BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BMW M5 F90 (2018+) General Forums F90 M5 vs...    Car and Driver Compares F90 M5 Against AMG E63S, CTS-V, Panamera Turbo

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-16-2018, 06:33 PM   #1
BimmerGuyFL78
Lieutenant
BimmerGuyFL78's Avatar
567
Rep
471
Posts

Drives: 2023 BMW G30 540i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orlando, FL

iTrader: (0)

Car and Driver Compares F90 M5 Against AMG E63S, CTS-V, Panamera Turbo

BIMMERPOST
     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com
Full review/comparison @ https://www.caranddriver.com/compari...omparison-test

4th place: Porsche Panamera Turbo
3rd place: Cadillac CTS-V
2nd place: Mercedes-AMG E63 S 4Matic
1st place: BMW M5


Full review/comparison @ https://www.caranddriver.com/compari...omparison-test

Name:  01521243239.jpeg
Views: 16121
Size:  807.3 KB

Name:  01521243241.jpeg
Views: 16066
Size:  928.1 KB
__________________
2023 BMW G05 X5 xDrive40i
2023 BMW G30 540i
Appreciate 7
      03-16-2018, 06:40 PM   #2
esquire
Brigadier General
esquire's Avatar
United_States
478
Rep
3,044
Posts

Drives: 2011 Dakar Yellow M3, 2018 M5
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

iTrader: (0)

Good result. But I don't understand how they give the m5 and the e63s the same marks in the quarter mile , when the m5 has been measured with a faster quarter mile. Someone explain that to me.
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
Appreciate 6
duercos201.00
Brake_Late1936.50
Toome159.00
Jklad421.00
AndrewC198910903.50
      03-16-2018, 06:43 PM   #3
uniqueMR
Colonel
uniqueMR's Avatar
1879
Rep
2,923
Posts

Drives: ...
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

__________________
Currently: '24 Mercedes G63 | '24 Porsche GT3 RS | '24 Volkswagen GTI
Previous BMWs: 340i, 740i, 745Li, M3, M4
Previous Others: Audi, Ducati, Honda, Infiniti, Land Rover, Mercedes-Benz, MINI, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen
Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 06:47 PM   #4
DallasLife345M
Captain
United_States
595
Rep
824
Posts

Drives: Uber
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: None

iTrader: (0)

Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 06:51 PM   #5
MTHX
First Lieutenant
MTHX's Avatar
Canada
233
Rep
354
Posts

Drives: 335XI MPerformance edition
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Québec Province

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F90M5  [0.00]
93 octane?
Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 07:11 PM   #6
shahin
Lieutenant
Canada
169
Rep
403
Posts

Drives: 18 M5 FE,15 M6 GC, 12 M5,06 M5
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

The biggest joke is they gave more points to Cadilack over Porsche 😂😂😂
Not Bias at all
Appreciate 4
The_Werm212.00
Germanauto9665.50
AndrewC198910903.50
      03-16-2018, 08:00 PM   #7
DallasLife345M
Captain
United_States
595
Rep
824
Posts

Drives: Uber
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: None

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shahin View Post
The biggest joke is they gave more points to Cadilack over Porsche 😂😂😂
Not Bias at all
I test drove a new Panamera Turbo a few months ago. Super fast but so silky smooth that it felt kind of disconnected. Immediately afterwards I drove a 991.2 911 Turbo and I was completely in love. Just couldn’t swing almost 200k at the moment
Appreciate 2
      03-16-2018, 09:32 PM   #8
SpeedyDad
Second Lieutenant
SpeedyDad's Avatar
283
Rep
288
Posts

Drives: 2018 F90 M5
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles, Ca

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2003 E39 M5  [0.00]
2018 BMW M5  [0.00]
Interior styling a 10/10 for the AMG? I guess if you like tacked on iPads! I personally think the AMG interior looks out of balance. I don’t think a massive horizontal screen is beautiful automotive design. I’d give the M5 9/10 and the AMG 7/10, which would make the margin of victory even larger for the new king of the executive saloons.
Appreciate 7
      03-16-2018, 10:02 PM   #9
vtknight
Major
vtknight's Avatar
967
Rep
1,080
Posts

Drives: 2019 F90 M5 Competition
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Good result. But I don't understand how they give the m5 and the e63s the same marks in the quarter mile , when the m5 has been measured with a faster quarter mile. Someone explain that to me.
To your question; there is quick (ET) and fast (MPH). The tenth difference could simply be slightly superior traction, launch tune and/or gearing. What is most critical is the MPH (potential of the car). When you spin your MPH can actually increase versus decrease. So - IF the E63S were able to match the 10.9 1/4 ET that the M5 did - maybe with that extra traction it was missing - it would likely trap even lower (my guess is a MPH to 1.5 MPH or so). So - this demonstrates that there is a slightly larger difference between the cars than the ET shows. It also shows that if the M5 has more potential and could run an even lower ET. 129 MPH in the drags world is easily a midish 10. These cars aren't drag cars of course - so they are tuned to launch in a way that won't as likely break anything and with stock rubber.

That said, I will say that these cars are extremely close - all of the stats show about a tenth difference from 0-60, 0-100 with 0-150 times where the E63S finally equals things out (maybe it is gearing again or tune where it is slightly superior in the top end to be able to catch up).

All of this said - let's also be fair that it takes the highest end E63 (the S) to be close to even with the "entry" or "base" M5. Overall however - my guess is that the M5 - in the 1/4 mile at least - will be found to have at least a MPH to even 2 MPH advantage overall to the E63S on average.
Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 11:52 PM   #10
MTHX
First Lieutenant
MTHX's Avatar
Canada
233
Rep
354
Posts

Drives: 335XI MPerformance edition
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Québec Province

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 F90M5  [0.00]
Do you think that the ceramic brake (+/- 50 lbs) could represent the .01 / .02 difference? All test as been done with ceramic brake by review ..
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 12:32 AM   #11
Greer
Colonel
Greer's Avatar
1883
Rep
2,498
Posts

Drives: 2022 M5 Competition
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Wow, wait til the CP comes out.
Appreciate 2
      03-17-2018, 01:35 AM   #12
Phatcat
Lieutenant Colonel
750
Rep
1,857
Posts

Drives: BMW M5, X5M
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Asia

iTrader: (0)

I have asked this question before, where has all the HP gone in the CTS-V? It's got the most power and lightest weight, I mean sure it's probably harder to launch but even at top end it still gets murdered by others. You would think by 150mph it will catch up......

Maybe it's got massive downforce :
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 05:34 AM   #13
BimmerGuyFL78
Lieutenant
BimmerGuyFL78's Avatar
567
Rep
471
Posts

Drives: 2023 BMW G30 540i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orlando, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phatcat View Post
I have asked this question before, where has all the HP gone in the CTS-V? It's got the most power and lightest weight, I mean sure it's probably harder to launch but even at top end it still gets murdered by others. You would think by 150mph it will catch up......

Maybe it's got massive downforce :
It has to do with it being rear wheel drive. The better a car can put down all that power with proper traction the better it is capable of utilizing all the high horsepower and torque more effective to produce quicker acceleration times. This is why AWD makes the M5, E63 produce the numbers it did.
__________________
2023 BMW G05 X5 xDrive40i
2023 BMW G30 540i
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 06:32 AM   #14
Bönz
Captain
Bönz's Avatar
United_States
184
Rep
764
Posts

Drives: 2018 M5
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine535Msport View Post
It has to do with it being rear wheel drive. The better a car can put down all that power with proper traction the better it is capable of utilizing all the high horsepower and torque more effective to produce quicker acceleration times. This is why AWD makes the M5, E63 produce the numbers it did.
Very true. Also if history has taught us anything, the Germans under-report their horsepower. Plus, the turbo engines with variable cam phasing produce peak torque earlier and hold it flatter through the RPM range; whereas the supercharged GM engine's torque production peaks later and rolls off sooner. It's the area under the torque curve the moves the car.
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 06:56 AM   #15
Tonymiabmw
Colonel
Tonymiabmw's Avatar
552
Rep
2,633
Posts

Drives: Nardo F90 M5 on order
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: In Transit

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vtknight View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Good result. But I don't understand how they give the m5 and the e63s the same marks in the quarter mile , when the m5 has been measured with a faster quarter mile. Someone explain that to me.
To your question; there is quick (ET) and fast (MPH). The tenth difference could simply be slightly superior traction, launch tune and/or gearing. What is most critical is the MPH (potential of the car). When you spin your MPH can actually increase versus decrease. So - IF the E63S were able to match the 10.9 1/4 ET that the M5 did - maybe with that extra traction it was missing - it would likely trap even lower (my guess is a MPH to 1.5 MPH or so). So - this demonstrates that there is a slightly larger difference between the cars than the ET shows. It also shows that if the M5 has more potential and could run an even lower ET. 129 MPH in the drags world is easily a midish 10. These cars aren't drag cars of course - so they are tuned to launch in a way that won't as likely break anything and with stock rubber.

That said, I will say that these cars are extremely close - all of the stats show about a tenth difference from 0-60, 0-100 with 0-150 times where the E63S finally equals things out (maybe it is gearing again or tune where it is slightly superior in the top end to be able to catch up).

All of this said - let's also be fair that it takes the highest end E63 (the S) to be close to even with the "entry" or "base" M5. Overall however - my guess is that the M5 - in the 1/4 mile at least - will be found to have at least a MPH to even 2 MPH advantage overall to the E63S on average.
I read in another article one factor is the Mercedes having a 9 speed transmission. It has one extra gear to go thru.
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 07:25 AM   #16
Bönz
Captain
Bönz's Avatar
United_States
184
Rep
764
Posts

Drives: 2018 M5
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonymiabmw View Post
I read in another article one factor is the Mercedes having a 9 speed transmission. It has one extra gear to go thru.
While gearing certainly impacts acceleration, all these cars make 4 shifts through the 1/4 mile.
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 07:48 AM   #17
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
31
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 2016 GoDZilla
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Powerland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phatcat View Post
I have asked this question before, where has all the HP gone in the CTS-V? It's got the most power and lightest weight, I mean sure it's probably harder to launch but even at top end it still gets murdered by others. You would think by 150mph it will catch up......

Maybe it's got massive downforce :
The HP has all gone up in smoke lol
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 08:00 AM   #18
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
31
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 2016 GoDZilla
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Powerland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bönz View Post
Very true. Also if history has taught us anything, the Germans under-report their horsepower. Plus, the turbo engines with variable cam phasing produce peak torque earlier and hold it flatter through the RPM range; whereas the supercharged GM engine's torque production peaks later and rolls off sooner. It's the area under the torque curve the moves the car.
I doubt the boosted Cadi 6.2L is lacking torque under the curve as it is running ~2.0L more displacement than the others.

The F10 M5 did 150mph is 18.3s, it weighed more than this Cadillac and had considerably less power yet the Cadillac can muster only 20s to 150mph. The Cadillac lacks traction and the traction management system is poor, Same like the hellcats... old stubborn American garbage bringing a knife to a gunfight
Appreciate 3
      03-17-2018, 08:12 AM   #19
Phatcat
Lieutenant Colonel
750
Rep
1,857
Posts

Drives: BMW M5, X5M
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Asia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine535Msport View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phatcat View Post
I have asked this question before, where has all the HP gone in the CTS-V? It's got the most power and lightest weight, I mean sure it's probably harder to launch but even at top end it still gets murdered by others. You would think by 150mph it will catch up......

Maybe it's got massive downforce :
It has to do with it being rear wheel drive. The better a car can put down all that power with proper traction the better it is capable of utilizing all the high horsepower and torque more effective to produce quicker acceleration times. This is why AWD makes the M5, E63 produce the numbers it did.
I understand the two wheel drive problem that's why I said I'm not surprised it got beat off the line. My point was the Caddy still loses ground after 100mph when traction shouldn't be an issue. In fact the F10 M5 is almost 4 seconds faster to 300km than the Caddy (according the German test), which was why I said I have asked this question before, where are the horses?
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 08:28 AM   #20
gmd2003
Colonel
gmd2003's Avatar
352
Rep
2,176
Posts

Drives: 2014 CP M6 and 2006 VT 525 Z4M
Join Date: May 2012
Location: South Carolina

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bönz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine535Msport View Post
It has to do with it being rear wheel drive. The better a car can put down all that power with proper traction the better it is capable of utilizing all the high horsepower and torque more effective to produce quicker acceleration times. This is why AWD makes the M5, E63 produce the numbers it did.
Very true. Also if history has taught us anything, the Germans under-report their horsepower. Plus, the turbo engines with variable cam phasing produce peak torque earlier and hold it flatter through the RPM range; whereas the supercharged GM engine's torque production peaks later and rolls off sooner. It's the area under the torque curve the moves the car.
Actually no the 6 liter Lt-4 in the CTSV makes 450 lb feet of tq off idle lol . It makes more tq and hp everywhere vs the German motors . Thus the 30-50 time being the fastest from a roll and the 50-70 being equal to the M5. What you are seeing here is an advertisement as to why a car with 650 lb feet needs awd . The 1/4 mile differences are traction and traction control kicking in on the CTSV on the launch and killing power well into the run . The caddy has much taller gearing which hurts it over a 100 mph as well. It def has the best handling chassis though , too bad they stopped spending money on the interior after the chassis and the drive train lol .
Appreciate 2
RPiM52855.50
      03-17-2018, 08:45 AM   #21
Phatcat
Lieutenant Colonel
750
Rep
1,857
Posts

Drives: BMW M5, X5M
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Asia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmd2003 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bönz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine535Msport View Post
It has to do with it being rear wheel drive. The better a car can put down all that power with proper traction the better it is capable of utilizing all the high horsepower and torque more effective to produce quicker acceleration times. This is why AWD makes the M5, E63 produce the numbers it did.
Very true. Also if history has taught us anything, the Germans under-report their horsepower. Plus, the turbo engines with variable cam phasing produce peak torque earlier and hold it flatter through the RPM range; whereas the supercharged GM engine's torque production peaks later and rolls off sooner. It's the area under the torque curve the moves the car.
Actually no the 6 liter Lt-4 in the CTSV makes 450 lb feet of tq off idle lol . It makes more tq and hp everywhere vs the German motors . Thus the 30-50 time being the fastest from a roll and the 50-70 being equal to the M5. What you are seeing here is an advertisement as to why a car with 650 lb feet needs awd . The 1/4 mile differences are traction and traction control kicking in on the CTSV on the launch and killing power well into the run . The caddy has much taller gearing which hurts it over a 100 mph as well. It def has the best handling chassis though , too bad they stopped spending money on the interior after the chassis and the drive train lol .
Ok the tall gear makes sense that top acceleration is poor.
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 09:18 AM   #22
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
31
Rep
301
Posts

Drives: 2016 GoDZilla
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Powerland

iTrader: (0)

Actually r&t has the Ctsv hitting 150mph in 17.8s and a trap speed of 126mph. That’s more in line with its advertised power however for sure rwd and 30-profile tires are holding back acceleration numbers ....
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 PM.




m5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST