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

[catpat8000]

A few points:

1. Why, when the numbers are so incredible, is everyone so quick to believe the dyno results? Dynos are excellent at measuring deltas but it's much more difficult to get accurate absolute values. Many, many things affect the outcome, not the least of which is the dyno's state of maintenance and the operator of the dyno. The most straightforward answer is that the dyno HP numbers publish by the magazine are bogus. We should be skeptical when things don't look right. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

2. The Porsche is AWD - how does this affect the dyno comparison with the other cars?

3. When you're looking at acceleration from a roll of 100 km/hr or higher, gearing will have very little effect on acceleration, if measured over a large speed range, like 100-200 km/hr. The reason is that while a higher geared car will pull harder in a specific gear, it is out of that gear more quickly and then the other car pulls harder for a while.

4. Aerodynamics will have a measurable effect on acceleration times at high speeds. Anyone know which car has a better coefficient of drag? Nonetheless, the single biggest factor which determines a vehicle's acceleration, once it is moving and at a higher speed (so traction isn't an issue) is the hp to weight ratio.

Pat

[Rolitto]

Nice M5. BMW FTW.

[M5007]

This M5 is an absolute beast. I still. Any get over how heavy the Panamera is and how expensive the MBZ is.

This M5 is back where it belongs. On the top of the food chain. I was not a big fan of the E60. This brings it home. As a previous E39 owner this is the car that should have followed.

[Bimmernerd]

Panamera Turbo a k a Turbo-toad...IMHO the design is a joke! On top it is also heavily overpriced.

The M5 is a beaut especially when compared with a toad on wheels and a car that looks like a 3-year old designed it (MB E-class)...

I am looking forward to a comparison between M6 Gran Coupe, Audi RS7 and MB CLS 63 AMG!

[nordic@telia.com]

Hmmm.. but the Panamera is faster, brakes better..??

[Rolitto]

And let's not forget that the BMW M5 is the most powerful from its smallest displacement engine.

[Kayani_1]

For all those that keep talking about how come Porsche is .6 quicker if it is down 50hp. They all need to realize that Porsche is AWD and BMW is RWD. That makes a huge difference. That is why GT-R is able to kick a** of many far more powerful cars from 0-60mph and 0-120mph. However, if you do a run to top speed the other more powerful cars start to catch up to it.

I believe a roll on start from 100 between M5 vs P.P Turbo S. The M5 would be faster. As a matter of fact looking at the 6th gear acceleration of 80 km/h-180 km/h the M5 is a nearly 1.5 second quicker (M5 15.3 sec. vs P.P. Turbo S 16.8 sec). Porsche got the hole shot from 0-60 and 0-124mph thanks to AWD and not......some fishy miracle as some are claiming.

Also, it looks like M5 grips the best slalom for M5 is better then both the others. On a longer track with more fast sweepers M5 might be faster then P.P. turbo S. What puzzles me is that Porsche has 20x11 rear wheel wearing only 295 width tires.......why?. I mean those bad boys should be wearing something like 305 at least or maybe 315. They are an entire inch wider in rear compared to 19x10 rears on M5 wearing same 295 width tires. Come on Porsche put more wider rubber on those bad boys. I think it would help with slalom numbers.

Oh and thank god BMW kept this M5 lighter then its competitors much like its tradition.

[Anderw]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

620hp, not whp.

your right hp I didn't mean whp still very impressive

[G.I.Joe]

Interesting how numbers can be so different between tests. I am looking at the April edition of the German car magazine "Auto Bild Sport Cars". There is a test of the M5 vs. E63 AMG, Jaguar XFR and Cadillac CTS-V.

In this test the M5 does 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) in 3.9 sec and 0-200 km/h (0-124 mph) in 11.8 sec. The E63 does it in 4.1 and 12.6, the XFR in 4.5 and 14.4 and the CTS-V in 4.3 and 14.1 respectively.

The M5 does a quartermile in 11.98 sec, the E63 AMG in 12.07, the CTS-V in 12.49 and the XFR in 12.54

I guess the only thing you can conclude from these tests are that in the specific conditions the cars were tested, they performed as measured. For a powerful RWD car (like the M5), traction is paramount in 0-anything times. And above 100 mph cw value and front area is very important as well, so it's not all power and power/weight ratio.

And Porsches are never to be underestimated IRL, they know something about making cars fast on the road/track, not just on paper

[dmz]

It goes to show you that a Porsche is the true ultimate driving machine. BMW is a close 2nd. Too bad Porsche are so expensive or I'd have one in my driveway.

Originally Posted by AlterZgo

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.

[docjay]

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!

+1

[TurboBimmer]

IMO this is ust further proof that car manufacturers send "special" cars to these car magazine tests.

This has been rumoured for a long time, as oftenly results from early tests in magazines could not be reproduced by customers.

Also, it could be that the Porsche has a "dyno detection mode" in the ECU, limiting power on a dyno.

There's just no way the fattest car, with the least HP, would be fastest in accelerating from 100 to 200km/h.

[phish_100]

Originally Posted by dmz

It goes to show you that a Porsche is the true ultimate driving machine. BMW is a close 2nd. Too bad Porsche are so expensive or I'd have one in my driveway.

even though it looks like an old potato compared to the M5?

[Bimmernerd]

Originally Posted by phish_100

even though it looks like an old potato compared to the M5?

+1

[Bols]

Numbers are confusing indeed ..

Other tests had the M5 at around 3.7s 0-100? That puts it dead even with the panamera on this test. They should build machines to test these cars, driver's difference has become so evident with these beastly machines so similarly equipped.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

IMO this is ust further proof that car manufacturers send "special" cars to these car magazine tests.

...

There's just no way the fattest car, with the least HP, would be fastest in accelerating from 100 to 200km/h.

Totally agree. But why assume the automaker went to all the trouble of setting up a special car for the test? Isn't the simpler bet that the magazine's dyno numbers and the magazine's conversion to from wheel HP to flywheel HP are just plain wrong?

That seems far more likely to me.

[LarThaL]

To really say that any one of these cars is "better" than the other is purely an opinion. They each have their strengths and weaknesses relative to the others.

Honestly, at these power levels, AWD is a huge advantage, and makes the power much more useable for speeds most people will drive at 99.9% of the time. What you lose, is a bit of sterring sharpness and feel. It will always be a trade-off.

Porsche is priced the way it is because it is high-end product that also allows for a huge degree of customization in its build process. This would be true of any such product. High-end product + high degree of individualization = disproportionately high cost.

No question, that the M5 is the best value.

[Kayani_1]

I guess you and I must be reading two different articles. Where in the article does it say that Porsche is faster from 100 km/h-200km/h.

In fact it is the other way around from roll on start of 80 km/h-180 km/h M5 is the fastest.

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

I

There's just no way the fattest car, with the least HP, would be fastest in accelerating from 100 to 200km/h.

[TurboBimmer]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

Totally agree. But why assume the automaker went to all the trouble of setting up a special car for the test? Isn't the simpler bet that the magazine's dyno numbers and the magazine's conversion to from wheel HP to flywheel HP are just plain wrong?

That seems far more likely to me.

Maha dynos are known to be very accurate though. Why would the dyno be wrong for just two of the test cars? And the heaviest car in the test with the least power performs best...?

Same thing applies to suspension settings. 99% of the cars (which are all supplied by the manufacturers) tested by SportAuto are out-of-spec (mostly more camber which directly increases grip in cornering). It's just ridiculous.

[jcjames]

Love M5

[GreenLantern]

Wow, some impressive numbers.

Thanks for sharing.

[mrtim83]

Weight and aerodynamics and wheel size and suspension do play a huge factor when trying to determine how the ppts can beat lighter car with more power in a shootout to 100kmh and 200kmh.

What about the dyno, ah yes the dyno, still proves that bmw is putting out more power. But not to all four wheels. Let us not forget that ppts has AWD.

Also the main reason why this car can smoke the m5 in a shootout to 200kmh is because of launch control. It slams all the power to all four wheels and the torque goes to something like 590. Normal psi is around 12.3 and in launch control it boosts to 13.5.

The dyno doesn't sense that launch control because more than likely they don't put the vehicle in launch control while performing the dyno. I will admit I love the Porsche panamera turbo....I must admit that the best value for money is the BMW m5.

If someone handed me the money and said here is a freebie get what you want... Porsche all the way. If I'm using my hard earned cash... I'm being sensible and getting the M5. Either way I still win. They are both awesome cars that look sexy and perform well.

Oh yeah this is my first post guys. Great site and love talking cars!