BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-02-2009, 07:46 AM   #45
cj350
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: bmw m3 2009
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta GA

Posts: 261
iTrader: (1)

E55 is way faster and the E63 is faster than the m5 too
__________________
2009 COUPE M3 JET BLACK.....MASERATI GRANTURISMO 2009.... 2008 S600 V12.... INFINITI FX35 2009...........
cj350 is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 01:33 AM   #46
stickypaws
Dictator
 
stickypaws's Avatar
 
Drives: people crazy
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: where you want to be

Posts: 1,817
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cj350 View Post
E55 is way faster and the E63 is faster than the m5 too
That pretty much sums it up correctly.....
stickypaws is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 08:36 AM   #47
SoreHead
Captain
 
SoreHead's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

Posts: 866
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj350 View Post
E55 is way faster and the E63 is faster than the m5 too
Not so fast my friend. I'm supposed to be painting so I could only check the first source that came up in my search but the figures from Motor Trend are:

Mercedes E55 AMG
469bhp
0-60: 4.1secs
0-100: 10.0secs
12.3 sec @ 113.8 mph
9.6 lb/hp

BMW M3 DCT (only one they had full figures for)
414bhp
0-60: 4.1secs
0-100: 9.7secs
12.6 sec @ 113.2 mph
8.9 lb/hp

This hows that at the 1/4 mile the E55 has pulled away by a whopping 0.3secs and 0.6mph. Hardly way faster I think? In fact all the way to 100mph the M3 is ahead. And considering the handling advantage the M3 has I think I know which one I'd choose.

Doesn't matter to me either way but I had suspicions that the E55 wasn't as fast as people were making out.
SoreHead is offline   Canada
0
      06-03-2009, 03:48 PM   #48
MikeG_C63_AMG
First Lieutenant
 
MikeG_C63_AMG's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Eurocharged C63 AMG
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hoboken,NJ

Posts: 378
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
Not so fast my friend. I'm supposed to be painting so I could only check the first source that came up in my search but the figures from Motor Trend are:

Mercedes E55 AMG
469bhp
0-60: 4.1secs
0-100: 10.0secs
12.3 sec @ 113.8 mph
9.6 lb/hp

BMW M3 DCT (only one they had full figures for)
414bhp
0-60: 4.1secs
0-100: 9.7secs
12.6 sec @ 113.2 mph
8.9 lb/hp

This hows that at the 1/4 mile the E55 has pulled away by a whopping 0.3secs and 0.6mph. Hardly way faster I think? In fact all the way to 100mph the M3 is ahead. And considering the handling advantage the M3 has I think I know which one I'd choose.

Doesn't matter to me either way but I had suspicions that the E55 wasn't as fast as people were making out.
Again uninformed. All stock E55ís dyno exactly the same numbers as the V8 Kompressor engines in the CL55,S55, and SL55 motors. Meaning they all had roughly 493 HP at the crank. The topic is about straight line performance. No one denies the superior handling advantage of the M3 over the E55, however that point is invalid when your on the highway lined up and the 3rd honk is heard. I invite you to go over to some of the W211 AMG boards and look for there results of stock cars at the drag strip as well as encounters they had with E90/92 M3ís. Your suspicions will certainly change.
MikeG_C63_AMG is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 05:06 PM   #49
stickypaws
Dictator
 
stickypaws's Avatar
 
Drives: people crazy
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: where you want to be

Posts: 1,817
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG_C63_AMG View Post
Again uninformed. All stock E55ís dyno exactly the same numbers as the V8 Kompressor engines in the CL55,S55, and SL55 motors. Meaning they all had roughly 493 HP at the crank. The topic is about straight line performance. No one denies the superior handling advantage of the M3 over the E55, however that point is invalid when your on the highway lined up and the 3rd honk is heard. I invite you to go over to some of the W211 AMG boards and look for there results of stock cars at the drag strip as well as encounters they had with E90/92 M3ís. Your suspicions will certainly change.
Yeah, forget magazines. That's like knowing baseball by just watching TV. Armchair quarterbacking, etc..

For real world times check the threads mentioned above. And look for the long threads of this last winter's runs at the track http://www.famosoraceway.com/ that was specifically rented by W211 owners.....

Check the times for E55s and E63s. This isn't magazines or honking on the freeway in traffic. And compare runs by 3ers and 5ers.
stickypaws is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 06:01 PM   #50
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,179
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by amgthis View Post
295 lb/ft vs 516 lb/ft. M3 is fast but strictly in a line I'd say AMG with its crazy low end pull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
But for a straight drag race it's high horsepower that makes more of a difference. It's only off the line that the torque is important and from what I'm reading here the Merc is worse off the line.
Obviously in this case the car has higher torque and hp figures so it doesn't matter
The reply is mostly correct. What matters for acceleration is hp much more so than torque. Of course weight matters as well.

The M3's mere 295 ft-lb of torque is multiplied by about a 1.5 times higher transmission and final drive (ratios combined) meaning the effective torque compared apples to apples is more like 440 ft lb. Basically torque to the rear wheels is what matters and this figure is approximated well by by hp. Torque from the shaft simply doesn't matter except in terms of feel and low gear/part throttle, near bogging acceleration. Power to weight is the single best metric that determines the acceleration of a car and here the AMG just barely outshines the M3, both just a bit below 9 lb/hp. Of course the calculations/theory here are right in line with the observation, generally apples to apples, the E55 is a bit faster.

I'm not sure how many times this "lecture" needs to be repeated...
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
      06-03-2009, 07:50 PM   #51
mvagusta
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2008 m3 coup
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: michigan

Posts: 475
iTrader: (1)

I had raced a 2008 e 55 amg with dr's on.. We heated them up. I heated my tire's. We lined up. He jumped on me by 1/2 car by second I moved ahead and ahead and ahead. Steady on higher rpm's By the time we passed the marker's I was ahead by two 1/2 to three car's.. Now this was 2 out of three. the second time by two car's. With a lighter launch. We were both 65 degree night and we were the first two races of the night.
mvagusta is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 08:15 PM   #52
SoreHead
Captain
 
SoreHead's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

Posts: 866
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeG_C63_AMG View Post
Again uninformed. All stock E55ís dyno exactly the same numbers as the V8 Kompressor engines in the CL55,S55, and SL55 motors. Meaning they all had roughly 493 HP at the crank. The topic is about straight line performance. No one denies the superior handling advantage of the M3 over the E55, however that point is invalid when your on the highway lined up and the 3rd honk is heard. I invite you to go over to some of the W211 AMG boards and look for there results of stock cars at the drag strip as well as encounters they had with E90/92 M3ís. Your suspicions will certainly change.
Uninformed? I read the information. The bhp is provided by Merc themselves. If you claim they all have more I'd like to see your proof and I don't mean some dyno run that guesses the crank bhp as they can't measure it and don't know the exact losses to the wheels. That would suggest that it's you that is uninformed. Dyno's cannot tell the crank bhp. End of. It's only an estimate and I'd be more inclined to believe the people that made the car then someone trying to flatter you and your car so you'll pay them more to use their dyno.

I told you I was painting here (still am) so just picked the first source in my search so I didn't go hunting for one that suits me.

To state that magazine tests are a waste of time is utter nonsense. They do more accurate testing that driving along waiting to hear the third honk. Magazines use equipment to accurately measure the performance over any given distance. They use the same test for each car so using figures for 2 different cars by the same magazine is waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate then your suggestion. My point is that the extra bhp will be partially (if not all) negated by the extra weight and those figures prove it.

If you chose not to believe them or accuse a magazine test of being nonsense because it doesn't agree with what you dream is true then there's no real hope for you. Just search around for some more tests that show you're results and then swear that they are the only accurate source for information. In the meantime I would suggest heading off to an AMG chat board where everyone will just agree with you and you can all accuse sources that show different of being wrong.

My guess is in the real world from a stand still it's going to be down to who gets the better start and hits those gear changes perfectly. Of course in the Merc you don't have to worry about that. The old man gearbox will handle that for you
SoreHead is offline   Canada
0
      06-03-2009, 08:33 PM   #53
SoreHead
Captain
 
SoreHead's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

Posts: 866
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
The reply is mostly correct. What matters for acceleration is hp much more so than torque. Of course weight matters as well.

The M3's mere 295 ft-lb of torque is multiplied by about a 1.5 times higher transmission and final drive (ratios combined) meaning the effective torque compared apples to apples is more like 440 ft lb. Basically torque to the rear wheels is what matters and this figure is approximated well by by hp. Torque from the shaft simply doesn't matter except in terms of feel and low gear/part throttle, near bogging acceleration. Power to weight is the single best metric that determines the acceleration of a car and here the AMG just barely outshines the M3, both just a bit below 9 lb/hp. Of course the calculations/theory here are right in line with the observation, generally apples to apples, the E55 is a bit faster.

I'm not sure how many times this "lecture" needs to be repeated...
Jesus Swamp. You almost agreed with me there. Just cause we have the same birthday.

Despite the fact that my head hurts after reading it what you say agrees with the magazine test. It's not until the 1/4mile that the Merc starts to get the head. All the way to 100mph the M3 is ahead which is what I would have guessed. Oranges to Oranges I don't know what all these AMG drivers are doing on here instead of an AMG board. I can only assume that like our car, our board is just plain superior.
SoreHead is offline   Canada
0
      06-03-2009, 08:53 PM   #54
D-Rock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 325i
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: miami

Posts: 1,845
iTrader: (2)

Send a message via AIM to D-Rock
There is a vid on the m5board m3 gets spanked up!
__________________
D-Rock is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 08:53 PM   #55
stickypaws
Dictator
 
stickypaws's Avatar
 
Drives: people crazy
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: where you want to be

Posts: 1,817
iTrader: (0)

Maybe you do have a sorehead.

All stock:

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

fwiw, I'm on this board because I've owned more BMWs in the past then you can shake a stick at. (I'm way older than you, which is why I have an auto 7 speed tranny LOL) My P-cars are another story, another day....

Anyway, enjoy the car you have chosen at this point in your life, 'cause that's really what it's all about. Nothing else matters.
stickypaws is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 09:47 PM   #56
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,179
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
Jesus Swamp. You almost agreed with me there. Just cause we have the same birthday.

Despite the fact that my head hurts after reading it what you say agrees with the magazine test. It's not until the 1/4mile that the Merc starts to get the head. All the way to 100mph the M3 is ahead which is what I would have guessed. Oranges to Oranges I don't know what all these AMG drivers are doing on here instead of an AMG board. I can only assume that like our car, our board is just plain superior.
Hmmm, not really. We agree that power is more important and power to weight is most important. However, the P/W of the E55 AMG is better than the M3. It looks like you have a typo the E55 AMG is 8.7 not 9.6 (4100/469) and since that is lb per hp you want a lower number. I generally expect the AMG to be a bit faster since it's P/W is better. It's automatic will also provide a bit of an advantage in drag style launches from 0. But the cars are certainly so close that it is also a drivers race.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
      06-03-2009, 09:55 PM   #57
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,179
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stickypaws View Post
Maybe you do have a sorehead.

All stock:

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

fwiw, I'm on this board because I've owned more BMWs in the past then you can shake a stick at. (I'm way older than you, which is why I have an auto 7 speed tranny LOL) My P-cars are another story, another day....

Anyway, enjoy the car you have chosen at this point in your life, 'cause that's really what it's all about. Nothing else matters.
I have serious doubts that all of those figures are all stock, if you include stock also = OEM tires I am virtually positive. Getting 11.8@119 from a 4100 lb car with 469 hp is not likely. However, if the cars are under rated, putting out more like 500 hp at the crank as MikeG suggests I would buy those numbers. MikeG: What do you say about the time and trap got by MotorTrend? Do you think that car had close to 500 crank hp? I don't.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
      06-03-2009, 10:00 PM   #58
Kev
Resident Anesthesiologist
 
Kev's Avatar
 
Drives: VW bug with a misplaced engine
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,815
iTrader: (24)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
Uninformed? I read the information. The bhp is provided by Merc themselves. If you claim they all have more I'd like to see your proof and I don't mean some dyno run that guesses the crank bhp as they can't measure it and don't know the exact losses to the wheels. That would suggest that it's you that is uninformed. Dyno's cannot tell the crank bhp. End of. It's only an estimate and I'd be more inclined to believe the people that made the car then someone trying to flatter you and your car so you'll pay them more to use their dyno.

I told you I was painting here (still am) so just picked the first source in my search so I didn't go hunting for one that suits me.

To state that magazine tests are a waste of time is utter nonsense. They do more accurate testing that driving along waiting to hear the third honk. Magazines use equipment to accurately measure the performance over any given distance. They use the same test for each car so using figures for 2 different cars by the same magazine is waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate then your suggestion. My point is that the extra bhp will be partially (if not all) negated by the extra weight and those figures prove it.

If you chose not to believe them or accuse a magazine test of being nonsense because it doesn't agree with what you dream is true then there's no real hope for you. Just search around for some more tests that show you're results and then swear that they are the only accurate source for information. In the meantime I would suggest heading off to an AMG chat board where everyone will just agree with you and you can all accuse sources that show different of being wrong.

My guess is in the real world from a stand still it's going to be down to who gets the better start and hits those gear changes perfectly. Of course in the Merc you don't have to worry about that. The old man gearbox will handle that for you
You are extremely uninformed because in the rest of the world, the E55 is advertised as having the same amount of horsepower as the S55, SL55, and CL55 at 493hp. Having owned both cars, I would have to say that the E55 feels faster from a dig but the M3 will pull away up top because of better gearing.
__________________
kev { divinum est sedate dolorem }
Kev is offline   Hong Kong
0
      06-03-2009, 10:30 PM   #59
rapistwit
Banned
 
Drives: GT-R, Cayenne GTS, GT3 order
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fargo, ND

Posts: 73
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvagusta View Post
I had raced a 2008 e 55 amg with dr's on.. We heated them up. I heated my tire's. We lined up. He jumped on me by 1/2 car by second I moved ahead and ahead and ahead. Steady on higher rpm's By the time we passed the marker's I was ahead by two 1/2 to three car's.. Now this was 2 out of three. the second time by two car's. With a lighter launch. We were both 65 degree night and we were the first two races of the night.
A 2008 E55? Are you sure? An E55 is faster than a new M3 to 60 (and probably 100).
You were probably racing an E550.
rapistwit is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 10:31 PM   #60
SoreHead
Captain
 
SoreHead's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

Posts: 866
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev View Post
You are extremely uninformed because in the rest of the world, the E55 is advertised as having the same amount of horsepower as the S55, SL55, and CL55 at 493hp. Having owned both cars, I would have to say that the E55 feels faster from a dig but the M3 will pull away up top because of better gearing.
I'm not uninformed. I'm reading quoted figures for the car.

Here's from Edmunds:
The Mercedes E55 AMG comes with a supercharged 5.5-liter V8 rated at 469 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque. Mercedes claims a 0-to-60-mph time of just 4.5 seconds for the sedan

You've seen the ones from Motor Trend saying the same.

Evo Magazine:
The IHI-supercharged 5.4-litre V8 develops 469bhp at 6100rpm (the SL55's original 'lower-end-of-production-tolerance' output before it was re-certified at 500bhp) and the same 516lb ft of torque between 2650rpm and 4500rpm

Clearly you are the ones that are uninformed. You may be able to brush off one magazine but there are 3 examples quoting the exact same figures. And they are 3 from different parts of the world. The E55 had the same output for every market.

The E63 has 518bhp but from all the evidence I've seen the E55 clearly has 469bhp.

Stickypaws: My point exactly. I buy whatever car tickles my todger and this time round it was an M3. I know there are far faster cars out there (I was going to buy a Z06 but just couldn't sit inside one for any length of time without wanting to throw up. surely 3k extra and a decent interior is not much to ask for?)
For the record that was just a joke about the gearbox but you seem to be the only one that realised that.
SoreHead is offline   Canada
0
      06-03-2009, 10:33 PM   #61
SoreHead
Captain
 
SoreHead's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

Posts: 866
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by stickypaws View Post
Maybe you do have a sorehead.

All stock:

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.ph...ame=Compare%21

fwiw, I'm on this board because I've owned more BMWs in the past then you can shake a stick at. (I'm way older than you, which is why I have an auto 7 speed tranny LOL) My P-cars are another story, another day....

Anyway, enjoy the car you have chosen at this point in your life, 'cause that's really what it's all about. Nothing else matters.
Hold on a second. From that it would suggest that the E55 is considerably faster than the E63 which replaced it with more bhp? I think the E55 might have been fiddled with
SoreHead is offline   Canada
0
      06-03-2009, 10:42 PM   #62
rapistwit
Banned
 
Drives: GT-R, Cayenne GTS, GT3 order
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fargo, ND

Posts: 73
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
I'm not uninformed. I'm reading quoted figures for the car.

Here's from Edmunds:
The Mercedes E55 AMG comes with a supercharged 5.5-liter V8 rated at 469 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque. Mercedes claims a 0-to-60-mph time of just 4.5 seconds for the sedan

You've seen the ones from Motor Trend saying the same.

Evo Magazine:
The IHI-supercharged 5.4-litre V8 develops 469bhp at 6100rpm (the SL55's original 'lower-end-of-production-tolerance' output before it was re-certified at 500bhp) and the same 516lb ft of torque between 2650rpm and 4500rpm

Clearly you are the ones that are uninformed. You may be able to brush off one magazine but there are 3 examples quoting the exact same figures. And they are 3 from different parts of the world. The E55 had the same output for every market.

The E63 has 518bhp but from all the evidence I've seen the E55 clearly has 469bhp.

Stickypaws: My point exactly. I buy whatever car tickles my todger and this time round it was an M3. I know there are far faster cars out there (I was going to buy a Z06 but just couldn't sit inside one for any length of time without wanting to throw up. surely 3k extra and a decent interior is not much to ask for?)
For the record that was just a joke about the gearbox but you seem to be the only one that realised that.





Mercedes says the E63 has 507 bhp and 465 lb ft of torque while the E55 is rated at 469bhp with 516 lb ft of torque.

The engine change was really a lateral move for Mercedes. They needed a less torquey motor for their 7 speed tranny.
rapistwit is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 10:44 PM   #63
stickypaws
Dictator
 
stickypaws's Avatar
 
Drives: people crazy
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: where you want to be

Posts: 1,817
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I have serious doubts that all of those figures are all stock, if you include stock also = OEM tires I am virtually positive. Getting 11.8@119 from a 4100 lb car with 469 hp is not likely. However, if the cars are under rated, putting out more like 500 hp at the crank as MikeG suggests I would buy those numbers. MikeG: What do you say about the time and trap got by MotorTrend? Do you think that car had close to 500 crank hp? I don't.
fwiw, most of them are on MBWorld. They are running stock. You can ask them yourself. There are others others with bolt-ons or tunes who post their times, too (check on draglist for the modded AMGs)

Better yet do a search on MBWorld and get the recent times from Fomoso back in Jan and Feb; there were two rentals/runs. Lots were stock, some not.

There was somebody who's been banned from here (and just about every other forum) that ran his M3 with only bolt-ons and MT rubber at the same meet. He had some launching problems and didn't post any good times. But he had posted some times that were kinda close in the past but no cigar.
Having AMGs with auto trannies worked against him.

These are different cars altogether anyway. German autobahn style muscle car versus a German back road style sport sedan.

But I'll run my stock E63 against a stock M3 in a 1/4 at the track.
stickypaws is offline  
0
      06-03-2009, 10:48 PM   #64
stickypaws
Dictator
 
stickypaws's Avatar
 
Drives: people crazy
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: where you want to be

Posts: 1,817
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rapistwit View Post
Mercedes says the E63 has 507 bhp and 465 lb ft of torque while the E55 is rated at 469bhp with 516 lb ft of torque.

The engine change was really a lateral move for Mercedes. They needed a less torquey motor for their 7 speed tranny.
That's right. (great tranny, btw, for this motor)

Sorehead, the E63 is NA and the E55 has a blower. The E63 will pull from the line but the E55 catches up. E63 is 507 (in the USA)
stickypaws is offline  
0
      06-04-2009, 12:22 AM   #65
Kev
Resident Anesthesiologist
 
Kev's Avatar
 
Drives: VW bug with a misplaced engine
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 8,815
iTrader: (24)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
I'm not uninformed. I'm reading quoted figures for the car.

Here's from Edmunds:
The Mercedes E55 AMG comes with a supercharged 5.5-liter V8 rated at 469 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque. Mercedes claims a 0-to-60-mph time of just 4.5 seconds for the sedan

You've seen the ones from Motor Trend saying the same.

Evo Magazine:
The IHI-supercharged 5.4-litre V8 develops 469bhp at 6100rpm (the SL55's original 'lower-end-of-production-tolerance' output before it was re-certified at 500bhp) and the same 516lb ft of torque between 2650rpm and 4500rpm

Clearly you are the ones that are uninformed. You may be able to brush off one magazine but there are 3 examples quoting the exact same figures. And they are 3 from different parts of the world. The E55 had the same output for every market.

The E63 has 518bhp but from all the evidence I've seen the E55 clearly has 469bhp.

Stickypaws: My point exactly. I buy whatever car tickles my todger and this time round it was an M3. I know there are far faster cars out there (I was going to buy a Z06 but just couldn't sit inside one for any length of time without wanting to throw up. surely 3k extra and a decent interior is not much to ask for?)
For the record that was just a joke about the gearbox but you seem to be the only one that realised that.
So.........? You are still quoting wrong figures....... figures that MBUSA's marketing devised to lead people to think that the S55 has power than the E55..........

Have you actually driven the E55 extensively?
__________________
kev { divinum est sedate dolorem }
Kev is offline   Hong Kong
0
      06-04-2009, 02:05 AM   #66
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,179
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stickypaws View Post
fwiw, most of them are on MBWorld. They are running stock. You can ask them yourself.
...
DO read everything that I wrote. I said that IF these cars are under rated and producing around 500 crank hp then I do find the sub 12s times plausible. However, this also begs the question as to the MotorTrend time which seem much more consistent with the cars official/quoted output.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST