Sport Auto Tests M5 F10 vs Panamera Turbo S and E63 AMG PP. M5 Dynos at 620 HP!

Jason · 04-20-2012, 10:07 AM

BIMMERPOST NEWS

Sport Auto Tests M5 F10 vs Panamera Turbo S and E63 AMG PP. M5 Dynos at 620 HP!

66
COMMENTS

Here are the results of Sport Auto's comparison test among the M5 F10, Panamera Turbo S, and E63 AMG Performance Package. The M5 doesn't come out on top in the raw number categories, but still gets the nod from Sport Auto for its handling and overall dynamic package.

1st place: BMW M5 - 620 hp on the dyno (claimed: 560)

Tires: Michelin Pilot Supersport
Weight: 1963 kg (4,327 lb)
0-100 km/h (62 mph): 4.3 s
0-200 km/h (124 mph): 13.0 s
Flexibility (80-120 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 4.5 s/5.6 s
Flexibility (80-180 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 12.2 s/15.3 s
18 m slalom: 66.3 km/h
Braking (100-0 km/h) (62-0 mph), warm: 37.5 m
Braking (200-0 km/h) (124-0 mph), warm: 150.0 m
Laptime (Kleiner Kurs Hockenheim): 1:13.6 min

2nd place: Porsche Panamera Turbo S - 555 hp on the dyno (claimed: 550)

Tires: Michelin Pilot Supersport N0
Weight: 2024 kg (4,462 lb)
0-100 km/h (62 mph): 3.7 s
0-200 km/h (124 mph): 12.4 s
Flexibility (80-120 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 4.6 s/7.0 s
Flexibility (80-180 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 11.9 s/16.8 s
18 m slalom: 65.0 km/h
Braking (100-0 km/h) (62-0 mph), warm: 34.9 m
Braking (200-0 km/h) (124-0 mph), warm: 144.2 m
Laptime (Kleiner Kurs Hockenheim): 1:12.1 min

3nd place: Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG PP - 610 hp on the dyno (claimed: 557)

Tires: Continental Sport Contact 5P
Weight: 1941 kg (4,279 lb)
0-100 km/h (62 mph): 4.4 s
0-200 km/h (124 mph): 13.2 s
Flexibility (80-120 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 4.5 s/6.4 s
Flexibility (80-180 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 12.0 s/16.2 s
18 m slalom: 64.9 km/h
Braking (100-0 km/h) (62-0 mph), warm: 37.5 m
Braking (200-0 km/h) (124-0 mph), warm: 151.8 m
Laptime (Kleiner Kurs Hockenheim): 1:14.6 min

Name: m5-sportauto.jpg
Views: 23300
Size: 80.0 KB

Name: f10m5-panameraturbo.jpg
Views: 24096
Size: 431.7 KB

Credit to dede@**************s

e92_m3 · 04-20-2012, 02:06 PM

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!

ORIGIN M. · 04-20-2012, 02:08 PM

Wow, but somehow I'm not surprised... Love this new M5 in so many ways!

Thanks for posting this.

ORIGIN M. · 04-20-2012, 02:11 PM

Mercedes was just as underrated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e92_m3

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!

SF_E60 · 04-20-2012, 02:16 PM

Wow that's a huge underrated difference!!

mapezzul · 04-20-2012, 02:19 PM

Also worth noting- The M5 is the CHEAPEST!

boosted43 · 04-20-2012, 02:20 PM

How is it that it's 620 on the dyno and 560 to the crank? I thought if anything it'd put out less power on the dyno. Am I wrong?

BMW0412 · 04-20-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kabawi91

How is it that it's 620 on the dyno and 560 to the crank? I thought if anything it'd put out less power on the dyno. Am I wrong?

I think you were talking about whp, on wheel horsepower, whp would always be less than bhp

bavarian19 · 04-20-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kabawi91

How is it that it's 620 on the dyno and 560 to the crank? I thought if anything it'd put out less power on the dyno. Am I wrong?

BMW classically underrates the power. I didn't think it would be that underrated, but that is usually the case.

nick3753 · 04-20-2012, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMW0412

I think you were talking about whp, on wheel horsepower, whp would always be less than bhp

Isn't whp what is shown on a Dyno??

cloakster · 04-20-2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick3753

Isn't whp what is shown on a Dyno??

But in this article its showing the estimated bhp based on the whp dyno results they got.

esqu1re · 04-20-2012, 02:50 PM

So....those are not WHP numbers? Why don't they just let us have the WHP numbers, instead of extrapolating the crank HP? (I'm assuming they didn't remove the engines and measure them at the crank)

mapezzul · 04-20-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by esqu1re

So....those are not WHP numbers? Why don't they just let us have the WHP numbers, instead of extrapolating the crank HP? (I'm assuming they didn't remove the engines and measure them at the crank)

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.

JoeyBananaz18 · 04-20-2012, 03:11 PM

porsche has the worst power to weight ratio but best 0-100 lol. this story is full of "what gives" hahaha.

AlpWhite11 · 04-20-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeyBananaz18

porsche has the worst power to weight ratio but best 0-100 lol. this story is full of "what gives" hahaha.

That's because it's AWD. Going to put down its power easier from stop.

And it better be faster. It starts at $173,000 US! That's almost double the US M5 base price

Shows how good of a performance bargain the m5 is for its price.

MI6 · 04-20-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 09BlkSapphire

That's because it's AWD. Going to put down its power easier from stop.

And it better be faster. It starts at $173,000 US! That's almost double the US M5 base price

Shows how good of a performance bargain the m5 is for its price.

And it's a true sedan- not a 4 door coupe.

Can't wait to see how the M6 Gran Coupe tests against the Panny and CLS63- much more fair and realistic IMHO.

-Bond

hellrotm · 04-20-2012, 03:35 PM

It is crazy how close the M5 and E63 are performance/speed wise. Each test they are literally right on top of each other. Looks like the M5 still is the better handling car, no surprise there.

It makes me wonder how hard BMW is pushing that 4.4L to match the speed of the other two that have more displacement. Looking at recent ecu tunes for the E63, Benz left a lot of power on the table for modders.

The Porsche is expensive, but damn it hauls the mail. It continues to pull the further down the road you get.

hellrotm · 04-20-2012, 03:37 PM

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.

phusion974 · 04-20-2012, 03:40 PM

Something doesn't seem right with those dyno numbers.
Its funny that all of these cars are making more power to the wheels then at the crank.

But then again they are only numbers, its the actual track numbers that count.
I'm really impressed with the F10 M5.

boosted43 · 04-20-2012, 03:41 PM

I was confused and thought the dyno was showing 620 to the wheels, but 620 to the crank is significantly more than what BMW states. That's pretty nice though.

hellrotm · 04-20-2012, 04:12 PM

^
Add the confusion. That 620hp number makes some of the early tuners look rather silly.

BMW269 · 04-20-2012, 04:34 PM

Why did the other first dyno say 571 PS at the crank?

04-20-2012, 10:07 AM	#1
Jason Administrator 43512 Rep 21,323 Posts Drives: F80 M3 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA iTrader: (0)	Sport Auto Tests M5 F10 vs Panamera Turbo S and E63 AMG PP. M5 Dynos at 620 HP! BIMMERPOST NEWS Sport Auto Tests M5 F10 vs Panamera Turbo S and E63 AMG PP. M5 Dynos at 620 HP! 66 COMMENTS Tweet Here are the results of Sport Auto's comparison test among the M5 F10, Panamera Turbo S, and E63 AMG Performance Package. The M5 doesn't come out on top in the raw number categories, but still gets the nod from Sport Auto for its handling and overall dynamic package. 1st place: BMW M5 - 620 hp on the dyno (claimed: 560) Tires: Michelin Pilot Supersport Weight: 1963 kg (4,327 lb) 0-100 km/h (62 mph): 4.3 s 0-200 km/h (124 mph): 13.0 s Flexibility (80-120 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 4.5 s/5.6 s Flexibility (80-180 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 12.2 s/15.3 s 18 m slalom: 66.3 km/h Braking (100-0 km/h) (62-0 mph), warm: 37.5 m Braking (200-0 km/h) (124-0 mph), warm: 150.0 m Laptime (Kleiner Kurs Hockenheim): 1:13.6 min 2nd place: Porsche Panamera Turbo S - 555 hp on the dyno (claimed: 550) Tires: Michelin Pilot Supersport N0 Weight: 2024 kg (4,462 lb) 0-100 km/h (62 mph): 3.7 s 0-200 km/h (124 mph): 12.4 s Flexibility (80-120 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 4.6 s/7.0 s Flexibility (80-180 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 11.9 s/16.8 s 18 m slalom: 65.0 km/h Braking (100-0 km/h) (62-0 mph), warm: 34.9 m Braking (200-0 km/h) (124-0 mph), warm: 144.2 m Laptime (Kleiner Kurs Hockenheim): 1:12.1 min 3nd place: Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG PP - 610 hp on the dyno (claimed: 557) Tires: Continental Sport Contact 5P Weight: 1941 kg (4,279 lb) 0-100 km/h (62 mph): 4.4 s 0-200 km/h (124 mph): 13.2 s Flexibility (80-120 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 4.5 s/6.4 s Flexibility (80-180 km/h) (50-75 mph) in 5th/6th gear: 12.0 s/16.2 s 18 m slalom: 64.9 km/h Braking (100-0 km/h) (62-0 mph), warm: 37.5 m Braking (200-0 km/h) (124-0 mph), warm: 151.8 m Laptime (Kleiner Kurs Hockenheim): 1:14.6 min Credit to dede@**************s
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

04-20-2012, 02:06 PM	#2
e92_m3 Lieutenant Colonel 197 Rep 1,680 Posts Drives: 2009 e92 m3 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Bay Area, California iTrader: (0)	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! __________________ 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 Quote

04-20-2012, 02:08 PM	#3
ORIGIN M. Banned 3160 Rep 9,134 Posts Drives: ///M Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Northern Hemisphere iTrader: (0)	Wow, but somehow I'm not surprised... Love this new M5 in so many ways! Thanks for posting this.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 02:16 PM	#5
SF_E60 Negotiator 15 Rep 198 Posts Drives: E60 M5 (LCI), i3 BEV Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Huntington Beach, CA iTrader: (0) Garage List 2015 BMW i3 BEV [0.00] 2009 BMW M5 [0.00]	Wow that's a huge underrated difference!!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 02:19 PM	#6
mapezzul Special Agent 74 Rep 1,731 Posts Drives: Depends on the day! Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bavaria iTrader: (1)	Also worth noting- The M5 is the CHEAPEST! __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 02:20 PM	#7
boosted43 Captain 169 Rep 826 Posts Drives: 2017 C43 AMG Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: NOVA iTrader: (1) Garage List 2015 BMW 335i [0.00]	How is it that it's 620 on the dyno and 560 to the crank? I thought if anything it'd put out less power on the dyno. Am I wrong? __________________ 2014 X5 xDrive50i Mineral White \| DinanTronics Stage 1 \| Vossen HC3
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 02:50 PM	#12
esqu1re Lieutenant Colonel 47 Rep 1,855 Posts Drives: M Coupe Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: East Coast iTrader: (0)	So....those are not WHP numbers? Why don't they just let us have the WHP numbers, instead of extrapolating the crank HP? (I'm assuming they didn't remove the engines and measure them at the crank) __________________ ///M Coupe: RPI Scoop, OE Strut, CDV, Volk RE30, SS Brake Lines, Stromung Exhaust
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 03:11 PM	#14
JoeyBananaz18 Brigadier General 399 Rep 4,084 Posts Drives: metrocard Join Date: May 2009 Location: Whitestone, NY iTrader: (3)	porsche has the worst power to weight ratio but best 0-100 lol. this story is full of "what gives" hahaha. __________________ 7/18/09- I pick up my baby- 2009 E92 335i Xdrive, Space Gray over Coral Red. Premium Pkg, Cold Weather Pkg, M-Sport Pkg, 193Ms, Gloss Black grills, Custom Gloss Black Mirrors, Performance shift and E-brake boot, M3 spoiler, Euro fog switch, gloss black interior tim, Coco-Mats (red/black), H&R coilovers, 19'' Alufelgen SF-71s......
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 03:35 PM	#17
hellrotm Banned 4141 Rep 6,924 Posts Drives: F80 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: ...Location...Location iTrader: (0)	It is crazy how close the M5 and E63 are performance/speed wise. Each test they are literally right on top of each other. Looks like the M5 still is the better handling car, no surprise there. It makes me wonder how hard BMW is pushing that 4.4L to match the speed of the other two that have more displacement. Looking at recent ecu tunes for the E63, Benz left a lot of power on the table for modders. The Porsche is expensive, but damn it hauls the mail. It continues to pull the further down the road you get. Last edited by hellrotm; 04-20-2012 at 04:04 PM..
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 03:37 PM	#18
hellrotm Banned 4141 Rep 6,924 Posts Drives: F80 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: ...Location...Location iTrader: (0)	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.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 03:40 PM	#19
phusion974 Lieutenant 19 Rep 437 Posts Drives: OE Tuned C63 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: L.A. iTrader: (0)	Something doesn't seem right with those dyno numbers. Its funny that all of these cars are making more power to the wheels then at the crank. But then again they are only numbers, its the actual track numbers that count. I'm really impressed with the F10 M5.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 03:41 PM	#20
boosted43 Captain 169 Rep 826 Posts Drives: 2017 C43 AMG Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: NOVA iTrader: (1) Garage List 2015 BMW 335i [0.00]	I was confused and thought the dyno was showing 620 to the wheels, but 620 to the crank is significantly more than what BMW states. That's pretty nice though. __________________ 2014 X5 xDrive50i Mineral White \| DinanTronics Stage 1 \| Vossen HC3
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 04:12 PM	#21
hellrotm Banned 4141 Rep 6,924 Posts Drives: F80 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: ...Location...Location iTrader: (0)	^ Add the confusion. That 620hp number makes some of the early tuners look rather silly.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-20-2012, 04:34 PM	#22
BMW269 Brigadier General 445 Rep 3,888 Posts Drives: BMW Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Germany iTrader: (0)	Why did the other first dyno say 571 PS at the crank?
	Appreciate 0 Quote