Stock dyno numbers for Comp Package

[Below Speed Limit]

Look at this thread if you don't believe me about M5 vs E63 AMG-S : http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showpos...23&postcount=6

[soooma]

Originally Posted by Below Speed Limit

Look at this thread if you don't believe me about M5 vs E63 AMG-S : http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showpos...23&postcount=6

I find this video very hard to believe
Either M5 is tuned and not disclosed or AMG S wasn't interested after the clear pull he got initially -
Sadly so,
Don't get me wrong I have M5 Myself and would love to believe this video but I said it before and I am.gonna say it M5 won't do this to AMGS

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by soooma

I find this video very hard to believe
Either M5 is tuned and not disclosed or AMG S wasn't interested after the clear pull he got initially -
Sadly so,
Don't get me wrong I have M5 Myself and would love to believe this video but I said it before and I am.gonna say it M5 won't do this to AMGS

It's laughable. As if some murky video on Youtube is better evidence of anything than a controlled test.

Like you, I have an M5 and I used to have an E63. I voted with my wallet (and lost a bunch in the process) and I agree - this video doesn't reflect reality.

Look at it this way:
regardless of what you think of the drag racing abilities of the R&T crew, we can compare the performance of the cars at higher speeds, using the data in this article. In this way we nullify any lameness on the part of the drivers.

The E63 hit 60 mph in 3.2s, the M5 in 3.8s. This is obviously because the AMG has AWD. Nonetheless, at 60 mph a car is traveling 88 ft/sec.

So by 60 mph, the E63 has a lead of 0.6*88 = 53 feet on the M5.

Now let's look at the time to 130 mph. 13.5s for the M5 and 12.8s for the AMG. At 130 mph, a car is traveling 191 ft/sec. So the AMG, at 130mph, has 191*0.7 = 134 feet on the M5.

So in this case, where we only compare from 60mph on up, the AMG has increased the separation between the cars by 134-53 = 81 feet on the way to 130 mph. In other words, the M5 is not gaining after 60 mph, and this has nothing to do with launching or traction, it is pure HP to weight.

Pat

[elitex]

How about Chris Harris's video with Cls63s vs M6gc?

[elitex]

Actually E63s vs M6gc. Go to 13:00 min mark.

http://<div class="youtube-playerCon.../iframe></div>

[richard in NC]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

The E63 hit 60 mph in 3.2s, the M5 in 3.8s. This is obviously because the AMG has AWD. Nonetheless, at 60 mph a car is traveling 88 ft/sec.

So by 60 mph, the E63 has a lead of 0.6*88 = 53 feet on the M5.

Now let's look at the time to 130 mph. 13.5s for the M5 and 12.8s for the AMG. At 130 mph, a car is traveling 191 ft/sec. So the AMG, at 130mph, has 191*0.7 = 134 feet on the M5.

So in this case, where we only compare from 60mph on up, the AMG has increased the separation between the cars by 134-53 = 81 feet on the way to 130 mph. In other words, the M5 is not gaining after 60 mph, and this has nothing to do with launching or traction, it is pure HP to weight.

Pat

Sorry, the math does not work that way. Comparing time to distance, yes but not with time to speed.

My bet is it's all about traction. If R&T tested on a loose gravely surface, the M5 has a big disadvantage to AWD. Put them both on a drag strip and the M5 gains enough traction to even the launch out and could hang with and yes beat the AMG.

Plus a car with limited traction does take more practice to get right. Hence an M5 owner would have a much better chance matching the AMG than a magazine test.

[Niko1414]

From a roll m5 faster period, from a dig it's all E63 end of story