M5 CP review from down under

[EdM5]

check this:

http://www.motoring.com.au/reviews/2...st-drive-37745

[singularity]

I don't understand how a reviewer could overlook the fact that M5 is a RWD when comparing it to AWD 0-100s and stating "not as quick as rivals". It IS faster once it gets the traction.

[Neil McRae]

because he s a jurno rather than a car expert.

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by singularity

I don't understand how a reviewer could overlook the fact that M5 is a RWD when comparing it to AWD 0-100s and stating "not as quick as rivals". It IS faster once it gets the traction.

Yes it's an interesting point. However the traction is an important difference. I think this is what I was hoping from the differential tuning in the CP but I didn't get it. I am hoping at some point BMW releases an M5 with meaningfully more power and improved traction.

The 601M wheels are wider - they should have put 275 and 305s on the CP car. That would probably have convinced me to get CP.

[singularity]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

Yes it's an interesting point. However the traction is an important difference. I think this is what I was hoping from the differential tuning in the CP but I didn't get it. I am hoping at some point BMW releases an M5 with meaningfully more power and improved traction.

The 601M wheels are wider - they should have put 275 and 305s on the CP car. That would probably have convinced me to get CP.

That 'wider' plus less restrictive MDM, 15 top RPM HP altogether is probably what makes it 0.1 quicker to 100. Makes me remember when I raced a C63 and he couldn't get traction, he resorted to +weight of having 3 passengers sit in the rear seat just to get a better traction

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by singularity

That 'wider' plus less restrictive MDM, 15 top RPM HP altogether is probably what makes it 0.1 quicker to 100. Makes me remember when I raced a C63 and he couldn't get traction, he resorted to +weight of having 3 passengers sit in the rear seat just to get a better traction

The 0.1s could be false. Remember that the M5 comfortable beats the claimed acceleration time of 4.2s. I have got it as low as 3.7s before. So you can claim a 0.1s without actually having to deliver it. When I see this car testing at 3.6s o-60 then I will believe it.

[singularity]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

The 0.1s could be false. Remember that the M5 comfortable beats the claimed acceleration time of 4.2s. I have got it as low as 3.7s before. So you can claim a 0.1s without actually having to deliver it. When I see this car testing at 3.6s o-60 then I will believe it.

Speaking of which, I've heard that M6GC's faster acceleration compared to M5 is due to shorter gear ratio, heard anything about it? I wonder if it's partially the case in CP's claims too.

[stealth.pilot]

Originally Posted by singularity

Speaking of which, I've heard that M6GC's faster acceleration compared to M5 is due to shorter gear ratio, heard anything about it? I wonder if it's partially the case in CP's claims too.

Perhaps. But the important thing is that the M6GC doesn't feel faster so whether it is or isn't is irrelevant.

[singularity]

Originally Posted by stealth.pilot

Perhaps. But the important thing is that the M6GC doesn't feel faster so whether it is or isn't is irrelevant.

My M6 E63 felt faster (with passion and violent 4k rpm dsc off S3 etc) than M5 F10 too, not so much when actually racing one

[mstmng]

Originally Posted by singularity

Speaking of which, I've heard that M6GC's faster acceleration compared to M5 is due to shorter gear ratio, heard anything about it? I wonder if it's partially the case in CP's claims too.

I had a go with M6 GC couple times, every single time it was a car or half car in front of me

both stock