The 7 Series is Back on Top

[BMWDave]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

[Raza]

Well, I can't find a link, but my memory is very, very good.

[TBR]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

You would be wrong, the S500 is a LWB S-class, there are SWB versions available in Europe. As far as a link goes, I can't find the test's data table on R&T's website, but here is the results table: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...1&page_number=7 The article was in the May 2005 issue and I will scan in the data table if you really don't trust me (though, the result table shows that the S500 was indeed faster to 60 than the 745Li.)

[Raza]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

That's why I said ties or beats it.  

[TBR]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

Why not? R&T is a much more trustworthy source than MT is.

[BMWDave]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

You would be wrong, the S500 is a LWB S-class, there are SWB versions available in Europe. As far as a link goes, I can't find the test's data table on R&T's website, but here is the results table: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...1&page_number=7 The article was in the May 2005 issue and I will scan in the data table if you really don't trust me (though, the result table shows that the S500 was indeed faster to 60 than the 745Li.)

I just checked it up on their site, they said that at 5.8 the S500 was quickest to 60 :)

My point is that two magazines got two very different results, so you cant conclude that a 7er is slower.

[BMWDave]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

Why not? R&T is a much more trustworthy source than MT is.

Thats a pretty stupid statement of you to make...they both got different results, M/T can drive, even if they cant write well.  These arent decisions...theyre simple facts, tests at the track, that you cant forge.  

[Raza]

Let's just say that I'm right and move on.


Um, how about "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't?"  

There are many factors in a 0-60 run, even in an automatic.  Sometimes it'll be faster, sometimes it'll be slower.  

[BMWDave]

Let's just say that I'm right and move on.


Um, how about "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't?"  

There are many factors in a 0-60 run, even in an automatic.  Sometimes it'll be faster, sometimes it'll be slower.

The one in the R/T test had the 7Gtronic, I believe.

[Raza]

Let's just say that I'm right and move on.


Um, how about "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't?" 

There are many factors in a 0-60 run, even in an automatic.  Sometimes it'll be faster, sometimes it'll be slower.

The one in the R/T test had the 7Gtronic, I believe.

Fucking shit.  I drove a CLS500 with the 7GTronic and it was damn fast.

[TBR]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

[BMWDave]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.  

[TBR]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

Why not? R&T is a much more trustworthy source than MT is.

Thats a pretty stupid statement of you to make...they both got different results, M/T can drive, even if they cant write well.  These arent decisions...theyre simple facts, tests at the track, that you cant forge.

You're wrong, the source does matter. What if MT doesn't correct for temperature or elevation? What if their drag strip was sanding when they tested the S500 or just repaved when they tested the 745i? We know that all conditions were equal for the R&T numbers, we don't know that for the MT numbers, besides the fact that MT has proven themselves to be unconsistent.

[TBR]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.

Not necessarily, 4matic weighs 200 lbs, enough to make a .2 second difference.

[BMWDave]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

Why not? R&T is a much more trustworthy source than MT is.

Thats a pretty stupid statement of you to make...they both got different results, M/T can drive, even if they cant write well.  These arent decisions...theyre simple facts, tests at the track, that you cant forge.

You're wrong, the source does matter. What if MT doesn't correct for temperature or elevation? What if their drag strip was sanding when they tested the S500 or just repaved when they tested the 745i? We know that all conditions were equal for the R&T numbers, we don't know that for the MT numbers, besides the fact that MT has proven themselves to be unconsistent.

You may not like M/T, but they are not that stupid.  Please.  I'm sure they love BMW, and hate Mercedes, and thus tested the Bimmer on smooth pavement, and went to a construction site to test the Mercedes.    

[BMWDave]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.

Not necessarily, 4matic weighs 200 lbs, enough to make a .2 second difference.

I provided a link to disprove that, as the S500 Sport with RWD and no 7Gtronic was slower than a 745i with the sport package.  Believe who you want.

[Raghavan]

And, Dave, R&T says you're wrong. They got 5.8 seconds for a S500 and 6.1 for a 745Li.

Bring me links.  I provided links for my position, now you back yours.

And it would be more comparable to a 745i, not the Li version.

BMW also claims the same 0-60 for the 745i and Li, so it should be the same.

Ok, I just looked it up, R/T did indeed get 5.8 for an S500.  But M/T got to 60 quicker in a BMW 7er, so you cant conclude that the BMW 7 series is slower than an S500.

Why not? R&T is a much more trustworthy source than MT is.

Thats a pretty stupid statement of you to make...they both got different results, M/T can drive, even if they cant write well.  These arent decisions...theyre simple facts, tests at the track, that you cant forge.

You're wrong, the source does matter. What if MT doesn't correct for temperature or elevation? What if their drag strip was sanding when they tested the S500 or just repaved when they tested the 745i? We know that all conditions were equal for the R&T numbers, we don't know that for the MT numbers, besides the fact that MT has proven themselves to be unconsistent.

You may not like M/T, but they are not that stupid.  Please.  I'm sure they love BMW, and hate Mercedes, and thus tested the Bimmer on smooth pavement, and went to a construction site to test the Mercedes.  

     

[TBR]

What numbers are more reliable? The ones taken at the same place and time and under the same conditions or the ones that were likely gotten at different locations and certainly at different times and most likely under different conditions?  

[BMWDave]

What numbers are more reliable? The ones taken at the same place and time and under the same conditions or the ones that were likely gotten at different locations and certainly at different times and most likely under different conditions?

Why dont you provide me evidence that M/T did just that, and stop basing your opinion on a blind bias against M/T.

[TBR]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.

Not necessarily, 4matic weighs 200 lbs, enough to make a .2 second difference.

I provided a link to disprove that, as the S500 Sport with RWD and no 7Gtronic was slower than a 745i with the sport package.  Believe who you want.

Those numbers were gotten under different conditions, they cannot be trusted as much as the numbers from R&T.

[TBR]

What numbers are more reliable? The ones taken at the same place and time and under the same conditions or the ones that were likely gotten at different locations and certainly at different times and most likely under different conditions?

Why dont you provide me evidence that M/T did just that, and stop basing your opinion on a blind bias against M/T.

It isn't blind bias, it is common sense (and, the fact that their 0-60 times have varied by as much as 1 second from test to test, I am not making this up!).

[BMWDave]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.

Not necessarily, 4matic weighs 200 lbs, enough to make a .2 second difference.

I provided a link to disprove that, as the S500 Sport with RWD and no 7Gtronic was slower than a 745i with the sport package.  Believe who you want.

Those numbers were gotten under different conditions, they cannot be trusted as much as the numbers from R&T.

How do you know for sure they were gotten under different conditions?  

[Raghavan]

TBR is being trollish.

[Raza]

TBR is being trollish.

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?  "Everything should be RWD!"

[TBR]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.

Not necessarily, 4matic weighs 200 lbs, enough to make a .2 second difference.

I provided a link to disprove that, as the S500 Sport with RWD and no 7Gtronic was slower than a 745i with the sport package.  Believe who you want.

Those numbers were gotten under different conditions, they cannot be trusted as much as the numbers from R&T.

How do you know for sure they were gotten under different conditions?

An assumption, a reasonable one too. The only one who is exhibiting blind bias here is you, common sense tells you that if tests were published at different times they almost certainly took place at different times under different conditions.

Rag, my behavior certainly isn't trollish, Dave is the only one being a troll here. I have shown two sources (one of which is ironclad) that show that the S500 is faster than the 745i, yet he is still hanging onto the results from a less reputable mag whose numbers vary very much just to prove that a car from his favorite company is faster than one of its competitors.

[BMWDave]

In the December 2003 issue of C/D they got a 6.0 second 0-60 time for a 745li and in the May 2003 issue of the same they got a 6.1 second time for a S500 4matic with the 5-spd. You can easily come to the conclusion that without AWD and with the remarkably efficent 7-spd auto a S500 could manage a 5.9 second 0-60 run.

Perhaps, but only when the S500 got the 7Gtronic did it inch ahead.

Not necessarily, 4matic weighs 200 lbs, enough to make a .2 second difference.

I provided a link to disprove that, as the S500 Sport with RWD and no 7Gtronic was slower than a 745i with the sport package.  Believe who you want.

Those numbers were gotten under different conditions, they cannot be trusted as much as the numbers from R&T.

How do you know for sure they were gotten under different conditions?

An assumption, a reasonable one too. The only one who is exhibiting blind bias here is you, common sense tells you that if tests were published at different times they almost certainly took place at different times under different conditions.

Rag, my behavior certainly isn't trollish, Dave is the only one being a troll here. I have shown two sources (one of which is ironclad) that show that the S500 is faster than the 745i, yet he is still hanging onto the results from a less reputable mag whose numbers vary very much just to prove that a car from his favorite company is faster than one of its competitors.

Calling me a troll is simply false and unwarranted.  You dismiss the information I bring simply because its "from M/T, they stink".  The tests were done by the same mag.  You simply want to dismiss them, because they go against what you said.  
I'm not going to stoop to your level and call you a troll, because that would make me sound as stupid as you.

[Raza]

Please, kinder, let's be nice.

[TBR]

I am not dismissing them, I am saying that my numbers are almost certainly a more accurate indicator of which car is faster.

You already have called me a troll, you have called my blindly biased against MT. Which is an odd thing to say since I just sent in $10 to MT for a subscription.

[Raza]

Motor Trend is kind of awesome nowadays.

But Tim has a point.  If they were tested under different conditions on different days and the times weren't corrected then the numbers aren't comparable.  Elevation, temperature, and road surface have to be fairly equal.

[TBR]

Even if I am biased, I am not blindly biased. A 1 year subscription to MT a couple of years back and a few issues between now and then gave me the opinion I have of MT.