[mirob]

This thread is the first time I've ever read that an extra shift in a timed/instrumented test is somehow a good thing and an advantage. We're not talking about a 5-speed AT vs. a 9-speed AT. Its an 8 vs. a 9-speed, both of these will keep the car in the optimum rev range, therefore an extra shift will only hurt the E63. I don't give a damn how fast that shift may be.

What is this BS about doing a roll race in comfort mode? If you're on the highway lining up to roll, you are not going to be in comfort mode (at least not if you're trying to win)...and guess what, neither is the guy that's trying to beat you. If you're anticipating a race you'll be ready. This is just stupid.

From what I've read in this forum, M5s have been delivered to customers on two different sets of tires. Could the test car have had the less sticky version? Also, is it just me or does it seems to anyone else like the M5 bogs down after the initial jump in the first race allowing the E63 to pass it? 1:05 into the video it show the race from the E63s interior. Almost looks like a premature short shift into second.

Anyways, not making excuses for the M5 (as illustrated by my first point) but I'm a bit disappointed in the outing of this one. This one seems to be the outlier and not the norm thus far. Let's hope it remains that way.

[Mspired]

Originally Posted by mirob

This thread is the first time I've ever read that an extra shift in a timed/instrumented test is somehow a good thing and an advantage. We're not talking about a 5-speed AT vs. a 9-speed AT. Its an 8 vs. a 9-speed, both of these will keep the car in the optimum rev range, therefore an extra shift will only hurt the E63. I don't give a damn how fast that shift may be.

What is this BS about doing a roll race in comfort mode? If you're on the highway lining up to roll, you are not going to be in comfort mode (at least not if you're trying to win)...and guess what, neither is the guy that's trying to beat you. If you're anticipating a race you'll be ready. This is just stupid.

From what I've read in this forum, M5s have been delivered to customers on two different sets of tires. Could the test car have had the less sticky version? Also, is it just me or does it seems to anyone else like the M5 bogs down after the initial jump in the first race allowing the E63 to pass it? 1:05 into the video it show the race from the E63s interior. Almost looks like a premature short shift into second.

Anyways, not making excuses for the M5 (as illustrated by my first point) but I'm a bit disappointed in the outing of this one. This one seems to be the outlier and not the norm thus far. Let's hope it remains that way.

I too thought something looked funny there. Not saying the test was rigged but I'll wait to see more head to head reviews before concluding on this.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by Mspired

I too thought something looked funny there. Not saying the test was rigged but I'll wait to see more head to head reviews before concluding on this.

It's exactly what you do to create youtube hits. Lance is killing it !

[mirob]

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...ocialflowFBRAT

Interesting that R&T would discuss this but they are...and they are attributing the result to less grippy tires.

[neohh]

Originally Posted by mirob

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...ocialflowFBRAT

Interesting that R&T would discuss this but they are...and they are attributing the result to less grippy tires.

I guess it generates enough views as intended, and R&T wants a piece of the pie.

[botox]

I love both cars, having owned e39 m5 (loved that car) in past and currently edition one e63. On the C&D test they used 91 octane in AMG versus 93 in all the other cars when you look at data sheets. I wonder why they would use different fuel in comparison test?

[frankchn]

Originally Posted by botox

I love both cars, having owned e39 m5 (loved that car) in past and currently edition one e63. On the C&D test they used 91 octane in AMG versus 93 in all the other cars when you look at data sheets. I wonder why they would use different fuel in comparison test?

Did they actually say they used different fuels anywhere? The "octane" row was in the same section as fuel tank size and EPA averages, so I think that it is just what the manufacturer recommends for each vehicle.

The comparison test was also done in California, where 93 octane is not available anyway.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by frankchn

Did they actually say they used different fuels anywhere? The "octane" row was in the same section as fuel tank size and EPA averages, so I think that it is just what the manufacturer recommends for each vehicle.

The comparison test was also done in California, where 93 octane is not available anyway.

+1

[botox]

If you look at the fuel on the C&D test, different fuel was used, 93 in 3 cars, 91 AMG. I'll try to post pix

[botox]

Here is the attachment

[frankchn]

Originally Posted by botox

Here is the attachment

Yes, this chart is what I linked to in my earlier post.

Rating is in the "Fuel" section, along with the capacity of the tank, and EPA mpg figures. It is unclear whether this is the type of fuel they used in the test, or it is just the type of fuel recommended by the manufacturer. We know that BMW recommends 93 octane, while Mercedes recommends 91 octane, so that's not news.

Did they say anywhere in the test that this is the rating of fuel they used (as opposed to say using 91 for every car because it is California, or 100 octane race gas for every car because they presumably tested all this on a race track with race gas available)?

[neohh]

Originally Posted by botox

If you look at the fuel on the C&D test, different fuel was used, 93 in 3 cars, 91 AMG. I'll try to post pix

I believe what he is trying to say is that the 91/93 is under the basic factory spec section (eg. mpg, tank size) so it could just be the recommended gas by the manufacturer, not necessary the actual gas used for their test.

[frankchn]

In any case, even if they used 91 octane for the Mercedes, and 93 octane for everyone else, this would be inline with manufacturer recommendations.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by neohh

I believe what he is trying to say is that the 91/93 is under the basic factory spec section (eg. mpg, tank size) so it could just be the recommended gas by the manufacturer, not necessary the actual gas used for their test.

Exactly

[mirob]

Originally Posted by frankchn

Yes, this chart is what I linked to in my earlier post.

Rating is in the "Fuel" section, along with the capacity of the tank, and EPA mpg figures. It is unclear whether this is the type of fuel they used in the test, or it is just the type of fuel recommended by the manufacturer. We know that BMW recommends 93 octane, while Mercedes recommends 91 octane, so that's not news.

Did they say anywhere in the test that this is the rating of fuel they used (as opposed to say using 91 for every car because it is California, or 100 octane race gas for every car because they presumably tested all this on a race track with race gas available)?

As a matter of fact, you could make the argument that the M5 - as well as the other two recommending 93 AKI - are at a disadvantage here. Not the other way around.

[frankchn]

Originally Posted by mirob

As a matter of fact, you could make the argument that the M5 - as well as the other two recommending 93 AKI - are at a disadvantage here. Not the other way around.

Precisely.

Given that we know (a) Mercedes recommends 91 octane and others recommend 93, (b) using gas worse than the manufacturer's recommendation will cause the engine to lose horsepower, and (c) using gas better than the manufacturer's recommendation does nothing:

One of the following happened:

- C&D used 91 gas in all cars. This causes all cars but Mercedes to produce lower than rated horsepower, giving Mercedes the advantage.
- C&D used 91 in MB, and 93 in the rest. This is as per manufacturer recommendations, and all engines perform at their optimal.
- C&D used 93 gas in all cars. There is no advantage to Mercedes here because 93 gas does nothing better than 91, so same as the previous scenario.

[botox]

BMW runs 24.5 pounds of boost versus 21.8 in AMG, so it probably needs the 93 octane more than the Benz does. BMW would likely be at a disadvantage on 91. I have mine flashed, runs fine on 91 in Colorado.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by botox

BMW runs 24.5 pounds of boost versus 21.8 in AMG, so it probably needs the 93 octane more than the Benz does. BMW would likely be at a disadvantage on 91. I have mine flashed, runs fine on 91 in Colorado.

Give us a quick comparo between the 911 and AMG. Daily driver advantages, etc.

[Phatcat]

I hope Motor Trend, SportAuto, Auto Bild, and others comes out with their tests soon, with a few tests out there I feel like we are over analyzing.

The more test results the better we can come to a consensus.

[botox]

Originally Posted by onfireX5

Give us a quick comparo between the 911 and AMG. Daily driver advantages, etc.

991.2 Turbo S exclusive is the greatest car I've owned. Very comfortable, suspension is perfect on 991 with regards to daily driving comfort yet is very level in hard corners. Does everything well, reliable, and PDK is best tranny.
AMG has a firmer ride, but very good. The last AMG I had was the 2006 e55, this has come a long way. Much improved suspension, brakes, steering, tranny. I have Sottozero 2 snow tires on it and is excellent in mountain snow, 4matic plus is great. Very practical car, can get 3-4 sets of golf clubs in back (Since I don't have the large subwoofer). MCT 9 speed is very close to PDK level with quick shifts, rev matched downshifts, much better than the RS7 I had previously. Engine is masterpiece, great torque, amazing with tune. AMG's are more well rounded now, more BMWish, lol. I love the BMW m5, had the e39 model in 2003 which stands out as one of the best all around cars ever. AMG has that sort of soul as well. Looking forward to driving a m5 as well, esp with comp pack.

[onfireX5]

Originally Posted by botox

991.2 Turbo S exclusive is the greatest car I've owned. Very comfortable, suspension is perfect on 991 with regards to daily driving comfort yet is very level in hard corners. Does everything well, reliable, and PDK is best tranny.
AMG has a firmer ride, but very good. I have Sottozero 2 snow tires on it and is excellent in mountain snow. Very practical car, can get 3-4 sets of golf clubs in back (Since I don't have the large subwoofer). MCT 9 speed is very close to PDK level with quick shifts, rev matched downshifts, much better than the RS7 I had previously. Engine is masterpiece, great torque. I love the BMW m5, had the e39 model in 2003 which stands out as one of the best all around cars ever. AMG has that sort of soul as well. Looking forward to driving a m5 as well.

Thanks ! Great to get feedback from actual owners. Just picked up my F90 last night but a 911S is on my radar.

[Goonba]

Originally Posted by CarlosM4

And to achieve the 10.9, Car & Driver used a special feature (extracted from their review) "(. That torque-converter automatic that we’d worried might take the eagerness out of BMW’s supersedan comes with a simple launch-control function that works with the all-wheel-drive system to help the new M5 turn some ridiculous times. A perfect launch is as easy as holding the brake and the accelerator while stopped. When fluid temperatures are right, the computer allows the engine to rev to nearly 3000 rpm, and the rear tires start spinning as if the M5 were rear-wheel drive. Release the brakes, the front wheels kick in, and the M5 pounds forward. In 2.8 seconds you’re at 60 mph and in 10.9 you’re whisked through the quarter-mile at 129 mph....After a couple of runs, the launch-control system dialed back the launch rpm to 2500 rpm, which isn’t enough to start the rear tires spinning. Launching without that rear-wheel spin adds a couple of tenths to the zero-to-60-mph time. Our test car supposedly arrived with the lower, 155-mph governor, but it didn’t stop the party until we’d hit a verified 163 mph. (A $2500 M Driver’s package brings a 189-mph limiter.))" . So this 10.9s and 2.8s to 0-60 is not consistent, it is the best possible outcome for the car. The E63S on the other hand will run 11s all day any day.

So no, the Carwow test is not an aberration. It is the closest to how a race between these two cars would happen in the real world.

Just wanted to add to this as there is a similar mechanic in the e63s.....

In the e63s you can manually increase the revs for launch by clicking the "UP" paddle (i.e. mash the throttle and break and click the paddle). The revs will increase +500rpm to 4,000rpm. This results in much more aggressive launch and 10.9 1/4 is easily achievable. What is surprising is that no journalist in the Western world has done this, but every journalist in Russia has. It will probably result in a much worse beating for the M5.

The guy in the video below does this procedure and is able to do 11 flat all day on a terrible surface (I have been there, exotic RWD just cannot launch there).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s41BKOFgb3Y