C&D: Audi S6 vs BMW M5 (M/T) vs Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG

[PuertoRico1978]

And my wife caught me ....

[Catman]

But the M5 has a measly 383 lb-ft of torque and that available only at 6100 RPM 

I've spawned pieces of shit with more than 383 lb-ft of torque, and IMO a sports sedan should have more available at the low end. 

Couldn't agree more.  And, why add the complexity of two more cylinders if it does no good?

[Catman]

God damn it man, when you post pictures could you make sure that it doesn't have any advertisments for porn sites. I unsupectingly clicked on the C/D pictures and this came up: "Watch Me Get Naked
Nude Web Cam Girls Get Wild and Fun".  and also:  "Sexy videos: Watch hot girls have sex with their hot friends"

Let's just say I have an addiction and I have been trying really hard to avoid porn sites.  Seeing these ads made me go on a 4 hour late night porn binge again.

Hmm just noticed that too.  Wimmer, can you move your pics please?

[cawimmer430]

Hmm just noticed that too.  Wimmer, can you move your pics please?

I don't get it? 

I clicked on the links and no pornsite came up, or pop ups. Also, I copied these links from a thread on GCZ.

Anyone else get something else rather than the review when they click the link? 

[omicron]

Look at the top and bottom of the page.



Nice work, Wimmer

[Submariner]

I don't get it?

I clicked on the links and no pornsite came up, or pop ups. Also, I copied these links from a thread on GCZ.

Anyone else get something else rather than the review when they click the link?

Nothing here.

OH...the jokes I wan't to make...but wont.

[Catman]

I don't get it? 

I clicked on the links and no pornsite came up, or pop ups. Also, I copied these links from a thread on GCZ.

Anyone else get something else rather than the review when they click the link? 

A couple times I clicked on them all the ads around you pics were links to porn. 

[Catman]

 

[cawimmer430]

Ah, I see it now. Just don't click on them.

Here's the thread I got the links from: http://www.germancarzone.com/showthread.php?t=9196

Whichever imagehosting site this guy used, it has links to adult sites. Just don't click on it. And if you are using Internet Explorer...get MOZILLA FIREFOX damn it. 

[cawimmer430]

Odd, I don't get no porn / sex stuff.

THIS is what I see.

[cawimmer430]

Time to head off to bed.

If you get crazy porn ads etc., resist the urge to see nude women: or men, that goes for you especially, SUBMARINER.

[Submariner]

Time to head off to bed.

If you get crazy porn ads etc., resist the urge to see nude women: or men, that goes for you especially, SUBMARINER.

Well...We know wimmer didn't do it on purpose.  They were all links to straight sites. 

Anyhoo...I didn't get anything like that.  I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake.

[AKL]

  E63 AMG

I'd take the M5 most likely though. BUT the power of the Benz

[cozmik]

Wow, that's an impressive win for Mercedes-Benz! And an embarrassing defeat for BMW.

[Catman]

I definitely like the Benz.  It looks better in my opinion, the interior looks good, the engine sounds awesome and it's a proper V8.

[cawimmer430]

Video of the E63 AMG vs the BMW M5 in a drag race. Great engine sounds, not a very exciting video though. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TnFQBydUyk

[Catman]

Video of the E63 AMG vs the BMW M5 in a drag race. Great engine sounds, not a very exciting video though. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TnFQBydUyk

I think Honda designed the BMW engine.   The Benz? All I hear is torque.

[cawimmer430]

I think Honda designed the BMW engine.   The Benz? All I hear is torque.

Hehe 

The M5 engine did sound a little "wimpish/quieter" compared to the E63 AMG.

[Submariner]

Video of the E63 AMG vs the BMW M5 in a drag race. Great engine sounds, not a very exciting video though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TnFQBydUyk

The E-63 needs at least 295's out back.  265's are just too small.

[1 BAD 7]

With all due respect I disagree with you. The M5 V10 is a great engine with many international awards since its introduction. 

http://forums.streetfire.net/showthread.php?t=888


I think 383 Ib-ft of torque is nothing to sneez at in a high reving engine like M5's V10. Specialy when it is mated with blazingly quick 7-speed SMG. The 5.0 liter V10 makes 80% of it is available torque from as low as 3500 rpm.

Iam also guessing that you are over looking the concept of engine speed having a major influence on over all performance and torque when passing your judgement on the M5's 5.0 liter V10.

Let me give you an example to show importance of engine speed. For example, if a cyclist changes down when going uphill, he must pedal faster but he will master almost every gradient no matter how steep. If he does not change gears or if he even changes up, he needs a lot more energy or he has to get off the bike. If there are two cyclists with the same amount of stamina, it is always the cyclist who pedals faster that wins the race. I hope it is making sense to you.


The logical consequence is that the new M5 with its high-revving engine effortlessly outdoes all direct competitors who exclusively rely on the ?big torque concept? of an eight-cylinder engine with an increased cubic capacity. In addition, 5.0 liter V10 engine?s superiority can be put down to the fact that the extremely high torque of competing engines has to be transferred via a massively reinforced and heavy drive train with added weight and mass that must also be accelerated. Due to the V10?s high-revving concept, a considerably lighter drive train can be used and closer gear ratios can be achieved. Which is what makes this concept stand out.

That is why a SMG equipped M5 can run neck to neck with more torquey E63 AMG at lower speeds and then jumps ahead by 1/4th mile as evident by 12.5 @ 118 mph times of M5 SMG vs E63 AMG's 12.6 @ 115 mph. As speeds rise M5 gets faster and faster despite giving nearly 90 Ib-ft of torque and 7hp to the E63 AMG.

The fast reving light weight concept of M5's V10 is just not restricted to acceleration but plays a vital role in handling and driving dynamics not to mention braking. As you and I both know that added engine mass shows up on scale as well as in all of the above mentioned areas.

   
I think to out right say that M5's 5.0 liter V10 is not all that due to lack of big torque figures has some thing to do with our ability to not fully comprehend engine design concepts as well as dynamics. I think before passing the judgement on this engine. One  simply cant over look the effect an engine speed has on specific aspects of the overall engine performance and the entire package. That is why @ the ultimate level of racing either F-1 or Super bike etc. the perfered engine concepts are light weight and high reving.

I know those judges that gave it the engine of the year award twice didnot over look those aspects that some  in their haste might be doing over here and neither do the engineers of F-1 or GP bikes do when designing their engines from scratch .

Couldn't agree more.  And, why add the complexity of two more cylinders if it does no good?

[Catman]

With all due respect I disagree with you. The M5 V10 is a great engine with many international awards since its introduction. 

http://forums.streetfire.net/showthread.php?t=888


I think 383 Ib-ft of torque is nothing to sneez at in a high reving engine like M5's V10. Specialy when it is mated with blazingly quick 7-speed SMG. The 5.0 liter V10 makes 80% of it is available torque from as low as 3500 rpm.

Iam also guessing that you are over looking the concept of engine speed having a major influence on over all performance and torque when passing your judgement on the M5's 5.0 liter V10.

Let me give you an example to show importance of engine speed. For example, if a cyclist changes down when going uphill, he must pedal faster but he will master almost every gradient no matter how steep. If he does not change gears or if he even changes up, he needs a lot more energy or he has to get off the bike. If there are two cyclists with the same amount of stamina, it is always the cyclist who pedals faster that wins the race. I hope it is making sense to you.


The logical consequence is that the new M5 with its high-revving engine effortlessly outdoes all direct competitors who exclusively rely on the ?big torque concept? of an eight-cylinder engine with an increased cubic capacity. In addition, 5.0 liter V10 engine?s superiority can be put down to the fact that the extremely high torque of competing engines has to be transferred via a massively reinforced and heavy drive train with added weight and mass that must also be accelerated. Due to the V10?s high-revving concept, a considerably lighter drive train can be used and closer gear ratios can be achieved. Which is what makes this concept stand out.

That is why a SMG equipped M5 can run neck to neck with more torquey E63 AMG at lower speeds and then jumps ahead by 1/4th mile as evident by 12.5 @ 118 mph times of M5 SMG vs E63 AMG's 12.6 @ 115 mph. As speeds rise M5 gets faster and faster despite giving nearly 90 Ib-ft of torque and 7hp to the E63 AMG.

The fast reving light weight concept of M5's V10 is just not restricted to acceleration but plays a vital role in handling and driving dynamics not to mention braking. As you and I both know that added engine mass shows up on scale as well as in all of the above mentioned areas.

   
I think to out right say that M5's 5.0 liter V10 is not all that due to lack of big torque figures has some thing to do with our ability to not fully comprehend engine design concepts as well as dynamics. I think before passing the judgement on this engine. One  simply cant over look the effect an engine speed has on specific aspects of the overall engine performance and the entire package. That is why @ the ultimate level of racing either F-1 or Super bike etc. the perfered engine concepts are light weight and high reving.

I know those judges that gave it the engine of the year award twice didnot over look those aspects that some  in their haste might be doing over here and neither do the engineers of F-1 or GP bikes do when designing their engines from scratch .

Good points!  I can see why the BMW will eventually out run the Merc.  It's the same as a high cadence on a bicycle.  A fast spin uses less energy to maintain speed.  However, it would seem the benefit is on the higher end of the spectrum.  I prefer the opposite.  In F1 the engine speed is great since they're doing 200 mph.  For every day driving I still think I'd prefer the V8 of the Mercedes.  How much lighter is the BMW engine?

[TheIntrepid]

Kayani doesn't post as frequently but when he does, they're all long quality posts.

[JYODER240]

Kayani doesn't post as frequently but when he does, they're all long quality posts.

Quality?

[TheIntrepid]

Quality?

No ... I honestly don't know. I doze off after reading most halfway. Then again I do the same thing with other appreciated literature. I just assumed. 

[JYODER240]

 

[Submariner]

[MrH]

Kayani's posts are like horribly misinformed BMW brochures.   :P

[850CSi]

Kayani's posts are like horribly misinformed BMW brochures.? ?:P

[1 BAD 7]

Thanks for the nice comments .

Oh and dont mind the haters they never have anything useful to add to a discussion except for their one liner immature comments. 

Kayani doesn't post as frequently but when he does, they're all long quality posts.

[1 BAD 7]

I admit my post was far less quality then your "roll eye" post or one sentence post. After all they add so much more quality to the discussion at hand.

Quality?