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

[cole328]

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)

[Subway35]

lol, Euro/PS... What an interesting stats.

[czechchamp]

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.

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.

[AlterZgo]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

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/

[AlterZgo]

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.

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.

[Imola.ZHP]

Looks like braking is the "weakest link" I guess the upcoming available ceramic brakes will (hopefully) cure that!

[serge]

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!

Sure. The Mercedes "only" had a difference of 53 hp vs 60hp for the M5.

[vladberca]

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

[UsualSuspect]

Looks like the price of the Panamera is the reason it lost this comparison.

[e92_m3]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

Mercedes was just as underrated.

Originally Posted by serge

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).

[CanAutM3]

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

[mPlasticDesign]

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.

[uhn2000]

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.

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

[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

[///M1]

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.

[Eternal]

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.

[Anderw]

620whp really? wow

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by kwsw

620whp really? wow

620hp, not whp.

[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

[antzcrashing]

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

[xDrive35i]

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.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by Eternal

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