount of power in the M5, I expect standing-start acceleration to be mostly a function of how good they make the launch control in the SMG. The launch control of the M3 (and CSL) SMG yields times a few tenths of a second greater than that achieved with a pure manual transmission. If they get it right, it theoretically can get times even slightly better than a stick driven by an expert.

Tom