03-24-2018, 09:39 AM | #24 |
Captain
957
Rep 765
Posts |
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. |
03-24-2018, 09:46 AM | #25 | |
BMW Fan Boy
447
Rep 1,385
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
2
vtknight966.50 someMoreMplease36.00 |
03-24-2018, 09:51 AM | #26 | |
Major
967
Rep 1,080
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2018, 09:59 AM | #27 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
752
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
Both cars are close and at any given day one could beat the other. |
|
03-24-2018, 10:03 AM | #28 |
Captain
184
Rep 764
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2018, 10:21 AM | #29 |
First Lieutenant
233
Rep 354
Posts
Drives: 335XI MPerformance edition
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Québec Province
|
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.
__________________
-----------------------------------
E60 550 2007 - Grey // F30 2015 335XI MPerformance edition - Lacuna Seca Blue // F30 2015 335XI MPerformance edition - Grey black // F90 2018 M5 - Donington Grey |
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2018, 10:22 AM | #30 | ||
.
1233
Rep 1,919
Posts
Drives: 22 M8C Coupe, 23 X5MC, 23 R8
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta
|
Quote:
__________________
Previous
23 GT4, 21 X5M, 20 Evora GT, 20 C63S Coupe,19 X5 50i, 18 Giulia QV, 18 M5, 17 Evora 400, 18 LX570, 17 GT350,18 M4,17 R8 V10 ,17 M3 Comp,17 GT350,16 Escalade, 16 570S,16 911 GTS,15 M5, 15 LX570, 13 M5,13 Viper,14 Cayman S,13 M3,13 S4,10 RX8,12 A4,10 G37, 04 Mini Cooper S, 08 Scion TC, 06 Altima V6, 05 Altima |
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2018, 11:04 AM | #32 | ||
New Member
29
Rep 16
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
2
Kaisuke97122.50 vtknight966.50 |
03-24-2018, 11:08 AM | #33 | |
New Member
23
Rep 10
Posts |
Quote:
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 |
|
Appreciate
2
vtknight966.50 ThugzZ BunnY681.50 |
03-24-2018, 11:10 AM | #34 |
Brigadier General
3619
Rep 4,532
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2018, 11:26 AM | #36 | |
Major
967
Rep 1,080
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
1
onfireX53618.50 |
03-24-2018, 11:29 AM | #37 |
New Member
23
Rep 10
Posts |
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.
Last edited by Kaisuke971; 03-24-2018 at 11:42 AM.. Reason: typo |
03-24-2018, 11:33 AM | #38 | |
Brigadier General
3619
Rep 4,532
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
1
Kaisuke97122.50 |
03-24-2018, 11:36 AM | #39 |
Brigadier General
3619
Rep 4,532
Posts |
All the numerical data you get from MT, RT and C&D makes it an actual test. CarWow is entertainment.
|
Appreciate
5
|
03-24-2018, 11:51 AM | #41 |
Private First Class
203
Rep 185
Posts |
For the second run the cars should have switched “lanes.” I was shocked they didn’t.
|
Appreciate
2
vtknight966.50 Madvillain161.50 |
03-24-2018, 12:37 PM | #43 |
Lieutenant
428
Rep 520
Posts |
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).
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-24-2018, 12:38 PM | #44 | |
dat boost doe
238
Rep 1,823
Posts |
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|