1 (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac25bw.jpg)
2 (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac25bw.jpg)
3 (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac40gg.jpg)
4 (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac54px.jpg)
5 (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac68wz.jpg)
6 (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=ac73hk.jpg)
Click em all
Well, now we know the ultimate sleeper.
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.
QuoteI 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?
QuoteQuoteI 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.
Maybe they lied about using paddle shifters?
QuoteMaybe 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.
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.
QuoteIt'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.
QuoteQuoteIt'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.
I like the way you illegally copied C&D for those of us too cheap to renew our subscriptions. Thanks.
QuoteI 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.
I wouldn't know. I'm too poor to resubscribe to C&D ;)
QuoteI wouldn't know. I'm too poor to resubscribe to C&D ;)
$12 a years is too much for you?!?
Do you know what else you could get with those 12 bucks TBR?
QuoteDo you know what else you could get with those 12 bucks TBR?
Yup, that's a lot of bones.