BMW M5 vs Alpina B5

[Thunf]

Indeed, E55 V8 kompressor uses almost as much fuel as the small M3 - but not really, slightly less. CO2 (Carbon dioxide) is measured as a funtion of fuelconsumption.

A kompressor V8 with 476 hp uses less fuel than a R6 with 344 hp in a heavier car! But Alpina is even more impressive with it's nautilus radial kompressor in the B5.
I don't know one engine that is around 500 hp in a saloon and is this efficient.

C55 CO2 286g/km
E55 CO2 310g/km
Alpina B5 CO2 294(!) g/km

M5 CO2 357g/km
M3 CO2 323g/km

BMW own 545i V8 engine: 333hp CO2 264 g/km
BMW M3 R6 engine: 344hp CO2 323g/km

Alpina B5 sets the standard in this class, better than the V10 M5 and better than E55! The 545i from BMW really show what the people at BMW is able to produce, a masterpiece with a far better efficient performance than the M engines. Alpina took the step BMW should have made in the first place.

[LateNightCable]

Originally Posted by Thunf Indeed, E55 V8 kompressor uses almost as much fuel as the small M3 - but not really, slightly less. CO2 (Carbon dioxide) is measured as a funtion of fuelconsumption.

I won't speak in metric ratings, just U.S. ratings, and the E55 is not more efficient than an M3. If you want to talk emissions, the E55 emits more "greenhouse gases" carbon dioxide being one of them, than an M3. But neither could be labeled "efficient".

Talking about CO2 output is kind of pointless, since none of the cars we've mentioned are even remotely fuel efficient. These are high performance cars, and they suck gas pretty hard.

Alpina does not have one up on BMW, in fact BMW supports their efforts. The B5 is a 4.4 V8, not a 5.0 V10 - this explains a lot. And an M5 would not be an M5 with an Alpina supercharged engine. It's apples and oranges really. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the B5's efficiency was a little over rated.

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by LateNightCable I won't speak in metric ratings, just U.S. ratings, and the E55 is not more efficient than an M3. If you want to talk emissions, the E55 emits more "greenhouse gases" carbon dioxide being one of them, than an M3. But neither could be labeled "efficient". Talking about CO2 output is kind of pointless, since none of the cars we've mentioned are even remotely fuel efficient. These are high performance cars, and they suck gas pretty hard. Alpina does not have one up on BMW, in fact BMW supports their efforts. The B5 is a 4.4 V8, not a 5.0 V10 - this explains a lot. And an M5 would not be an M5 with an Alpina supercharged engine. It's apples and oranges really. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the B5's efficiency was a little over rated.

Wouldn't be suprised? But you haven't checked any Mags eighter confirming it, have you? I won't speak in U.S ratings in that case since we're all lazy. From where do you pick your information that M3 is more efficient? Will you also say that C55 is less efficient than an M3? CO2 emission is not pointless, since it is directly taken from consumption. And for what purpose the fuel is being used. M engines generates more wasteheat than AMG engines. That's why MB AMG 55 engines are superior to BMW M engines in performance efficiency. Displacement is just another size of components. Not a big deal at all. How much fuel you give your engine is more importand and what you get out of it.

[skyline_r34v]

I'm still confused as to what the hell all those numbers are except the bhp and torque figures.

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by skyline_r34v I'm still confused as to what the hell all those numbers are except the bhp and torque figures.

g/km ?? or what numbers are confusing? 'g' is weight and 'km' is length. The less those numbers are the better the engine uses fuel for movement.
C55 is Mercedes C55 AMG. M5 is BMW M5, B5 is a carmodel Alpina B5. E55 is Mercedes E55 AMG. 545i is BMW 545i.

http://www.convert-me.com/en/ <----- A good place to convert metric to U.S numbers on.
Example C55 AMG Carbon dioxide emission (CO2): 286 g/km = 0.6305lb/0.6214mile=1,01 lb/mile Carbon dioxide

Well, it's all about efficiency. Boat engines and powerplants is all measured in efficiency. For a boat you want as low consumption and as much power as possible. That is also the case with big diesel powerplants, noone cares about displacement.

[bleh]

Originally Posted by Thunf Well, it's all about efficiency. Boat engines and powerplants is all measured in efficiency. For a boat you want as low consumption and as much power as possible. That is also the case with big diesel powerplants, noone cares about displacement.

i, the honda dinky displacement fanatic, agree.

[LateNightCable]

Originally Posted by Thunf From where do you pick your information that M3 is more efficient? Will you also say that C55 is less efficient than an M3?

Thunf, your trying to turn this into a kind of supremecy struggle. But since you asked, yes, the M3 is more fuel efficient than a C55. The M3 is not the most fuel efficient, but the C55 is even less so. And I get my information from a variety of scources, including the EPA. You can talk waste heat and CO2 all day, but what it all comes down to is how many gallons/liters of fuel you car requires to do it's job. And I say again, none of the cars mentioned are great models of efficiency if you want to talk pure environmental friendliness. Both the M3 and C55 emit considerably large amounts of greenhouse gases.

As for people not caring about displacement, I have to disagree. Many people do care. The marine and cargo hauling world especially. Low end torque is your friend.

M engines generates more wasteheat than AMG engines. That's why MB AMG 55 engines are superior to BMW M engines in performance efficiency.

I'm not even getting into that one. That's just a shot for the home team. Discussion over.