BMW M5 vs Chrysler 300C SRT-8 (Top Gear)

[93JC]

Canadians don't pay taxes on prizes or lottery winnings. :P

[SJ_GTI]

Well, theoretically BK could "gross it up" and pay the taxes on the car as well. I have no idea if they do or not though.

[TheIntrepid]

Video isn't showing.

[S204STi]

Video isn't showing.

Try the link I posted further down.

[SVT_Power]

I'd take a E55 (yes a E55, not a E63) over both of them

[Tave]

I'd take a E55 (yes a E55, not a E63) over both of them

That might be the most comfortable car I've ever sat in. I'd be afraid of falling asleep at the wheel. I'd love to take the seats out of one of them and put them in my Aveo.

If I make a lot of money in the upcomming years it'll definately be at the top of my list.

[1 BAD 7]

I dont recall ever reading anything about M5 getting beat in any comparison by MQ with only 400hp .
However, M5 has handed MQ its ass in few earlier articles from some automotive mags. By the way you have a copy of that article I would love to see it. Because frankly I dont think it exists.

Wasn't the Maserati Quattroporte faster around a track in a recent magazine test with only 400 HP?? Now that is a sexy exclusive sports sedan.?

[LonghornTX]

Those that doubt the M5 should actually go drive one  .

[280Z Turbo]

Clarkson's a troll.

"Europe versus the USA. Hehehehehehe"

It's not fair. Europe is an entire continent. The USA is just one country.

Why the hell is he so proud of a German car when he's not even German?

[SVT666]

It's not fair. Europe is an entire continent. The USA is just one country.

Why the hell is he so proud of a German car when he's not even German?

Because there is no British automotive industry.

[565]

I dont recall ever reading anything about M5 getting beat in any comparison by MQ with only 400hp .
However, M5 has handed MQ its ass in few earlier articles from some automotive mags. By the way you have a copy of that article I would love to see it. Because frankly I dont think it exists.

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this considering I read it on a Bimmer forum, it seemed like a big deal.  This is EVO magazine.

Here is the post.

http://forums.e60.net/index.php?showtopic=17309&pid=188192&mode=threaded&show=&st=&

Maserati Quattroporte 1:28:35
BMW M5 1:29.95

It beat the M5 by more than 1.5 seconds.  Thats a huge margin on a track that only takes about 1.5 minutes to complete for these cars.

Here is a view of the page.



Not surprisingly the RS4 also beats the M5, by an even larger margin.

[280Z Turbo]

Because there is no British automotive industry.

There's still Jaguar, Lotus, Noble, Vauxhall, Aston Martin, etc.

[SVT666]

There's still Jaguar, Lotus, Noble, Vauxhall, Aston Martin, etc.

Most of those aren't owned by the Brits.

[280Z Turbo]

Most of those aren't owned by the Brits.

So what? That doesn't mean that they're not British.

[TBR]

I don't think the taxes would be due until March of next year sense you would be paying gift tax, not sales tax, but I could be wrong.

[MexicoCityM3]

I'm surprised you didn't hear about this considering I read it on a Bimmer forum, it seemed like a big deal.? This is EVO magazine.

Here is the post.

http://forums.e60.net/index.php?showtopic=17309&pid=188192&mode=threaded&show=&st=&

Maserati Quattroporte 1:28:35
BMW M5 1:29.95

It beat the M5 by more than 1.5 seconds.? Thats a huge margin on a track that only takes about 1.5 minutes to complete for these cars.
Not surprisingly the RS4 also beats the M5, by an even larger margin.

That page is great at showing why comparing different cars on different days with different drivers on the same track is totally pointless. According to that page, my M3 is faster than an E60 M5 and the M6 runs just .4 secs behind a 911TT and beats the M5 by almost 4 seconds. This is like the Nurburgring times we love to quote.

Even the amount of tread left on the tires the day of the test might explain the difference, not to mention driver skill or style.

[565]

That page is great at showing why comparing different cars on different days with different drivers on the same track is totally pointless. According to that page, my M3 is faster than an E60 M5 and the M6 runs just .4 secs behind a 911TT and beats the M5 by almost 4 seconds. This is like the Nurburgring times we love to quote.

Even the amount of tread left on the tires the day of the test might explain the difference, not to mention driver skill or style.

I found the original article posted on a Bimmer Board. 

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59740

Kayani wanted the article that stated the Maserati was faster around the track, and here is.



The last words of the page are " Enjoy the Maser for what it is, the best handling supersaloon on the planet and quicker than an M5."

It's not like I saw the times from the book and stitched that conclusion myself,  it's EVO magazine's conclusion from testing these cars. 

[Raza]

I dont recall ever reading anything about M5 getting beat in any comparison by MQ with only 400hp .
However, M5 has handed MQ its ass in few earlier articles from some automotive mags. By the way you have a copy of that article I would love to see it. Because frankly I dont think it exists.

Evo tested the M5 against the Quattroporte around the Bedford Autodrome West Circuit, and the Quattroporte was quicker than the M5 by over a full second.   

EDIT:  Ah, beaten to it.

[1 BAD 7]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is NOT? an M5 pal.

You are posting an article of Alpina B5 vs Maserati Quattroporte.

Please read the heading on the top of the article before posting. The M5 they talk of in this old article is the last generation M5 not the new one.

I will post the new EVO article for you in which 500hp E60 M5 goes up against Maserati Quattroporte sport GT and CLS 55AMG.

I found the original article posted on a Bimmer Board.?

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59740

Kayani wanted the article that stated the Maserati was faster around the track, and here is.



The last words of the page are " Enjoy the Maser for what it is, the best handling supersaloon on the planet and quicker than an M5."

It's not like I saw the times from the book and stitched that conclusion myself,? it's EVO magazine's conclusion from testing these cars.?

[1 BAD 7]

By the way here are set of quote from Evo's correct comparison of M5 vs CLS 55AMG vs Quatroporte sport GT to jog your memory.


"It's a fitting stage on which to acquaint the Sport GT with the M5, M?nchen's most potent four-door export.

From there we'll continue, on autobahnen and minor roads, to Stuttgart, where a Mercedes CLS 55 AMG - the second of our two surprises - will be waiting for us. We've wanted to pitch the big Maserati against both these mighty German machines for a long time now, as they present a greater and more complete challenge than the excellent, if rather leftfield, Alpina B5 and Cadillac CTS-V 'alternatives' that the standard Quattroporte so convincingly defeated back in November 2005 (evo 085). If the Sport GT can build on the base Quattroporte's core qualities, it should be quite a battle."

&

"Come the morning, N?rburg is crawling with prototypes as we make for our favourite roads. In the space of ten minutes we see a barely disguised V8 M3, a battle-scarred Audi R8, a Skyline GT-R mule, a Mini Traveller and a mean-looking Jaguar XKR. It's like Disneyland for car spotters, and poor Shep doesn't know which way to point his camera.

I take the CLS for a blast, keen to discover whether its motorway muscle translates on tighter, twistier roads. On the smooth sections it feels rock-solid and composed, even with the suspension on its hardest setting. There's meaty feel through the steering, and the chassis has a brilliantly neutral balance through the quick corners. Of course, through tight corners you can use the torque to bring the tail into play, but it remains controlled, progressive and hugely entertaining. On the bumpier, tighter stretches it pays to knock the suspension back one setting, as the stiffest mode never lets the big Benz settle completely, but it still makes an impressive fist of roads that just a month ago tied the much smaller, lighter and more focused TVR Tuscan in knots.

What's genuinely impressive is the way the CLS puts its power down, and the Herculean manner in which it catapults you between the corners. You know by the hammering V8 that the engine's working hard, but the performance is delivered so smoothly, and the chassis copes so completely, that you're filled with the superior sense of having plenty in reserve.

Drive the same roads in the M5 and it feels a little sharper on turn-in, a little keener to change direction, though it's also harder work, skittering over bumps the CLS smothers. It's quicker to wag its tail, too, and it has a general feel of increased urgency. It also has two stages of suspension stiffening, but the second of these is simply too uncompromising for anything other than the very smoothest roads. However, once you've found the ideal setting, the M5 allows you to mount a more sustained attack on the road, enabling you to keep your foot in through sections where you'd ease-off fractionally in the CLS.

Though there's hardly anything in it between the M5 and CLS point-to-point, the M5 feels more suited to this kind of back-road scratching, hungrier for action, more alert, more up for it. The brakes are sharper and more feelsome, the steering quicker, the body control that bit tighter. It soaks up the punishment and allows you to push that bit harder. But then, to be honest, so it should, for it's a far edgier and more tightly focused machine than the Maser or Merc and sacrifices their comfort, refinement and relaxed mile-eating appetite for those fleeting moments of ultimate excitement on challenging roads.

Back at base, I swap into the Quattroporte. This is crunch-time for the Maser, for while it's a more accomplished and desirable distance runner than the M5, it's been taught a lesson or two by the sophisticated and massively potent CLS 55. And as the M5 has shaded the CLS for outright dynamism, the Quattroporte needs a strong showing here to uphold Italian honour.

It shines, but sadly not brightly enough. There are moments when the Quattroporte is inspirational, times when it feels half its size and weight. It makes fast direction changes without hesitation, and tackles long, balance-testing corners with a delicious whiff of oversteer, the V8 singing a sweet, cammy song.

But there are also times when you wonder what on earth Maserati has done. You'd expect the bigger rubber to generate more grip, but you never really sense the Sport GT keying into the road, and though it does carry prodigious speed, there's less feedback and progression. When at or close to the limit, there's a snappy edge to the handling that the standard car doesn't have. Worse, on the bumpiest sections of our test loop, the Quattroporte's wheel control falls to pieces, the oversized alloys simply overwhelming the Skyhook dampers' ability to control their vertical movement. It's a real shame.

The only way to enjoy the quickest gearshifts is to engage Sport mode, but this also stiffens the suspension, which is then too much for bumpy surfaces and exacerbates the wheel control problem. So you switch Sport mode off to calm down the damping, only to discover that this also robs you of the last 500rpm to the red line. There's also something strange about the MSP stability programme, for even when you switch it off it still feels like the fly-by-wire throttle is artificially backed-off when you floor it through tighter corners, full power only arriving after a suitable pause.

It all seems so unnecessary, for in all honesty there was little wrong with the standard Quattroporte chassis. Indeed, if the Sport GT had the pliancy and measured poise of the standard car, together with its superior progression and feel, such uniquely satisfying dynamics might have compensated for its very obvious lack of grunt in this company.

As it stands, however, the M5's sharper, tighter and more polished damping highlights how wrong Maserati has got its chassis modifications, and the seismic shove of AMG's supercharged V8 makes the Maser's naturally-aspirated engine feel embarrassingly gutless.

No-one is more disappointed in the Sport GT's showing than us, especially as we've championed the Quattroporte so vocally in the past. The truth is we're still huge fans of the standard car, but it's a great shame that the Sport GT modifications prove the old adage 'less is more' so conclusively.
The M5 is an odd one. Polar opposite to the Maserati concept of flamboyant style and exclusivity, its gritty, hard-edged delivery makes it the sharpest tool in the box when you get to challenging roads, but that uncompromising approach does limit its ability to cosset on a long journey .


& here is link to the article for you to read:

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/06102006/45/page5/maserati-quattroporte-v-bmw-m5-v-mercedes-cls-55-0.html

Like I said there is no way Quattroporte better then M5 and you guys are posting an article where they are talking of alpina B5 and E39 M5 not E60 M5.

[Champ]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is NOT an M5 pal.

You are posting an article of Alpina B5 vs Maserati Quattroporte.

Please read the heading on the top of the article before posting.

Please read the article before trying to look smart

It indeed does list the M5 as being slower than then MQ.  Look at the bottom right of the pic, there is some B5 car but also a M5 listed. 

[1 BAD 7]

I think you need to read the article I posted before trying to be smart

In that comparison he posted they are talking of last generation M5. The article I posted from EV0 is latest and of May 2006 and clearly says they have never tested E60 M5 against Maserati Quattroporte however they have test B5 against it in Nov. of 2005. At that time there was no E60 M5 produced by BMW. As E60 M5 came out in 2006. Thus those times are bogus with regards to E60 M5 and too bad that the forums you guys pulled them from had no better sense then you all.

So read before you get your panties all bunched up.


Here I will highlight the areas for you?

"It's a fitting stage on which to acquaint the Sport GT with the M5, M?nchen's most potent four-door export.

From there we'll continue, on autobahnen and minor roads, to Stuttgart, where a Mercedes CLS 55 AMG - the second of our two surprises - will be waiting for us. We've wanted to pitch the big Maserati against both these mighty German machines for a long time now, as they present a greater and more complete challenge than the excellent, if rather leftfield, Alpina B5 and Cadillac CTS-V 'alternatives' that the standard Quattroporte so convincingly defeated back in November 2005 (evo 085). If the Sport GT can build on the base Quattroporte's core qualities, it should be quite a battle."

Please read the article before trying to look smart

It indeed does list the M5 as being slower than then MQ.? Look at the bottom right of the pic, there is some B5 car but also a M5 listed.?

[1 BAD 7]

Here are some quotes of Maserati Q performance figures from C/D test where E55 AMG was clearly far more faster then the slower Maserati Q and we all know M5 is slightly faster then E55 AMG. So there is no way in gods green earth a heavier, slower and larger Maserati Q can ever beat an M5 on track under identical conditions except for in someone's? dream

Keep dreaming but all good dreams come to an end


Here is a quote:

"Low gearing gives the 4474-pound Quattroporte a hellacious fuel appetite (we averaged 12 mpg; one fill-up ran $105!). Expect the tach to hover at 4000 rpm during freeway jaunts. A 60-mph time of 5.2 seconds is the slowest in the group by 0.4 second but hardly slow. A quarter-mile is gone in 13.6 seconds at 105 mph,"

Good lord a 6 cylinder E46 M3 is much more faster then that thing much less an M5. So guys stop fooling yourself by posting times of last generation E39 M5 and pretending they are the times of new V10 500hp M5 monster. The E60 BMW M5 has a curb weight 4050 Ibs vs 4474 Ibs for the Quattroporte. On top of that M5 has 500hp vs 400hp for Maserati Q.

No person with half a brain would ever wager that lighter more powerfull M5 will get beat by Maserati Q. But then again some people on this website amaze me.

Keep up the good work of posting times of last generation M5 and pretending they are the times of new M5.

[565]

The E60 M5 was introduced in 2004 in Europe, dumbass.

[565]

The article posted was indeed talking about the M5 E60, and finding an alternative the the E60 M5

Actually bother to read the opening lines of the article




They say 5.0 L 507hp V10.  Does that sound like the old model? Do they mention the old model anywhere?  Stop insulting the forum, you are just looking more like an ass.

[1 BAD 7]

Moron EVO never tested E60 M5 head to head with Maserati Quattroporte back in 2004 or 2005. Instead read the EVO LATEST ARTICLE FROM MAY 2006. Which clearly states that they always wanted to pitch E60 M5 against the Quattroporte & CLS55 AMG.

But since you want to ignore the article I will once again highlight the area where they talk of the article you posted and claim that comparing B5 and CTS-V to Quattroporte is not exactly like pitching the Quattroporte against E60 M5.

Here READ does that look like they ever tested head to head E60 M5 against the Maserati Quattroporte. :P

We've wanted to pitch the big Maserati against both these mighty German machines for a long time now, as they present a greater and more complete challenge than the excellent, if rather leftfield, Alpina B5 and Cadillac CTS-V 'alternatives' that the standard Quattroporte so convincingly defeated back in November 2005 (evo 085). If the Sport GT can build on the base Quattroporte's core qualities, it should be quite a battle."


Did you read they never tested M5 head to head with Quattroporte so keep dreaming

Also, E60 M5 runs times very near those of M6 on track. Once can clearly see that M6 beats Quattroporte and comparing slower E39 M5 times doesnot make the Quttroporte any faster then E60 M5. Another thing is no where does the earlier times you listed on track indicates which M5 times are those or which Audi RS4 times are they quoting.

The E60 M5 was introduced in 2004 in Europe, dumbass.

[565]

Moron EVO never tested E60 M5 head to head with Maserati Quattroporte back in 2004 or 2005. Instead read the EVO LATEST ARTICLE FROM MAY 2006. Which clearly states that they always wanted to pitch E60 M5 against the Quattroporte & CLS55 AMG.

But since you want to ignore the article I will once again highlight the area where they talk of the article you posted and claim that comparing B5 and CTS-V to Quattroporte is not exactly like pitching the Quattroporte against E60 M5.

Here READ does that look like they ever tested head to head E60 M5 against the Maserati Quattroporte. :P

We've wanted to pitch the big Maserati against both these mighty German machines for a long time now, as they present a greater and more complete challenge than the excellent, if rather leftfield, Alpina B5 and Cadillac CTS-V 'alternatives' that the standard Quattroporte so convincingly defeated back in November 2005 (evo 085). If the Sport GT can build on the base Quattroporte's core qualities, it should be quite a battle."


Did you read they never tested M5 head to head with Quattroporte so keep dreaming

You never addressed the points you got owned on.  Did the M5 come out 2004 in Europe or 2006 like you claimed.  Was the M5 mentioned in the article a E39 like you claimed or the 507hp 7 speed SMG E60 like the magazine CLEARLY states?

Instead you decided to bring up points that are not related at all, and no one bothered to mention.  Were there laptimes in that new 2006 comparo?  Post them up.  Did anyone say that the 2005 test was a same day comparision of the M5 to the Quattro? 

It's blind BMW fanboy's like you that give BMW owner a bad name.

[1 BAD 7]

The point is you got owned and lost the original argument in which you claimed that a E60 M5 in EVO magazine comparison had lost to Quattroporte pretty bad .

Here is your original arguement:
Wasn't the Maserati Quattroporte faster around a track in a recent magazine test with only 400 HP?" &
?
""Kayani wanted the article that stated the Maserati was faster around the track, and here is."

Then you posted the old NOV 2005 article instead of the correct 2006 MAY article. I then came along and posted the correct article to show you that you are totaly wrong and E60 M5 never lost to Quattroporte in EVO comparison arround track.


Maybe you have a very weak memory. But I guess it happens when you lose an argument this bad 565. Now you are looking to side track the argument pal which is seriously funny.?


You have been proved wrong in your claims that EVO magazine tested E60 M5 vs Quattroporte and E60 M5 got beat arround the track period. Re-read the article it clearly say E60 M5 is far more sharper and quicker arround the track compared to Quattroporte. Why dont you go look up the May 2006 article & performance figures since you are so good with pulling up articles and numbers to support your false assumptions. It would be refreshing change to show us a correct performance figures and articles for a change.

Learn to post correct article pal and stop hating on BMW M5. Your original arguement was weak and you got owned

You never addressed the points you got owned on.? Did the M5 come out 2004 in Europe or 2006 like you claimed.? Was the M5 mentioned in the article a E39 like you claimed or the 507hp 7 speed SMG E60 like the magazine CLEARLY states?

Instead you decided to bring up points that are not related at all, and no one bothered to mention.? Were there laptimes in that new 2006 comparo?? Post them up.? Did anyone say that the 2005 test was a same day comparision of the M5 to the Quattro??

It's blind BMW fanboy's like you that give BMW owner a bad name.

[565]

The point is you got owned and lost the original argument in which you claimed that a E60 M5 in EVO magazine comparison had lost to Quattroporte pretty bad .

Here is your original arguement:
Wasn't the Maserati Quattroporte faster around a track in a recent magazine test with only 400 HP?" &
?
""Kayani wanted the article that stated the Maserati was faster around the track, and here is."

Then you posted the old NOV 2005 article instead of the correct 2006 MAY article. I then came along and posted the correct article to show you that you are totaly wrong and E60 M5 never lost to Quattroporte in EVO comparison arround track.


Maybe you have a very weak memory. But I guess it happens when you lose an argument this bad 565. Now you are looking to side track the argument pal which is seriously funny.?


You have been proved wrong in your claims that EVO magazine tested E60 M5 vs Quattroporte and E60 M5 got beat arround the track period. Re-read the article it clearly say E60 M5 is far more sharper and quicker arround the track compared to Quattroporte. Why dont you go look up the May 2006 article & performance figures since you are so good with pulling up articles and numbers to support your false assumptions. It would be refreshing change to show us a correct performance figures and articles for a change.

Learn to post correct article pal and stop hating on BMW M5. Your original arguement was weak and you got owned

You wanted the article were the Quattroporte was stated to be faster around the track, and I found it.  You found some other article that didn't even rate the cars in terms of track speed.

You are a retard dumbass that no one on this forum even takes seriously,  Serious just stop posting, no one even reads your dumbass words.

[1 BAD 7]

Yes I wanted an article where E60 M5 went head to head with Quattroporte and lost. You brought this bogus article from way back in NOV of 2005 in which EVO never did a head to head comparison of E60 M5 vs Quattroporte.

I on the other hand proved you wrong by posting the correct article from 2006 MAY issue of the same EVO magazine? you were jumping up and down to quote. Maybe you cant read properly the article clearly states that M5 was better and sharper and faster on the track then both Quattroporte and CLS 55AMG. If your panties are still bunched up why dont you go read the 2006 MAY issue so you can stop foaming at the mouth.

Because at this point you know you have been disproved and you are just showing your behind like a childish little kid with all the name calling and foul language. Seriously dude dont have a cow every time someone disproves you. ? ?

You wanted the article were the Quattroporte was stated to be faster around the track, and I found it.? You found some other article that didn't even rate the cars in terms of track speed.

You are a retard dumbass that no one on this forum even takes seriously,? Serious just stop posting, no one even reads your dumbass words.