1033 hp M5, quarter mile in 9.41

[helden2000]

Hello again

I`ve seen that you all folks talked about the Co2 emissions and fuel consuption..hmmm it`s well known that the Mercedes consumes more fuel because has turbines and compressors.
Here in Germany people started to realize that MB does not respect their clients anymore.When BMW gathers their clients and say "We`ve put 60% F1 technology in that new E60 M5,we`ve worked hard for this new 500+ hp engine that is more powerful than the Lamborghini,we have NOT put 200 turbines like the others..." then me as the client i am more than satisfied to see that.Mercedes says what?Says that from the distance you can barely notice what model is?You say...mate..there is a CLK there...not sorry...is a ...SL...and you realize that it is the new SLK. and again the story repeats from behind...all the models look the same.
The only model that is really beautiful is the CL.This car is very appreciated here in Germany and this is the only car i would apply from MB.If i was a MB leader,i`d say..ok...we don`t know how to build high rev engines, we are slower, but we keep our classy presidents models and we are the best in confort.But when you see that they shout everywhere "We have the power ..we have the HP.. they make me laugh.
Again why Ferrari and BMW does not agree with the turbines and compressors?You know better than me the reason.
Sorry for the possible grammar errors again.

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by helden2000 Hello again I`ve seen that you all folks talked about the Co2 emissions and fuel consuption..hmmm it`s well known that the Mercedes consumes more fuel because has turbines and compressors. Here in Germany people started to realize that MB does not respect their clients anymore.When BMW gathers their clients and say "We`ve put 60% F1 technology in that new E60 M5,we`ve worked hard for this new 500+ hp engine that is more powerful than the Lamborghini,we have NOT put 200 turbines like the others..." then me as the client i am more than satisfied to see that.Mercedes says what?Says that from the distance you can barely notice what model is?You say...mate..there is a CLK there...not sorry...is a ...SL...and you realize that it is the new SLK. and again the story repeats from behind...all the models look the same. The only model that is really beautiful is the CL.This car is very appreciated here in Germany and this is the only car i would apply from MB.If i was a MB leader,i`d say..ok...we don`t know how to build high rev engines, we are slower, but we keep our classy presidents models and we are the best in confort.But when you see that they shout everywhere "We have the power ..we have the HP.. they make me laugh. Again why Ferrari and BMW does not agree with the turbines and compressors?You know better than me the reason. Sorry for the possible grammar errors again.

You don't even care anything about AMG fuelconsumtion. You are just concentrating on bashing compressors to the extent that you loses an overall view... you don't care. What if the E55 consumes less than M5 even if it has got a compressor?? What if I'm right?

It's no point arguing with you because you are only guessing things, you guessed that fuelconsumption is higher because of compressors. You don't understand the purpose with engines designed for compressors. Just that they are bad.

[thepolarfoxqx]

You compared the 1998 E55 to the M5. That's pretty funny, because in terms of performance, the 1998 E55 closer the 540i 6-speed than it was to the M5. That E55 should have got pretty good gas mileage, it wasn't that fast. An tell me something. When shopping for top of the line super-high performance sedans, who makes their decision on pollution? I've never even considdered polution in buying a car. Yes i'd like my car to be cleaner, but if it comes to a car that is faster, handles better, and is nicer, or one that pollutes a little less, i'm ok with polluting more.

also, keep something in mind. When they test cars for fuel consumption, they drive them very softly. When the automotive press drives the cars (and generally the press drives harder than the average person when testing a car), they have often noted BMW gas mileage suffers little when driven hard, whereas nearly everyone else's does.

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by thepolarfoxqx You compared the 1998 E55 to the M5. That's pretty funny, because in terms of performance, the 1998 E55 closer the 540i 6-speed than it was to the M5. That E55 should have got pretty good gas mileage, it wasn't that fast. An tell me something. When shopping for top of the line super-high performance sedans, who makes their decision on pollution? I've never even considdered polution in buying a car. Yes i'd like my car to be cleaner, but if it comes to a car that is faster, handles better, and is nicer, or one that pollutes a little less, i'm ok with polluting more. also, keep something in mind. When they test cars for fuel consumption, they drive them very softly. When the automotive press drives the cars (and generally the press drives harder than the average person when testing a car), they have often noted BMW gas mileage suffers little when driven hard, whereas nearly everyone else's does.

Good point, listen to helden2000, M5 is F1 inspired, BMW thinks for their customers, Mercedes doesn't. In other words, customers don't need to know that the car is able to be fuelefficient when driven softly at all.

Sorry, I'm perhaps saying too much what I think - I guess I don't need to say everything in my mind.

[LateNightCable]

Originally Posted by Thunf Good point, listen to helden2000, M5 is F1 inspired, BMW thinks for their customers, Mercedes doesn't. In other words, customers don't need to know that the car is able to be fuelefficient when driven softly at all.

??

Keeping one's clientel informed is never a bad idea. BMW's practice of offering a 1 day performance driving seminar with the purchase of an M5 is a very good idea.

[bleh]

seriously, how many subtopics do we have going here? what is this thread really about? shouldnt we start making new threads for new topics? i mean we could use a few more threads.

[Thunf]

Ok, this topic is about 'monsters' I guess!

I think that the most extreme NA monster Mercedes have created is the Mercedes CLK-GTR Super Sport. In that there is a NA V12 engine, 720 hp @ 6700 rpm.
If you would like to see a CLK-GTR they certainly exists somewhere in the middle east, I guess!

It depends on where you live, but an Enzo is extreme, you must own two Ferraris before you can buy one. And I've seen a couple of Ferraris, an old one and a brand new 360 Spider. The CLK-GTR is the most expensive car in the world, more expensive than an Enzo - including those you must buy before buying an Enzo!


Finally everybody thinks, Mercedes thinks, BMW thinks, Porche thinks. If Ferrari knows people willing to pay for something extra, I don't blame them. And Mercedes certainly gains some money for those sold CLK-GTRs but It's just for showing - we can build fast cars. BMW built an exteme X5 LeMans, it's very fast too - faster than the E60 M5 round Nurburgring. But it's not for sale -only for showing. Anyone heard it? The sound was very raw! I think the Porche Carrera Gt have one of the best engine sounds ever!

[LateNightCable]

Yes, this thread isn't about AMG vs. M, it's about monsters.

At about $1,250,000 I don't know if that Mercedes is the most expensive, but it's certainly up their. This gets us talking about the most extreme homologation specials, such as the said Mercedes, and the Nissan R390 GT1, although in this case, the road car came before the race car.

With a 700 hp. racing V12, the X5 LeMans deffinitely qualifies as a monster, but when I think of "monsters" I don't think of anything factory, but rather some wildly powerful speed demon, put together with no factory support. Something that may also possibly be wildly impractical or unsafe. Based off of an existing roadcar.

About the $1,000,000+ racing derived road cars though, the manufacturers don't build those to make money really, but rather so they can qualify the car to race. Rules often stipulate that at least one or a handfull of road versions must be built to qualify.

[thepolarfoxqx]

you dont' need to go to extremes to be extreme.

The Dinan S2-M5 didn't turbocharge, supercharge, or nitrous inject the E39 M5's V8, they didn't bore it bigger. They took what it had and made it work better. They updated the intake, the computer, the exhaust, the cams, shortened the gearing, lightened the flywheel, removed weight and trimmed up the suspension. What they got was a car that was actually easier to drive around town, but more importantly, ran to 60 sub 4.1, breaks 200 without breaking a sweat, slaloms a shade below 70 (and we're talking about a 2 ton passenger sedan). This is performance to run down a viper, a 911 turbo, a F430, the new more powerful E60 M5, the E55, and it comes within a shadow of outrunning cars like the CL65 which go for 80k more. That to me is beauty in the beast.