[sniffi22]

Car & Driver tested them at the same day, same everything, when compared M5 with E63S CTS-V and Panamera Turbo ... M5 was still faster than them . So the problem should be something else ... :/

[Quickburn7]

Owner of both cars here so just a theory. Could BMW be sending out ringers to the mags with higher boost for testing? Both cars are stupid fast and the E63 is making way more power than advertised. So it’s still impressive from the M5 but just seems weird that some magazines have such a different outcome.

The braking test was a shocker to me. The E63 is known for not braking well at all but it seems it did the same as the M5 which was tested to have much better stopping distances.

[TheRealOrosie]

Originally Posted by Quickburn7

Owner of both cars here so just a theory. Could BMW be sending out ringers to the mags with higher boost for testing? Both cars are stupid fast and the E63 is making way more power than advertised. So it’s still impressive from the M5 but just seems weird that some magazines have such a different outcome

Cars this close performance wise will go back an forth...you can bank on it.

More reviews and tests over the next year will tell the truth. And lets not forget this is really not apples to apples...as the the "S" should be compared against the "Comp pkg"...if you really want to be fair.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by CarlosM4

No need for such butthurt for the M5 F90's loss. It is expected. First things first. The M5 F90 11.4 1/4 mile is expected on that track. It is a dustier and less grippy surface than the optimal conditions of other tracks the car was tested. (Plus the day this was shot, it is clear it is a bit colder and not dry).

Secondly, a lot of American Magazines use 1 feet rollout (that can impact the calculation of the results).

These cars are equally quick. Accept that. The E63 S edged it by a ridiculous margin. It may have done here, it might not do the same in other tests. Who knows? Who cares that 1 car is 0.1s quicker in the 1/4 mile. These cars are about the overall experience and sensation of driving, not drag racing like retard.

It's not about being butthurt - it's about being logical. I'm not this car and one test is just one outcome. CD's was the opposite - although very close. It's going to be the consensus that will tell us the bigger picture.

As the video stated - it tested the M5 before and it quicker - what I was hoping would be included in the video were the trap speeds - they weren't. That would have really ended the discussion one way or the other.

So we have to go to the roll - which they for some odd reason kept the cars in comfort mode versus sport - it here the cars were almost dead even. Now this is where I would actually expect the MB to start pulling slightly as even the Car and Driver test showed the MB caught up - after being behind by one tenth the entire 1/4 to 150 MPH. Gearing and torque could be behind this - but either way - anyone who has done 1/2 mile racing knows - it's really difficult to catch someone once they have a jump.

So what does this all mean? At the very least - It was down to traction - and our presenters launch - which looked to hesitate after he took off.

In the end - the top of the line E63S - beat the "base" M5 in this comparison.

That said - Motortrends will be out soon. And before it does - I will go on record and state the M5 will be quicker - and at least as fast to the 1/4. I do believe the E63S is a better top end roll car (would have a higher 1/2 mile trap). CD showed overall gearing ratios is better for the F90 - despite the MB having 9 gears.

On the actual road course - this is also where I believe there will be less of a competition for the F90. That said - neither of these cars belong on a road course at 4300-4500+ lbs. They can of course do it - and even do it have decently well - but it is a beating on the cars.

[Phatcat]

Originally Posted by sniffi22

Car & Driver tested them at the same day, same everything, when compared M5 with E63S CTS-V and Panamera Turbo ... M5 was still faster than them . So the problem should be something else ... :/

Well if this test came first and then the CD test I suppose AMG owners will say something was wrong with CD's test?

Both cars are close and at any given day one could beat the other.

[Bönz]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

Well if this test came first and then the CD test I suppose AMG owners will say something was wrong with CD's test?

Both cars are close and at any given day one could beat the other.

^^^This^^^

[MTHX]

like the color of the m5 ... donington grey ?

On the start ... the M5 is bouncing ... like something wrong with the grip / suspension settings. don't know.

[elitex]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

Well if this test came first and then the CD test I suppose AMG owners will say something was wrong with CD's test?

Both cars are close and at any given day one could beat the other.

so true.

[jayb289]

what i really want to see is the amg gtr vs m8

[sniffi22]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

Well if this test came first and then the CD test I suppose AMG owners will say something was wrong with CD's test?

Both cars are close and at any given day one could beat the other.

Nope . CD test just proved its earlier test that it did to the F90 . Road and Track got same results too . If u compare MotorTrend tests of E63s and M5, M5 was faster . This CarWow test is the only test where M5 lost . So that logic doesn't work

[Kaisuke971]

Originally Posted by Phatcat

Well if this test came first and then the CD test I suppose AMG owners will say something was wrong with CD's test?

Both cars are close and at any given day one could beat the other.

Except there is a key difference. In CD's test on a perfect surface with multiple runs, the E63 S did 11.0s. In this test with less runs and a less grippy surface, the E63 S did 11.2s. The times are consistent. In the M5's case, they are not: the M5 is significantly slower in Carwow's test. That's why people are skeptical

[onfireX5]

CarWow was consistent. Compared to MT and C&D , CarWow M5 was 1/2 second slower to 60mph and 1/2 second slower in the 1/4. Interesting data. The Launch loss equaled the 1/4 loss.

[onfireX5]

Mph would be nice to analyze. CarWow should not have left it out.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

Mph would be nice to analyze. CarWow should not have left it out.

This is key - because even in the loss we could have seen if the MPH was consistent. Don't forget Carwow tested this F90 at 127 MPH - consistent to RT's test and not outside the norm for a 129 MPH CD run (maybe better temps).

If the MPH was lower than the E63S - which had near idenatical MPH in Carwows test of the E63S and F90. Would have told us everything we needed to know.

Let's see MT's head to head - where I believe the F90 will be quicker and at least as fast in the 1/4.

[Kaisuke971]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

CarWow was consistent. Compared to MT and C&D , CarWow M5 was 1/2 second slower to 60mph and 1/2 second slower in the 1/4. Interesting data. The Launch loss equaled the 1/4 loss.

The car is consistently slower in carwow's test, but the margin between carwow's test (on their bad surface) and the others is bigger for the M5 than for basically all the other cars they've tested, including the E63 S it's up against. Maybe coherent was a better word idk ? What I mean is that there is a significative difference in terms of data, which means that it can't only be their surface/or measurement, there is more to it.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by Kaisuke971

The car is consistently slower in carlow's test, but the margin between carwow's test (on their bad surface) and the others is bigger for the M5 than for basically all the other cars they've tested, including the E63 S it's up against. Maybe coherent was a better word idk ? What I mean is that there is a significative difference in terms of data, which means that it can't only be their surface/or measurement, there is more to it.

Agreed.

[onfireX5]

All the numerical data you get from MT, RT and C&D makes it an actual test. CarWow is entertainment.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

All the numerical data you get from MT, RT and C&D makes it an actual test. CarWow is entertainment.

^This.

[MacOSR]

For the second run the cars should have switched “lanes.” I was shocked they didn’t.

[onfireX5]

And drivers...lol....

[CarlosM4]

Another thing people are forgetting, since it is meant to be 100% fair. The numbers you guys are comparing are E63 S numbers with panoramic sunroof to CF roof M5. That adds an extra 100kg weight difference. The fair comparison should be between a CF roof M5 with a steel roof E63 S (if you are looking for the ultimate performance), or a Panoramic Roof M5 to a Panoramic Roof E63 S. I personally find it retarded to opt for the CF roof, when the panoramic roof is so damn nice (especially one like the E63's).

[hemi to e90]

Originally Posted by MacOSR

For the second run the cars should have switched “lanes.” I was shocked they didn’t.

its the same surface? its not like the track was prepped.

remember this is the M5, there is a competition package around the corner, I'm sure it'll put the benz back in the place it belongs.