G-Power F10 M5 and M6 640hp / 575 lb-ft Stage 1 Tune Released

[diononiz]

This is really going to be interesting. The CLS63 with a tune only is hitting 11.3 at 126mph.

http://mbworld.org/forums/cls55-amg-...eet-tires.html

I am really curious to see what the m5 will do with just a tune.

[FmaxTurboSi]

Originally Posted by bavarian19

If it is anything like the E9x M3, I'm sure reliability will be an issue.

It's a little different when you tune an engine that was built for forced induction compared to adding forced induction to a normally aspirated motor.

[KG3356MT]

Originally Posted by FmaxTurboSi

It's a little different when you tune an engine that was built for forced induction compared to adding forced induction to a normally aspirated motor.

exactly. very curious to see the times it puts down with this tune.

[THE-FN-MAN]

What reliability issues? I have a 2008 and 2010 (both dct) E92 M3. One is gintani supercharged and the other has bolt ons. Both get driven fairly hard and I haven't had a single issue with either.

[DrivenByE30]

The wheels makes it less than perfect ... Those kind of wheels belong to the last decade.

[hks786]

640bhp, what a beast! I seen a Monte Carlo blue M5 today. It looks absolutely stunning from all angles.

[Mako]

This just shows what the engine/turbos are capable of, but there is a reason BMW didn't stock the car this high! Also remember that BMW rates it at 560 HP but a dyno probably would say its more like 580+ anyway, so this really isn't a huge improvement. I also think that going over the power BMW has already given this beast really will require AWD to really be able to use all that power. You would need perfect conditions to utilize it with RWD.

There is a reason BMW and Mercedes charge as much as they do for "is" versions or "performance packages on the AMGs" it doesn't cost Mercedes $6500 to add 30-40 horsepower, in fact its mostly just a cpu tune and they throw in a different suspension and something else, but half of the price is really you paying for the additional "warranty" of pushing the engine/car to extremes.

Unless you have more money than you know what to do with, this would be a pointless tune. The M5 as is should hit 0-60 in 3.7 seconds when car and driver tests it (so like 4.0 seconds with other magazines ). A car this big with that much power has hit its limits. giving it more power is like getting the "extra yellow color" on Sharp TVs

[James T. Kirk]

Who cares about reliability when this M5 can go fast enough to time travel?
So you blow the engine? Go back in time 1 minute and don't rev it to 9000RPM.
.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by FmaxTurboSi

It's a little different when you tune an engine that was built for forced induction compared to adding forced induction to a normally aspirated motor.

..well said ~frost

[Vasil]

Originally Posted by James T. Kirk

Who cares about reliability when this M5 can go fast enough to time travel?
So you blow the engine? Go back in time 1 minute and don't rev it to 9000RPM.
.

Awesome name, awesome reply!

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by rolren

Not impressed at all by G-Power. Although it's just stage I, it should have been around 700hp and 600lb.ft. Anyways I never liked any aftermarket tune.

Oh, sure, yeah, add 150 HP to an already highly stressed engine with a dozen coolers without any other modifications. Sure, yeah, piece of cake. That'll work out really well. For maybe 5 minutes.

Give me a break.

[m balla]

If for some absolutely unlikely reason the M5/M6, even after tune, weren't beating out the new CL/S63 AMGs... would BMW go back to the NA motor? Or a twin turbo S85? I mean put a new NA version of the S85 in the M5/6 and put a twin turbo S85 in the I/M8. I could see tight competition in a straight line, but not on the track. And will BMW go to the AWD in the next G-model lineup to hold down the kind of power levels that we will likely see?

[dlbrooks18]

BEAST!! What a phenomenal engine!

[E92LNGCGY]

Wow only stage 1 and some impressive numbers. Can't wait until the full bolt on numbers.

[Vasil]

So you are basically pissing away your new engine warranty for +80hp.

No thank you.

[AlpWhite11]

Nice numbers. Is that with tune only or after exhaust also?

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by kyleb350

If that were true, I guess that's a better reason to opt for the manual trans.

i feel like the new M5 has a different transmission than the M3. For example, yes theyre both double clutch but there are different variations that can handle different power. I read over on m3post that the m3 and ferrari california have transmissions made by the same company but the california is the version that can handle more power so unless we get the exact specifications of which tranny is it we never really know how much power it can handle

[cidair]

So - Autozeitung tested the M5 ( BMW press car ) at 4.2s 0-100km/h, and 11.7s 0-200km/h = 7.5s 100-200km/h.

G Power is claiming 3.9 / 11.9......... = 8.0s 100-200....?????
This is with 640hp / 770 Nm?

So how much boost pressure ( Hp/Tq ) did the press car have???????????????

[sparkyg]

Originally Posted by SamS

The wheels are hideous.

That is one ugly car. Sht it must be a Euro thing

[biglare]

Where the dynos at?

Just sayin.....

[Proper Motion LLC]

A 30% increase in power should be a cake walk for this car.

N54 with 40% increase in power goes from 270 to 380whp.

M5 with just a 30% increase would go from 460whp to 600whp.

[kautiongsr]

Originally Posted by kyleb350

If that were true, I guess that's a better reason to opt for the manual trans.

I don't agree but just like any other dtc.. They handle alot more than they are rated