[A Need For Speed]

Originally Posted by Ryno 27

This guy. He could be the most annoying car reviewer ever. He almost made me want to take my Comp back.
He must be somebodies retired father-in-law with nothing to do but make YouTube videos.

[MysticBlue]

Originally Posted by A Need For Speed

This guy. He could be the most annoying car reviewer ever. He almost made me want to take my Comp back.
He must be somebodies retired father-in-law with nothing to do but make YouTube videos.

It's so rare and special, it's going to be a collectors car in the near future. It's practically an investment!

[nlaak]

Originally Posted by vtknight

For the record the M5 makes 592 HP or 600 PS and the M5 Competition makes 617 HP or 625 PS. For an increase of 25 HP. The amount of HP does not change between North America and Europe.

And I agree - the cars make (much) more power than advertised. As a 4400 lb car is not running 10.8x at ~130 MPH with 617 BHP.

As to feeling the difference - the way I put it without the numbers is the M5C feels like a strong standard M5 - all the time.

Hate to tell you this, but bmwusa.com disagrees with you, so you can think that all you want, but I'm gonna go with what the manufacturer says. If it wasn't such a pain in the ass I'd screen shot the two pages and upload them somewhere.

[nlaak]

Originally Posted by Who's on first

Lol. 15% Drivetrain loss. I love it when people use this to chase fake numbers.

Modern cars DO NOT lose 15% in the drivetrain.

Even with the M xDrive the true loss is around 8%.

I'm not going to argue it's as high as a 15% loss, but I'm gonna need a source to believe it's as low as 8%. Some Googling shows no real articles newer than about 2012 or so and those all agree only that 1) losses are unique per platform (obviously) and 2) the numbers on AWD are higher.

I mean honestly, it doesn't really matter how high they are on an M5 the car would be severely traction limited without AWD, so it's still 'good'.

[Who's on first]

Originally Posted by nlaak

I'm not going to argue it's as high as a 15% loss, but I'm gonna need a source to believe it's as low as 8%. Some Googling shows no real articles newer than about 2012 or so and those all agree only that 1) losses are unique per platform (obviously) and 2) the numbers on AWD are higher.

I mean honestly, it doesn't really matter how high they are on an M5 the car would be severely traction limited without AWD, so it's still 'good'.

One of the main automobile magazines ran a "sidebar" explaining this and with more realistic numbers for today's more efficient cars.

When I get home I'll dig through my older ones and see if I can find it, it was most definitely with in the last couple months.

I was so happy when I saw it, as I've been saying all along it's got to be lower than 10% with modern cars.


Regardless, you're correct. The power numbers are very good.

[nlaak]

Originally Posted by Who's on first

One of the main automobile magazines ran a "sidebar" explaining this and with more realistic numbers for today's more efficient cars.

When I get home I'll dig through my older ones and see if I can find it, it was most definitely with in the last couple months.

I was so happy when I saw it, as I've been saying all along it's got to be lower than 10% with modern cars.


Regardless, you're correct. The power numbers are very good.

Really? Surprised it didn't come up in a Google search - most (all?) of those magazines are online and have been for years.

I'd certainly expect the numbers have improved over the years, but below 10% seems low to me, especially in AWD. Though I guess modern car fuel economy numbers don't show a big difference between FWD and AWD, so maybe it's not that high anymore.

But I'd definitely love to read that.

[Who's on first]

Originally Posted by nlaak

Really? Surprised it didn't come up in a Google search - most (all?) of those magazines are online and have been for years.

I'd certainly expect the numbers have improved over the years, but below 10% seems low to me, especially in AWD. Though I guess modern car fuel economy numbers don't show a big difference between FWD and AWD, so maybe it's not that high anymore.

But I'd definitely love to read that.

Hot damn! I took a photo of it (I was reading by the pool, forgive the quality of the paper).

It says "single digits". With the Supra at 5%... so I add 3% for AWD.

Should be damn close.

[nlaak]

Originally Posted by TrevorM3

i wonder if those who say the comp is so stiff and jarring have ever actually ridden in a true sports car.

Harshness (via someone's butt) is a subjective measurement and those are uniformly terrible in anyone not specifically trained for that (and even then it's still moderately crap).

Anyway, I've seen a number of reviews talking about how noticeably stiffer/harsher the ride is in the M5C vs the M5, so while it might be correct that a true sports car is stiffer/harsher yet it doesn't mean you can feel it.

For me I went with the base M5 and 19" wheels because the roads where I live are crap. At 25 MPH it's jarring as hell.

Though honestly, what does a true sports car being harsher have to do with it? Most people aren't cross shopping and M5 and a 911 (though obviously some do) or a Ferrari, etc. If you're looking at an M5 it's probably at least partially because it has 4 doors and is comfortable.

[nlaak]

Originally Posted by Who's on first

Hot damn! I took a photo of it (I was reading by the pool, forgive the quality of the paper).

It says "single digits". With the Supra at 5%... so I add 3% for AWD.

Should be damn close.

Ok, well, thanks for the source, what was the magazine?

The problem is unless they pulled that (exact) engine out and ran it on a dyno I can't see how they can come up with any percentage. Car to car there's variation on HP (though I'd suspect that too is less in modern times) along with ambient conditions, possible underrating of the power by the manf, etc taking a chassis dyno run and comparing it to the manufacturer claims is still mostly just guess work.

[Who's on first]

Originally Posted by nlaak

Ok, well, thanks for the source, what was the magazine?

The problem is unless they pulled that (exact) engine out and ran it on a dyno I can't see how they can come up with any percentage. Car to car there's variation on HP (though I'd suspect that too is less in modern times) along with ambient conditions, etc taking a chassis dyno run and comparing it to the manufacturer claims is still mostly just guess work.

Motor Trend
Road & Track
Automobile
Car & Drive

One of those. Sorry, I get them all and I have just that photo.

[vitaly]

Originally Posted by Who's on first

Hot damn! I took a photo of it (I was reading by the pool, forgive the quality of the paper).

It says "single digits". With the Supra at 5%... so I add 3% for AWD.

Should be damn close.

Hmm, but they don't mention how/where they got "single digits". Not saying they're flat out lying, but it's a bit of a handwave as it stands. All that Supra dyno example demonstrates is Toyota underrated the HP numbers, it doesn't substantiate the parasitic loss claims.

One would have to take some M5, take out the engine and measure its output, then quickly put it back into the car (so that ambient conditions and everything else is as similar) and run it on a dyno - then compare the delta. Who's up for it?

[jsf721]

Sir no need to get condescending. I have owned and built cars that have such firm suspensions that the shock tower/D bars dimpled the quarter panels. That is not what I am after in a Daily Driver. Nobody in their right mind would compare a stop M5 or M5Comp.

My kids skateboard absorbs the bumps better than my Track built 1987 Supra Turbo or my 1985 300ZX turbo. True Sports cars I'd say. Both cars here Sadly both worn out to the point of being sold as parts cars. Replaced with a New 1988 M3 that I also used up. I'm DD a 2019 540IX M Sport and love it. Its just after driving the M5 and M5Comp on the track. I'm craving more.............

I am quote sure that anyone who owns a M5 of any variant is looking for the ride of a True sports car. Those are filling jarring cars on regular roads.

Originally Posted by TrevorM3

i wonder if those who say the comp is so stiff and jarring have ever actually ridden in a true sports car.

[gtenedio]

Originally Posted by jsf721

Thanks for the video


Question. Anyone daily drive a competition on Long Island and Ny metro area. I'm in sales and drive 18k a year. This car has been keeping me up at night.

I felt the difference in these cars on the track mostly in the suspension. Not the acceleration. I like the black kidney grills but I can do that after and they both have the black trim around the windows. Right ?

I am concerned that the competition may be too stiff to e comfortable as a daily driver on the crappy roads we have here. Any drivability issues in traffic is 90 degree plus weather ?

My Wife's lease it up before mine And I may just have to give my car to her when her 53O is up and belly up and make my dream come true.

i daily into manhattan from NJ.

love the car, slight regret not getting the base m5.

the comp is super stiff

[norbtx]

Originally Posted by vtknight

For the record the M5 makes 592 HP or 600 PS and the M5 Competition makes 617 HP or 625 PS. For an increase of 25 HP. The amount of HP does not change between North America and Europe.

BMW USA lists the M5 @ 600hp and the M5C @ 617hp. These are the official numbers.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by nlaak

Hate to tell you this, but bmwusa.com disagrees with you, so you can think that all you want, but I'm gonna go with what the manufacturer says. If it wasn't such a pain in the ass I'd screen shot the two pages and upload them somewhere.

What I will say to this - is this is a change. Originally at least - it was 592 BHP and 617 BHP - with 600 PS and 625 PS. I don’t hate to tell you Euro levels are still what was originally posted: 600 and 625 PS.

So either we get shafted 8 HP in NA or nothing actually changed - and it is 25 HP. My original spec sheet from BMW shows the packages as plus 25 HP - and if it weren’t such a pain I would take a pic and upload it.

What I know; 1-2 MPH and 1-2 tenths on average - with a peak of 130 MPH in the 1/4 is not going to be achieved by 17 HP.

[nlaak]

Originally Posted by vtknight

What I will say to this - is this is a change. Originally at least - it was 592 BHP and 617 BHP - with 600 PS and 625 PS. I don’t hate to tell you Euro levels are still what was originally posted: 600 and 625 PS.

So either we get shafted 8 HP in NA or nothing actually changed - and it is 25 HP. My original spec sheet from BMW shows the packages as plus 25 HP - and if it weren’t such a pain I would take a pic and upload it.

What I know; 1-2 MPH and 1-2 tenths on average - with a peak of 130 MPH in the 1/4 is not going to be achieved by 17 HP.

AFAIK, the HP in the US has always been 600/617, not a change. That being said Wikipedia says 591/617 - though who knows where those numbers came from. Hell, maybe it's 591 in the rest of the world and the US is getting an extra 9HP on the base model.

Did you maybe have spec sheets from before they were actually released? Maybe the numbers changed pre-launch from what they expected? It's my understanding BMW does not change the power output of the M series vehicles from first car to last, special editions notwithstanding (which seems reasonable, because you're really gonna piss off the early buyers if you do).

I can't speak to what 17HP will or will not do, but if you think 8HP is going to make a big difference, you're pretty much contradicting yourself, but considering the way BMW underrates the power of the M5 they could just be underrating the M5C more (though WTH they'd do that, I can't even imagine).

Also, the M5C could reach peak HP earlier than the M5. Without a good comparison on the same dyno (or better yet, details from BMW) we can't say.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by nlaak

AFAIK, the HP in the US has always been 600/617, not a change. That being said Wikipedia says 591/617 - though who knows where those numbers came from. Hell, maybe it's 591 in the rest of the world and the US is getting an extra 9HP on the base model.

Did you maybe have spec sheets from before they were actually released? Maybe the numbers changed pre-launch from what they expected? It's my understanding BMW does not change the power output of the M series vehicles from first car to last, special editions notwithstanding (which seems reasonable, because you're really gonna piss off the early buyers if you do).

I can't speak to what 17HP will or will not do, but if you think 8HP is going to make a big difference, you're pretty much contradicting yourself, but considering the way BMW underrates the power of the M5 they could just be underrating the M5C more (though WTH they'd do that, I can't even imagine).

Also, the M5C could reach peak HP earlier than the M5. Without a good comparison on the same dyno (or better yet, details from BMW) we can't say.

I will start by saying that the way BMW is fudging F90 numbers - it IS almost irrelevant.

I do know that in order for a car already trapping in the 126-128 MPH range to now trap in the 128-130 MPH range - it will take more than. 17 HP. In fact - 25 HP is also likely not enough - and that number is likely in 35-45 HP range. A side by side dyno day would be an interesting experiment to see.

I do know that - if a person is keeping their car stock - it is a significant difference/advantage in the racing world.

For day to day for someone who doesn’t race or had experience with performance cars - they may be hard pressed to feel the difference.

For the price - I do believe it is a solid deal. And if I were getting an F90 with that CE package available - with the suspension, wheels and power bump - I would buy it. Which I did.

I believe I still have the original order guide - I will find it and post it up.

[norbtx]

This guy just can't admit he's wrong. Now he's a professional race car driver like Lewis Hamilton. lol.

[jsf721]

I really appreciate your chiming in. I drove the M5 Comp on the track back to back with the M5. I loved both and the HP difference was not noticeable to me but the suspension was definitely less compliant. On 90 percent of the track the company’s was great. But on the switch back where I ate a. It much of the stripped entrance / exit run up /off curbs it was night and day.


Like from no big deal in the M5 to catching air on the comp. speed was pretty close to the same on both laps. With me driving.

I just want to be sure I’m not getting what my heart wants and then being sorry after the fact because I’m not comfortable in traffic or on long drives. Or that my wife want me to take her car bc she isn’t comfortable.

Serious first world problems. Thanks

Originally Posted by gtenedio

i daily into manhattan from NJ.

love the car, slight regret not getting the base m5.

the comp is super stiff

[gtenedio]

Originally Posted by jsf721

I really appreciate your chiming in. I drove the M5 Comp on the track back to back with the M5. I loved both and the HP difference was not noticeable to me but the suspension was definitely less compliant. On 90 percent of the track the company’s was great. But on the switch back where I ate a. It much of the stripped entrance / exit run up /off curbs it was night and day.


Like from no big deal in the M5 to catching air on the comp. speed was pretty close to the same on both laps. With me driving.

I just want to be sure I’m not getting what my heart wants and then being sorry after the fact because I’m not comfortable in traffic or on long drives. Or that my wife want me to take her car bc she isn’t comfortable.

Serious first world problems. Thanks

not sure if it was in the pipeline, but ditch the comp, and add the ceramics. buy it, and enjoy.

[vtknight]

Originally Posted by norbtx

This guy just can't admit he's wrong. Now he's a professional race car driver like Lewis Hamilton. lol.

I can and will admit when I am wrong - but since there is documentation to support my point - and the fact the point may be moot as the overall numbers from BMW are all off - maybe you should cool your jets.

I have been racing road course and drags for over 30 years. Specifically drag racing my own cars with up to 2000 HP - so I do feel I have some actual experience to discuss when it comes to what HP is needed to make the differences between the Comp and standard cars.

What experience do you have? You’re from Texas - the bar is pretty high lol - I’m sure you have some.

[vtknight]

And I was wrong...