M5 vs F430

[Fire It Up]

1
2
3
4
5
6
Click em all

[Fire It Up]

Well, now we know the ultimate sleeper.  

[BMWDave]

I read that...I am happy the M5 won, but those numbers are seriously slow for an F430.  C/D got it to sixty about one second quicker.

[Fire It Up]

I read that...I am happy the M5 won, but those numbers are seriously slow for an F430.  C/D got it to sixty about one second quicker.

Wow....you're right....Maybe they didnt use LC?

[BMWDave]

I read that...I am happy the M5 won, but those numbers are seriously slow for an F430.  C/D got it to sixty about one second quicker.

Wow....you're right....Maybe they didnt use LC?

I dont think launch control would shave a second off the 0-60 time....it might shave a couple of tenths of seconds, but there is no way it would shave a whole second.  And the F430 is a lot faster than an M5, no matter what way you look at it.  I would understand if they got 5.5 seconds for the M5, and 4.6 for the F430....but to get a fast time for one car and a slow time for another in the same magazine is somewhat fishy.

[Fire It Up]

Maybe they lied about using paddle shifters?

[BMWDave]

Maybe they lied about using paddle shifters?

Paddle shifters wouldnt make a difference, either way, this F430 didnt have a conventional manual, and even if they did it in Automatic, the shifts would be just as quick (in milliseconds) and it would still not make a second difference.

[Raza]

It's not the first time inconsistent numbers come about.  If I remember correctly, C&D corrects their times after running several rounds.  These guys may not have.  And the Ferrari may have crappy traction.

What I'm really wondering about is the M5's poor acceleration.  4.6?  R&T ran 4.1 and 4.2 for the E55 and RS6 saloons, respectively, so I think this thing would be quite lower than 4.6 seconds.

[BMWDave]

It's not the first time inconsistent numbers come about.  If I remember correctly, C&D corrects their times after running several rounds.  These guys may not have.  And the Ferrari may have crappy traction.

What I'm really wondering about is the M5's poor acceleration.  4.6?  R&T ran 4.1 and 4.2 for the E55 and RS6 saloons, respectively, so I think this thing would be quite lower than 4.6 seconds.

Its not as torquey an engine as the E55, but it starts blowing them away after the initial launch.

[Raza]

It's not the first time inconsistent numbers come about.  If I remember correctly, C&D corrects their times after running several rounds.  These guys may not have.  And the Ferrari may have crappy traction.

What I'm really wondering about is the M5's poor acceleration.  4.6?  R&T ran 4.1 and 4.2 for the E55 and RS6 saloons, respectively, so I think this thing would be quite lower than 4.6 seconds.

Its not as torquey an engine as the E55, but it starts blowing them away after the initial launch.

If I recall correctly, the E55 ran 0-100-0 in about the same time as a 575.  

As a matter of fact, a good launch should be alot easier in the M5 because you can get to a higher part in the rev band without destroying the rear tires, and the E55's got an automatic.  

[Tom]

I like the way you illegally copied C&D for those of us too cheap to renew our subscriptions.  Thanks.

[TBR]

I like the way you illegally copied C&D for those of us too cheap to renew our subscriptions.  Thanks.

That isn't C/D, it is Autocar.  

[Tom]

I wouldn't know.  I'm too poor to resubscribe to C&D  

[TBR]

I wouldn't know.  I'm too poor to resubscribe to C&D

$12  a years is too much for you?!?  

[Fire It Up]

Do you know what else you could get with those 12 bucks TBR?

[Tom]

Do you know what else you could get with those 12 bucks TBR?

Yup, that's a lot of bones.