BMW F10 M5 Hits 0-60 in 3.7 seconds and Quarter Mile in 12.0 seconds @ 122mph

[EKaru]

C&D's CLS63 times

ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection
Displacement: 333 cu in, 5461 cc
Power (SAE net): 550 hp @ 5750 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 590 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 7-speed automatic with manual shifting mode
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 113.2 in Length: 196.7 in
Width: 74.1 in Height: 55.4 in
Curb weight: 4275 lb
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 19.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.4 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.0 sec @ 121 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr’s claim): 186 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.91 g


FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 16/25 mpg
C/D observed: 16 mpg

The CLS AMGs acceleration times are about equal and the CLS63 weighs 220+ lbs more than the E63. So I think E63 with the PP would be as quick if not quicker.

 

[Deckhook]

18.3 seconds to 150mph is pretty incredible as is the rest of the results. Can't wait to see some dyno runs because at this weight the figure of 550hp sounds kind of lighter than reality if you ask me.

 

[EKaru]

18.3 seconds to 150mph is pretty incredible as is the rest of the results. Can't wait to see some dyno runs because at this weight the figure of 550hp sounds kind of lighter than reality if you ask me.

The M5's TT V8 is probably making closer to 600hp at the crank...

 

[mini_cooper4]

Guys impressive times in case of twin scroll twin turbo are not because of HP figures and weight only

 

[chonkoa]

The M5's TT V8 is probably making closer to 600hp at the crank...

What is the basis of the guesstimate?

 

[DeDe]

0-60mph with 1-foot-rollout in 3,7 s. Add ~0.3 sec and you'll get the real 60mph time (97 km/h). Add ~0.2 sec for the 3-more-km/h and you'll get 4,2 s 0-100 km/h with 1 person onboard.

0-122mph (196 km/h) with 1-foot-rollout in 12,0 seconds. Add ~0,3 sec rollout time and ~0,5 sec for the 4-more-km/h and you'll get 12,8 s 0-200 km/h with 1 person onboard.

A CLS63 AMG with PP and 2 persons onboard did 4,2 and 12,5 s in AutoBild Sportscars. Not b*tching, but these are no sensational times.

 

[Deckhook]

0-60mph with 1-foot-rollout in 3,7 s. Add ~0.3 sec and you'll get the real 60mph time (97 km/h). Add ~0.2 sec for the 3-more-km/h and you'll get 4,2 s 0-100 km/h with 1 person onboard.

0-122mph (196 km/h) with 1-foot-rollout in 12,0 seconds. Add ~0,3 sec rollout time and ~0,5 sec for the 4-more-km/h and you'll get 12,8 s 0-200 km/h with 1 person onboard.

A CLS63 AMG with PP and 2 persons onboard did 4,2 and 12,5 s in AutoBild Sportscars. Not b*tching, but these are no sensational times.

Well how does it's 0-150mph times compare then because I any more impressed by it than anything else.

 

[Zafiro]

Well how does it's 0-150mph times compare then because I any more impressed by it than anything else.

0-150 mph time for M5 is quick, should be even quicker after the break in period is over.

 

[EKaru]

What is the basis of the guesstimate?

I don't have any basis for that... Historically their turbocharged motors have been underrated. The same goes for Audi's and AMG's forced induced motors. Examples of the current S4 and TT-RS are making closer to 400hp, despite their 333 claims. The same goes for Benz's turbocharged motors.

To many people, Audi is replacing BMW as the go-to yuppie-mobile of choice. For one thing, Walter de'Silva's designs are almost universally lauded (Q7 notwithstanding) whereas the new crop of Bangled Bimmers are... controversial to put it as nicely as humanly possible. But it's not just down to looks and interior -- it can't be.

For the past decade or so Audi, BMW and of course Mercedes-Benz have all been engaged in mercilessly meeting each other tit-for-tat. 3/5/7 Series vs. 4/6/8 vs. C/E/S-Class, M/AMG/S, X5/ML/Q7, etc. It goes on forever. But the point is, Audi and BMW appear to be on equal footing and it looks like Audi has taken the copycat game to new heights.

Everyone knows that the BMW 335i is the most underrated car currently on the market in terms of raw thrust and grunt. BMW claims 300 hp and 300 torques, but even dogs know that BMW's trick 3.0-liter twin-turbo engine puts out much closer to 350 hp and 350 tire-spinning pound feet of torque. Why? Well, lower insurance rates for their customers probably isn't one of the reasons. However, remember that when the E90/E92 3 Series came out, BMW was still selling the 333 horsepower E46 M3. Meaning that it would be pretty hard to sell an older, $55,000 car with less power than a newer and just as quick $40,000 car. Or so the theory goes, though we should point out that BMW engineers angrily call us liars when we bring this scenario up.

And guess what? Looks like Audi is pulling the same trick with their new supercharged S4. Volkswagen and Audi tuner APR stuck a 2010 Audi S4 on an AWD-dyno and discovered the following. Instead of the 333 hp and 325 torques Audi is claiming, they pulled 331 hp and 336 pound-feet of torque... at the wheels! Figuring that AWD cars have about a 20% parasitic drivetrain power loss, the actual crank output of the S4 is huge. How huge? By our calculations just about 400 horsepower/torques. Gulp. Tip of the Audi driving cap to Brenton!

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/1...rated

According to mbworld, the guys who have dyno'd their new TTV8's in their 550s are making considerably more than the 429hp claim

 

[Zafiro]

Not the most scentific test but if you start both videos (M5 at 1.06 min and Benz at 1.09 min) at the same time when they start from 100km/h.
Up to about 200km/h they are pretty much even with the M5 slightly ahead but when M5 is doing 240km/h, the Benz is doing 220 km/h. Yes M5 seem to have a extra power beyond 200 km/h

I'm still waiting for those head to head comparison since they tell us much more than a test done a different timezone does.


M5

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

CLS63 PP

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Two fart machines in action

 

[Mr.Ree]

What is wrong with the car industry that an M5 must now weigh 1950kg (kerb)? Do they just add 100kg every 5 years for a laugh?

 

[chonkoa]

What is wrong with the car industry that an M5 must now weigh 1950kg (kerb)? Do they just add 100kg every 5 years for a laugh?

It is part of the aging process, haven't you noticed how your weight goes up every year; cars are not immune to this phenomenon.

 

[Sunny]

0-60mph with 1-foot-rollout in 3,7 s. Add ~0.3 sec and you'll get the real 60mph time (97 km/h). Add ~0.2 sec for the 3-more-km/h and you'll get 4,2 s 0-100 km/h with 1 person onboard.

0-122mph (196 km/h) with 1-foot-rollout in 12,0 seconds. Add ~0,3 sec rollout time and ~0,5 sec for the 4-more-km/h and you'll get 12,8 s 0-200 km/h with 1 person onboard.

A CLS63 AMG with PP and 2 persons onboard did 4,2 and 12,5 s in AutoBild Sportscars. Not b*tching, but these are no sensational times.

Well, if you apply the same math you applied to M5's time to CLS63 times C&D got, it would be even slower and slower than what AutoBild actually got. But having said that, I think all these cars will be fractions secs of each other especially at lower speeds where they are all traction limited (and that is where AWD cars will excel). If there is any difference it will be at higher speeds and lap times.

 

[Mr.Ree]

It is part of the aging process, haven't you noticed how your weight goes up every year; cars are not immune to this phenomenon.

At this rate, by 2060 the M5 will weigh 3 tons.

 

[Zafiro]

At this rate, by 2060 the M5 will weigh 3 tons.

I'm dead by then so I don't care

 

[Mr.Ree]

We're all dead if an M5 reaches 3 tons.

 

[Mr.Ree]

According to mbworld, the guys who have dyno'd their new TTV8's in their 550s are making considerably more than the 429hp claim

I've never understood how a modern turbo engine could produce less than 100hp/L anyway.

 

[GTA45E]

Car&Driver magazine might be 1 out of 6 magazines that actually achieve these numbers because of the torque-brake method thay use at launch.

Most likely your probably not going to see these numbers from MoterTrend or Road&Track magazines, Let alone the TV show Motor Week.

 

[Deckhook]

I've never understood how a modern turbo engine could produce less than 100hp/L anyway.

It all depends on whether the engine is intended for performance or economy.

 

[TMCCL65]

I've never understood how a modern turbo engine could produce less than 100hp/L anyway.

It all depends on whether the engine is intended for performance or economy.

To expand on that answer...the size of the turbos is a big factor. Manufactueres go with smaller turbos to help minimize turbo lag. You can't ompare a modern turbo car to the old ones where turbo lag was so prevelant. That is why even in the highest performing turbo cars....you don't have too much room (relatively speaking) before the turbos are running out of steam and a turbo swap is necessary to go to the next level of performance.

Tom