M5POST
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   M5POST - BMW M5 Forum > F10 M5 Forum > M5 versus...

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-20-2012, 04:39 PM   #23
cole328
Second Lieutenant
10
Rep
276
Posts

Drives: 2011 M3 Convertible
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: FL

iTrader: (0)

M5 looks on paper to be amazing....however, I still wish they would have made the car look more "aggresive" and distinct from the 550. To me, the styling simply does not scream out "performance sedan" like a) the Panny does and b) def like the CLS63 does (which, tho not mentioned here, is one bad arse of a car styling wise)
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 05:01 PM   #24
Subway35
Enlisted Member
Subway35's Avatar
Canada
0
Rep
35
Posts

Drives: 2011 BMW X6M
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (0)

lol, Euro/PS... What an interesting stats.
__________________
A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 05:06 PM   #25
czechchamp
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
33
Posts

Drives: E46 330i
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nor Cal / Czech Rep

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackJetE90 View Post
Just realized the Panamera lapped 1.5 seconds quicker than the M5 with more weight and less HP.

Give credit to the Porsche engineers. Defying the laws of physics.
I don't think anyone would argue Pcar engineers don't deserve credit. But the 4wd advantage should be pretty significant around a short track.

I'd be interested in seeing a hwy pull 100mph+ M5 vs Pana TS.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 05:26 PM   #26
AlterZgo
Major
426
Rep
1,011
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW M3 6MT, 2010 535i 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapezzul View Post
because the lay person won't know the difference and that is the market. What magazine in print notes WHP?None that are mainstream, as there is no way to compare outside the test.
Automobile is a mainstream print magazine and they often dyno test their cars publishing whp numbers:

http://www.automobilemag.com/sch/02/dyno-test/articles/
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 05:29 PM   #27
AlterZgo
Major
426
Rep
1,011
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW M3 6MT, 2010 535i 6MT
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyBananaz18 View Post
porsche has the worst power to weight ratio but best 0-100 lol. this story is full of "what gives" hahaha.
I don't know how Porsche does it. They often don't have the most powerful cars, but they always have amazing performance that seems better than their rated hp.

In this case, the Porsche is down on both rated and measured hp, has the highest weight, yet still out accelerates both lighter and more powerful cars the whole way.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 05:34 PM   #28
Imola.ZHP
Colonel
Imola.ZHP's Avatar
United_States
115
Rep
2,210
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW i3 BEV EE
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mud Island, TN

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to Imola.ZHP Send a message via MSN to Imola.ZHP Send a message via Yahoo to Imola.ZHP
Looks like braking is the "weakest link" I guess the upcoming available ceramic brakes will (hopefully) cure that!
__________________

- 2014 CPO i01 BEV Electronaut Edition Capparis White Tera World, '17-
- 2015 CPO i01 BEV Laurel Grey Tera World, '17-
- 2015 i01 REx Laurel Grey Tera World, '15-'17
- 2003 CPO 330i ZHP Imola Red Build 03/03/03, '06-'15
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 05:48 PM   #29
serge
Captain
serge's Avatar
United_States
13
Rep
776
Posts

Drives: '11 M3 ZCP (Sold) / '06 C6 Z06
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Grovetown, GA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e92_m3 View Post
Among the 3 manufacturers, BMW is the only one that had a big difference between claimed HP and dyno HP.

Keeping it subtle eh BMW?

for the win!
Sure. The Mercedes "only" had a difference of 53 hp vs 60hp for the M5.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 06:56 PM   #30
vladberca
Major General
vladberca's Avatar
Romania
447
Rep
5,157
Posts

Drives: '17 jetta tdi 6mt
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Craiova

iTrader: (0)

Porsche was faster from 0-100 and 0-200 due to AWD. Also it had a clear advantage on the short track. I'm sure that 0-300 would not have the Porsche on the first place.
At "flexibility" M5 has very good numbers.
As a negative point for the Merc is its fuel tank with only 66L.

I read a lot of comments related to CLS 63... It has no chance against the M6 GC
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 07:43 PM   #31
UsualSuspect
Lieutenant General ***
UsualSuspect's Avatar
United_States
48
Rep
749
Posts

Drives: this way and that way...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston

iTrader: (4)

Looks like the price of the Panamera is the reason it lost this comparison.
__________________
Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 07:52 PM   #32
e92_m3
Lieutenant Colonel
110
Rep
1,652
Posts

Drives: 2009 e92 m3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bay Area, California

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut View Post
Mercedes was just as underrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serge View Post
Sure. The Mercedes "only" had a difference of 53 hp vs 60hp for the M5.
Yup! You guys can say that. It's just a difference of 10 HP. 620 dyno (M5) VS 610 dyno (E63).
__________________

Hellaflush? All I could say is "effyo'flush","flushnuff", and Instead of 'illest', I'm calling it "faillest". It's just form over function nowadays...
-END RANT
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 09:12 PM   #33
CanAutM3
Lieutenant General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
7488
Rep
14,178
Posts

Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2018 Audi RS3  [0.00]
2015 BMW M4  [4.29]
These "dyno" numbers don't add up. IMO, even with the 4WD advantage, this much of a power to weight handicap would not allow the Panamera to be faster to 200km/h

Last edited by CanAutM3; 04-21-2012 at 07:18 AM.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 09:41 PM   #34
mPlasticDesign
Major General
mPlasticDesign's Avatar
399
Rep
5,036
Posts

Drives: 2011 E90 M3 Comp Pkg Only
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Astral Projecting: ∞ 23.516 -122 02.625 0242.101 ĕv'rē-hwr'

iTrader: (16)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackJetE90
Just realized the Panamera lapped 1.5 seconds quicker than the M5 with more weight and less HP.

Give credit to the Porsche engineers. Defying the laws of physics.
Yup. Me? I'll take the Panamera! Back seats are surprisingly roomy, the best seats and the out side design(IMO) is the nicest.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 10:21 PM   #35
uhn2000
Big K...
uhn2000's Avatar
Canada
36
Rep
1,654
Posts

Drives: 2 For Now..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlterZgo View Post
I don't know how Porsche does it. They often don't have the most powerful cars, but they always have amazing performance that seems better than their rated hp.

In this case, the Porsche is down on both rated and measured hp, has the highest weight, yet still out accelerates both lighter and more powerful cars the whole way.
After having owned a Porsche for close to 2 years its pretty amazing what they are all about. That point made I am still looking forward to an M5 in my stable
__________________
Prancing horse..
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 10:32 PM   #36
catpat8000
Lieutenant
United_States
19
Rep
417
Posts

Drives: my wife and kids crazy
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California

iTrader: (0)

If you look at the 0-100km/h times, the Porsche has a 0.6 second advantage over the M5..

Then at 200 km/hr, it has the same advantage, 0.6 seconds. So basically the AWD gives the Porsche the lead to 100 km/hr and then it is dead even with the M5 from 100 to 200 km/hr.

How can that be if it weighs more and dynos less? The answer is that dynoing at the rear wheels and extrapolating to crank HP is completely bogus. That's obvious from this test. If the Porsche did make significantly less power and weigh more, it should be slower from 100-200 km/hr. And it isn't. QED.

Pat
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2012, 10:43 PM   #37
///M1
Brigadier General
///M1's Avatar
United_States
128
Rep
3,094
Posts

Drives: Many
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North of 4K RPM

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Any info on the brakes used in the testing? I'd bet the Pani had the Ceramics, while the M5 did not (even though it is an option). I'd venture to guess the M5 being lighter would have fared much better especially on the high speed stops.

To me, the M5 is the winner, especially since it is the only car offered...in a 6-spd manual. Show me the dotted line, sold on this one with no reservations.
__________________
2011 BMW E82 1///M: AW, all options; Renntech, Akrapovic, Forge, P3, RevoZ CF bits, many mods
1988 BMW E30 M3: Hennarot, S14, stock
2016 Porsche 981 GT4: Guards Red, LWBS, SC, full leather
1998 Porsche 993 C4S: Zenith Blue, last aircooled widebody, Bilstein PSS10, Fister II + Fabspeed exhaust
2008 Audi B7 RS 4: Sprint Blue, Audi Exclusive Euro Bucket Interior, Premium+Titanium, many mods
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 12:47 AM   #38
Eternal
Lieutenant
United_States
92
Rep
461
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i xDrive
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: North Carolina

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by catpat8000
If you look at the 0-100km/h times, the Porsche has a 0.6 second advantage over the M5..

Then at 200 km/hr, it has the same advantage, 0.6 seconds. So basically the AWD gives the Porsche the lead to 100 km/hr and then it is dead even with the M5 from 100 to 200 km/hr.

How can that be if it weighs more and dynos less? The answer is that dynoing at the rear wheels and extrapolating to crank HP is completely bogus. That's obvious from this test. If the Porsche did make significantly less power and weigh more, it should be slower from 100-200 km/hr. And it isn't. QED.

Pat
Ummm, no. This means the Porsche continued to pull on the BMW. If it was a .6 second lead at 100 the distance would be x. At 200 the distance between the cars to equal .6 seconds is much greater than x. Because the cars travel further in .6 seconds at a higher speed. This means that if at 100 .6 seconds is 5 car lead. At 200 it had a lot more than a 5 car lead. So yes it is the same time gap. But in a head to head race the Porsche would be gaining car lengths after 100. Not the BMW hanging with it.
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 02:18 AM   #39
Anderw
Brigadier General
Anderw's Avatar
United_States
463
Rep
3,005
Posts

Drives: M235i
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: FL

iTrader: (11)

620whp really? wow
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 04:03 AM   #40
BlackJetE90
Brigadier General
1309
Rep
4,707
Posts

Drives: E90 no longer
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: is everything

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwsw View Post
620whp really? wow
620hp, not whp.
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 09:23 AM   #41
Alpina_B3_Lux
Colonel
Alpina_B3_Lux's Avatar
Germany
205
Rep
2,552
Posts

Drives: Audi R8 V10, BMW 530d xDrive
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 335i  [4.45]
I'm quite surprised that sport auto now puts cars on a dyno. They have argued at length very recently (i.e. last year) that for a number of reasons (e.g. different dynos, conditions such as air pressure, temperature etc.) they would not do it, although it had been insinuated in quite a few tests that car manufacturer provided "prepared" press cars with a serious bump in power compared to the normal cars sold to the public (besides a frequently modified suspension geometry but which is now also measured by sport auto). All the easier nowadays with the inflation of turbo charged cars.

This comparison however proves that they should put the cars on a dyno - 50hp at the crank more than advertised is quite a lot, even at that power level. It may contribute to keeping car manufacturers more honest.

As far as the acceleration comparison is concerned, I'm quite surprised that no one thought of bringing up things like gear ratio, aerodynamics or different wheel sizes which all have a measurable impact on acceleration. Focusing on weight/power ratio only is a bit narrow-minded.

Alpina_B3_Lux
__________________
Audi R8 V10; sold: BMW 335i
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 09:48 AM   #42
antzcrashing
Lieutenant Colonel
antzcrashing's Avatar
217
Rep
1,502
Posts

Drives: 2006 330i
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston MA

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2006 BMW 330i  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by e92_m3 View Post
Among the 3 manufacturers, BMW is the only one that had a big difference between claimed HP and dyno HP.

Keeping it subtle eh BMW?

for the win!
+1
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 10:55 AM   #43
xDrive35i
Lieutenant Colonel
xDrive35i's Avatar
United_States
72
Rep
1,785
Posts

Drives: Porsche Macan S
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux
I'm quite surprised that sport auto now puts cars on a dyno. They have argued at length very recently (i.e. last year) that for a number of reasons (e.g. different dynos, conditions such as air pressure, temperature etc.) they would not do it, although it had been insinuated in quite a few tests that car manufacturer provided "prepared" press cars with a serious bump in power compared to the normal cars sold to the public (besides a frequently modified suspension geometry but which is now also measured by sport auto). All the easier nowadays with the inflation of turbo charged cars.

This comparison however proves that they should put the cars on a dyno - 50hp at the crank more than advertised is quite a lot, even at that power level. It may contribute to keeping car manufacturers more honest.

As far as the acceleration comparison is concerned, I'm quite surprised that no one thought of bringing up things like gear ratio, aerodynamics or different wheel sizes which all have a measurable impact on acceleration. Focusing on weight/power ratio only is a bit narrow-minded.

Alpina_B3_Lux
THANK YOU for finally raising that point.
Appreciate 0
      04-21-2012, 11:10 AM   #44
catpat8000
Lieutenant
United_States
19
Rep
417
Posts

Drives: my wife and kids crazy
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California

iTrader: (0)

Oops - posted too quickly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal View Post
Ummm, no. This means the Porsche continued to pull on the BMW. If it was a .6 second lead at 100 the distance would be x. At 200 the distance between the cars to equal .6 seconds is much greater than x. Because the cars travel further in .6 seconds at a higher speed. This means that if at 100 .6 seconds is 5 car lead. At 200 it had a lot more than a 5 car lead. So yes it is the same time gap. But in a head to head race the Porsche would be gaining car lengths after 100. Not the BMW hanging with it.
Excellent point. But this makes the point even stronger that those claimed HP numbers are completely bogus.

Pat
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2012 bmw m5, 2012 m5 dyno, 2012 m5 forum, 2013 bmw m5, 2013 m5, 2013 m5 dyno, 2013 m5 forum, bmw f10 m5, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m5 dyno, bmw m5 f10, bmw m5 forum, bmw m5 forums, f10 m5, f10 m5 dyno, f10 m5 dyno figures, f10 m5 dyno numbers, f10 m5 dyno results, f10 m5 forum, f10 m5 panamera turbo, f10 m5 panamera turbo e63, f10 m5 panamera turbo e63 amg, f10 m5 specs, f10 m5 vs e63, m forum, m forums, m5 dyno, m5 f10, m5 f10 dyno, m5 f10 dyno figures, m5 f10 dyno numbers, m5 f10 dyno results, m5 f10 e63, m5 f10 forum, m5 f10 forums, m5 f10 panamera turbo, m5 f10 panamera turbo e63, m5 forum, m5 forums, m5 panamera e63, m5 panamera turbo, m5 panamera turbo e63, m5 vs e63, m5 vs panamera

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 04:47 PM.




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