1033 hp M5, quarter mile in 9.41

[Thunf]

http://www.quicksilver-supra.com/VS_vs_Vaa_avi.avi

Where is the limit!?

[Anzeige eBay]

Hallo Thunf,

 

kennst du schon 1033 hp M5, quarter mile in 9.41 (Anzeige)? Dort ist vieles zu finden.

 

BMW M Ersatzteile (Anzeige) | BMW M Tuning (Anzeige) | BMW M Uhren (Anzeige)

[Thunf]

Hundreds of views but no comments!

Persian, what is your comment? I'd like to see modified MB doing these times on the quarter mile. Now I've seen a BMW M3 with turbo doing 242 end speed and an M5 doing 9.42 quarter mile. So, it's no use to come up with Brabus, Kleemann or Renntech because the only thing they do is making the already expencive cars more expensive...

Want the extra acceleration and cornering capabilities? choose a Porche.

However, what's the difference? If BMW's or someone else would be doing 4.41 a quarter mile i'd still take a MB!

[Morten]

Maybe this will generate some comments

Check V.S Motors new website :

http://www.vsmotor.no/en_index.html

You'll find some nice videos there...

TIP! Download the one from Gatebil September 2004

[All Wheel Drive]

This doesn't prove anything on BMW... The monster these people created is not realy a streetcar. Anything with a solid engine block can be turned into a monster like this.

[LateNightCable]

That's what this thread is about though, monsters.

[All Wheel Drive]

Well then, if the initial question is "Where is the limit?" I'd say that there is no limit as long there is desire and ressources... cause that baby needs some maintenance after some runs. There is no way someting could keep up with this stress.

[Thunf]

I agree.

The M5s engine internals is lightweight, a highreving engine, it is designed to be NA.

For example MB is designed with intentionally higher mass to handle FI, and being strong in lov revs.

Both have a different understandably filosofy.

MB went for energy saving in intentionally reducing the revs, the slightly higher mass don't need to accelerate and slow down as frequent, where you find power, in the low revs.

BMW went for energy saving in lighter engine internals, gives the power on high revs. And stressing with FI reduces the liftime of the engine.

The engine in a Topfuel dragster last one race and revs to 8000 rpm max, and weights 975.2 kg (2150 lbs).

An engine designed for high revs in a heavy car with forced injection certainly stresses it allot. It's like putting a FI motorcycle engine in a heavy car, even if power is similar to the original engine of the car it wount last long.

Seeing the videos gave me a big smile, going sideways with endless of power! But the lighter cars behind kept well up.

[LateNightCable]

Power is virtually limitless with enough resources, but there are limits to durability. Building a machine that lasts for one run down the track, such as a top fuel dragster is not hard, pure speed is cheap. Building something that is flexible, cost effective, and that will last is the challenge.

BMW's were meant to be handling machines, not drag racers.

[helden2000]

I`ve seen the video and this leads to another great BMW demo.Anyway the engineers from BMW are the greatest on earth.They do not put turbines and compressors in order to gain power like MB,AUDI,PORSCHE and many others do.They THINK!!Think what happens if the BMW M3 not CSL meets with Carrera.The Porsche has 3,6 displacement and the M3 has 3,2.But the M3 will crash the Carrera.But with the Turbo there is another story.I hope you all understood what i said.

Regards

[LateNightCable]

Other makers think too, Porsche for example would not be who they are today if they didn't use their heads. With the exclusion of wierd stuff like the Cayenne which really is not a Porsche anyway. Porsche knows the 911, and they know turbos.

BMW on the other hand knows engines like no other, and are the veritable masters of deriving the most power from natural asperation, and balancing a car's dynamics so that they work as a cohesive unit. They have made it their specialty. And it has served them very well.

[Anzeige Amazon]

Hallo Thunf,

 

schau doch mal hier zum Thema BMW M (Anzeige)? Eventuell gibt es dort etwas Passendes.

 

Der V16 Motor zum Selberbauen (Anzeige) ist auch genial.

[helden2000]

You are right about Porsche but you know that Turbo engines don`t last.Anyway,you could mount a turbo on your car at every dealer in the street`s corner.This is not a real job.What is the most powerful engine in the F1?The BMW.But the chassis and aerodynamics delivered by Williams turned out to be not so good.Anyway, when it comes to naturally aspirated engines,I personally respect BMW and Ferrari.They know how to handle the situation.You saw what happens when a BMW gets a turbine. Why should i spend $60,000 on a simple Carrera when i could buy the M3 CSL that is more beautiful and 10 years + technically advanced that the 911.Again, the Turbo is another story.Don`t you see what is happening these days?Mercedes noticed that they will not stand on the market with those stupid AMG engines(5,500 cm and 347 hp)old E55 AMG when the BMW M5 had 400 hp delivered from 5,000 cm.And we are talking about year 1998.So what they thought?Lets NOT THINK and grab some compressors and the job is easily done.We have more horsepowers than the BMW. I have 24 years old and i am driving BMW`s from the day that i had the license and i will not buy another car until they prove that they actually think for the customer.

[Speedster25]

Ferrari also gets the most out of natural aspiration engines. Just look at the Tipo 140 engine in the Enzo, its one of the gretest on Earth. But, with BMW I agree, just look at the McLaren F1, there is no turbo on either of these engines and they make 620 bhp. But helden you are wrong with Porsche. The engine in their Carrera GT is insane. Its a 5.7 liter V-10. And it creates 605 bhp, in a V-10! Compare that too a Viper engine which only makes 500 bhp and its 8.3l. Both the McLaren's and Ferrari engines are V-12's (Ferrari 5.998 liter, McLaren/BMW 6.064 liter to be specific).

[skyline_r34v]

You are right about Porsche but you know that Turbo engines don`t last.Anyway,you could mount a turbo on your car at every dealer in the street`s corner.This is not a real job.What is the most powerful engine in the F1?The BMW.But the chassis and aerodynamics delivered by Williams turned out to be not so good.Anyway, when it comes to naturally aspirated engines,I personally respect BMW and Ferrari.They know how to handle the situation.You saw what happens when a BMW gets a turbine. Why should i spend $60,000 on a simple Carrera when i could buy the M3 CSL that is more beautiful and 10 years + technically advanced that the 911.Again, the Turbo is another story.Don`t you see what is happening these days?Mercedes noticed that they will not stand on the market with those stupid AMG engines(5,500 cm and 347 hp)old E55 AMG when the BMW M5 had 400 hp delivered from 5,000 cm.And we are talking about year 1998.So what they thought?Lets NOT THINK and grab some compressors and the job is easily done.We have more horsepowers than the BMW. I have 24 years old and i am driving BMW`s from the day that i had the license and i will not buy another car until they prove that they actually think for the customer.

HOLY non-grammarized post, Batman!!!

[wEstSide]

I doubt he's from America, this forum is big in Germany right? Note the part where he says he's driven bimmers his whole life. Huge bias right there.

[helden2000]

Hello,

I am from Munich, Germany but i think i can handle english.Sorry for the mistakes.Anyway i think America is a great country but you can`t have all.The greatest cars are made in Europe you know.Again sorry for the possible grammar mistakes.

Regards

[bleh]

You are right about Porsche but you know that Turbo engines don`t last.

ummmm.. i rock out na but i know turbo engines last just as long as any other engine when thought out correctly.

dont worry about the grammar i understood. unfortunately, i tried translating "non-grammarized" and came up a tad short

[Thunf]

You are right about Porsche but you know that Turbo engines don`t last.Anyway,you could mount a turbo on your car at every dealer in the street`s corner.This is not a real job.What is the most powerful engine in the F1?The BMW. But the chassis and aerodynamics delivered by Williams turned out to be not so good

Actually it's the BAR Honda nowadays, and that is by far the most powerful. Mercedes was said to have similar power as BMW the last few races of the season.

Anyway, when it comes to naturally aspirated engines,I personally respect BMW and Ferrari.They know how to handle the situation.You saw what happens when a BMW gets a turbine. Why should i spend $60,000 on a simple Carrera when i could buy the M3 CSL that is more beautiful and 10 years + technically advanced that the 911.

Yes and for how long will we see this turbine BMW? It's one thing to design an engine ready for all types of customers and have it lasting, than having this much power a year or two.

The Carrerra is allot cheaper than a BMW M3 CSL.

Again, the Turbo is another story.Don`t you see what is happening these days?Mercedes noticed that they will not stand on the market with those stupid AMG engines(5,500 cm and 347 hp)old E55 AMG when the BMW M5 had 400 hp delivered from 5,000 cm.And we are talking about year 1998.So what they thought?

They are designed to have instant power, that is MB philosophy.

Lets NOT THINK and grab some compressors and the job is easily done.We have more horsepowers than the BMW. I have 24 years old and i am driving BMW`s from the day that i had the license and i will not buy another car until they prove that they actually think for the customer.

I see you don't care much in other brands than your own. That's like tifosies, they don't care if their Ferrari wound't even start - it's a Ferrari so they must be best? right?

Easily done? Come on. Putting a compressor on is in your way of thinking just bad. It's just simple to put a compressor, right?

Look at this please.

E60 M5, CO2 emissions: 357 g/km

E55 AMG Komp., CO2 emissions: 276 g/km

E60 M5, 12.38 l/100 km

E55 AMG kompressor, 9.562 l/100 km

I don't say any of these engines are bad, it's just that you shouldn't bash AMG when you don't know the whole story. Isn't it fantastic with an engine with 700 NM and 476 hp to be this efficient? I think AMG and Mercedes have made a helluva job. It's made to last, it's doesn't rev much - everything is made on purpose. Who says you must take everything out of a small displacement? BMW made an engine that was 55 hp/ litre! they didn't push it there, did they? And that year was 2000+.

So they must be bad now because like you said about AMG, BMW was unable to push more out of it.

[LateNightCable]

Yes and for how long will we see this turbine BMW? It's one thing to design an engine ready for all types of customers and have it lasting, than having this much power a year or two.

The Carrerra is allot cheaper than a BMW M3 CSL.

It might be helpful to have a look at the products of Alpina. These are built to last. - www.alpina.de

They are designed to have instant power, that is MB philosophy.

Everone wants instant power. And it's not hard to get with a decently sized engine.

I have yet to see any official ratings for the E60 M5, but the E55 is hardly efficient by any means. With a combined milage rating of 17 mpg. And when it comes to greenhouse emissions, it's pretty bad. In fact the E55 AMG wagon is on the EPA list of 9 Least Fuel Efficient cars. And about BMW engines, not everyone is tuned for maximum power, no one's are.

[thepolarfoxqx]

fleet wide, BMW's average gas mileage is better. Let's do some comparisons, shall we?

These are all 2005 model year BTW:

760li: 18/26 - 73hp/l

S600: 12/19 - 89 hp/l - turbocharged

Hmm, so the BMW get's 50% better mileage in town than the merc.

745i: 18/26 - 74hp/l

S500: 16/24 - 60.4hp/l

Keep in mind, the merc has an extra gear.

530i: 20/30 - 75hp/l

E320: 20/28 - 67hp/l

M3: 16/24 - 104hp/l

C55 16/22 - 67hp/l

Engine effeciency and design has been a BMW hallmark. If mercedes can make one with more brute force, that is their style, BMW has always made more sophisticated and efficient motors. Both are good, but trust me, plenty of BMW engines are about instant thrust.

[Thunf]

I have yet to see any official ratings for the E60 M5, but the E55 is hardly efficient by any means. With a combined milage rating of 17 mpg. And when it comes to greenhouse emissions, it's pretty bad. In fact the E55 AMG wagon is on the EPA list of 9 Least Fuel Efficient cars. And about BMW engines, not everyone is tuned for maximum power, no one's are.

Ok, not maximum, but more in that direction than the other.

17 mpg it says 21.9mpg (combined) in some places.

And welcome to the list E60 M5. 9 least fuel efficient cars / power is a completely different thing. There aren't many 1700+ kg sedans or saloons offered with 450 + hp out there. So somebody has to get on the list.

shall we compare the mighty ///M with ///AMG older versions ala 98'?

E55: 17/24

M5: 13/21

Thing is that I was defending AMG. I've yet to see some of the ordinary cars get more efficient. I know MB have badder areas. But so have BMW, I don't appreciate people who claims nothing is good on a MB because of the power/ displacement isn't good enough. How about safety? The new 5 series got 3 stars in EuroNCAP before they revised it, so now they have 4. And looking at the interior quality of some of them they have definately not staked in that area as well. So bash on MB, I can bash BMW. Everything they do isn't right, is it?

[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]

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]

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]

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.