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, 07:33 PM   #1
Alpine535Msport
Second Lieutenant
Alpine535Msport's Avatar
United_States
110
Rep
254
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW 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: 14184
Size:  807.3 KB

Name:  01521243241.jpeg
Views: 14187
Size:  928.1 KB
__________________
2018 BMW 540i
Appreciate 7
      03-16-2018, 07:40 PM   #2
esquire
Brigadier General
esquire's Avatar
United_States
366
Rep
3,006
Posts

Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
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
duercos40.50
Toome145.50
Jklad303.50
andrewc893665.50

      03-16-2018, 07:43 PM   #3
uniqueMR
Lieutenant Colonel
uniqueMR's Avatar
United_States
703
Rep
1,739
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW M4 ZCP
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (0)

__________________
Currently: 2018 BMW M4 Competition & 2018 Audi S3 Prestige
Previously BMWs: 2016 340i, 2012 M3 CP, 2003 745Li, 2000 740i
Previously Owned: Honda, Infiniti, Mercedes-Benz, MINI, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Volkswagen
Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 07:47 PM   #4
DallasLife345M
Lieutenant
United_States
258
Rep
509
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (0)

Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 07:51 PM   #5
MTHX
Second Lieutenant
MTHX's Avatar
Canada
149
Rep
259
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

93 octane?
Appreciate 0
      03-16-2018, 08:11 PM   #6
shahin
Private First Class
Canada
66
Rep
183
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
      03-16-2018, 09:00 PM   #7
DallasLife345M
Lieutenant
United_States
258
Rep
509
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Dallas, TX

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, 10:32 PM   #8
SpeedyDad
Private First Class
SpeedyDad's Avatar
100
Rep
159
Posts

Drives: 2018 F90 M5 & 2015 i3
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles, Ca

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
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, 11:02 PM   #9
vtknight
Lieutenant
vtknight's Avatar
375
Rep
508
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
      03-17-2018, 12:52 AM   #10
MTHX
Second Lieutenant
MTHX's Avatar
Canada
149
Rep
259
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

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, 01:32 AM   #11
Greer
Lieutenant
Greer's Avatar
153
Rep
564
Posts

Drives: 2014 M5
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (0)

Wow, wait til the CP comes out.
Appreciate 2
      03-17-2018, 02:35 AM   #12
Phatcat
Major
453
Rep
1,458
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, 06:34 AM   #13
Alpine535Msport
Second Lieutenant
Alpine535Msport's Avatar
United_States
110
Rep
254
Posts

Drives: 2018 BMW 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.
__________________
2018 BMW 540i
Appreciate 0
      03-17-2018, 07:32 AM   #14
Bönz
Captain
Bönz's Avatar
United_States
126
Rep
714
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, 07:56 AM   #15
Tonymiabmw
Colonel
Tonymiabmw's Avatar
467
Rep
2,642
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, 08:25 AM   #16
Bönz
Captain
Bönz's Avatar
United_States
126
Rep
714
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, 08:48 AM   #17
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
29
Rep
306
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, 09:00 AM   #18
IANNUZZI
Banned
Canada
29
Rep
306
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, 09:12 AM   #19
Phatcat
Major
453
Rep
1,458
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, 09:28 AM   #20
gmd2003
Colonel
gmd2003's Avatar
281
Rep
2,133
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
      03-17-2018, 09:45 AM   #21
Phatcat
Major
453
Rep
1,458
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, 10:18 AM   #22
SpeedyDad
Private First Class
SpeedyDad's Avatar
100
Rep
159
Posts

Drives: 2018 F90 M5 & 2015 i3
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles, Ca

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 BMW M5  [0.00]
I think we will see that the M5 is making close to it’s reported HP at the wheels. No way this thing is “only” 600HP at the crank.
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 -4. The time now is 12:09 AM.




m5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
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