Do you think the new M5 is the fastest Big Saloon?
10-18-2005, 06:08 PM
#31
Members
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: nyc,usa
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 04 545 jet black/beige, smg sport,premium,sunshades,logic7,cwp,nav,pdc,bluetooth,16.0,light tint all around,Pirelli PZeroNero
i am not sure how those laptimes are really done,but to me there is clearly something wrong here...i just looked up latest laptimes on TopGear,please notice places 31 and 39 for example-something just does not add up here...
http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonb...times/thestig/
http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonb...times/thestig/
10-18-2005, 06:20 PM
#32
Contributors
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 3,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: In a place where the Mercedes density is the highest in the world (no. of MB per square kilometer) I choose a Bimmer, why? because of one thing "The Ultimate Driving Experience"
My Ride:
523i Steptronic, Silver Grey Exterior, Black Interior with Black Dakota Leather and Maple Wood Trim. Chrome Grill, Style 123 rim, Airbags everywhere, PDC, Rain sensor, Auto lights, Moveable front armrest, Advance Climate Control, Glass Sunroof, Auto dimming interior and exterior mirror with foldable functions, Extended Lights package, 6 CD changer in glove box, Power seats with memory, Power adjustable steering wheel, Power rear sunblinds.
Add ons: 123 wheels, chrome grill, K&N Hi flow filter, Eibach Pro Kit, e60.net decal and 24,000km
Past rides:
2001 Nissan Xterra SE
1999 E39 523i
1999 E46 323i
1996 Acura Integra LS
Originally Posted by ipse dixit' date='Oct 19 2005, 04:07 AM
The QP time was literally a hair faster than the stock M5 time
[snapback]185856[/snapback]
"1.6 sec faster. Considering average speed of 120 km/h, which is 33.3 m/s, the Maserati is ahead of the M5 by 53.3 m."
Now I am no Micheal Schumacher and as an ordinary driver that drives on ordinary road, I don't care about these figures. 1.6 sec to me is not like light years. I am not saying that the qp is not a good car but I wouldn't make it my dream sedan because the car is faster than the M5 by 1.6 seconds.
10-18-2005, 06:25 PM
#33
Senior Members
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if u guys look at the chart...with the different coloured lines. did u notice how the QP surged ahead of the rest at the last bend? after tower there is a bend...the QP jumped ahead right there....seems to me like it just straightlined the chicane or the bend there..while the rest of the cars...were perhaps struggling?
10-18-2005, 07:02 PM
#34
Senior Members
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Orange CA, USA
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would still take the M5 
To me you buy a car because you like certain things about it. Maybe the way it looks to you or the way it makes you feel. There will always be debates out there on which is the better car (comparing the same type of car and value of course). But if a person really loves a certain brand of car they will almost always choose to buy that car, even though a comparable one might be a "hair" faster. Personally I don't pay attention to these tests anyway. I like reading them and they are extremely informative, a lot of interesting figures, but it's not going to make me change my mind. I know what I want, and as long as I'm happy and the car doesn't present me with any serious problems, who cares? I guess it's because I dont take my car to the track, just some normal driving under normal conditions on a normal road. That's just me.
Just my honest opinion guys
To me you buy a car because you like certain things about it. Maybe the way it looks to you or the way it makes you feel. There will always be debates out there on which is the better car (comparing the same type of car and value of course). But if a person really loves a certain brand of car they will almost always choose to buy that car, even though a comparable one might be a "hair" faster. Personally I don't pay attention to these tests anyway. I like reading them and they are extremely informative, a lot of interesting figures, but it's not going to make me change my mind. I know what I want, and as long as I'm happy and the car doesn't present me with any serious problems, who cares? I guess it's because I dont take my car to the track, just some normal driving under normal conditions on a normal road. That's just me.Just my honest opinion guys
10-19-2005, 12:01 AM
#35
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Originally Posted by wolverine' date='Oct 19 2005, 04:20 AM
Sorry, but there is something out of whack here.? Just because EVO has a great reputation doesn't mean you must accept everything they say as the absolute gospel.? It looks like all the stars aligned to give the Maserati the best time it will ever see in any test relative to other cars.
Any track comparison that gives a better time for a 4,000 lb sedan with a lower power-to-weight ratio than the Porsche 997 is clearly an anomoly.?? Think about it, Maserati has managed to develop a car that is faster than a 997 around a track, and carries 700 extra pounds, and has a lower HP/weight ratio.? It just doesn't compute.
Take any track in the world, and run the 997 against the Quattroporte with equal drivers.? The 997 wins 99 times out of 100.? Lighter car, better acceleration, better cornering, quicker transitioning, better braking.?
The 997/Quattroporte comparison shows that the test of the Maserati on this track was NOT representative of it's performance against other cars.? Could have been the driver, the temperature, the wind, or perhaps the track was the one in 100 that was absolutely perfectly tailored to the Maserati gearing.? I'm not debating that the Maserati is a great handling car, but I'll bet you lunch you will never find another comparison that rates the Quattroporte as highly as this EVO test.
Any track comparison that gives a better time for a 4,000 lb sedan with a lower power-to-weight ratio than the Porsche 997 is clearly an anomoly.?? Think about it, Maserati has managed to develop a car that is faster than a 997 around a track, and carries 700 extra pounds, and has a lower HP/weight ratio.? It just doesn't compute.
Take any track in the world, and run the 997 against the Quattroporte with equal drivers.? The 997 wins 99 times out of 100.? Lighter car, better acceleration, better cornering, quicker transitioning, better braking.?
The 997/Quattroporte comparison shows that the test of the Maserati on this track was NOT representative of it's performance against other cars.? Could have been the driver, the temperature, the wind, or perhaps the track was the one in 100 that was absolutely perfectly tailored to the Maserati gearing.? I'm not debating that the Maserati is a great handling car, but I'll bet you lunch you will never find another comparison that rates the Quattroporte as highly as this EVO test.
[snapback]185961[/snapback]
. I agree with you, and it is even difficult for me to figure out how the QP can achieve a better lap time than the Carrera 997. That is why I stressed on that point in my earlier posts trying to show that the QP is really a great car. I still love the M5, but I can't just disregard the fact that my favorite magazine (EVO), which I really trust, is stating that the QP is a better handler. Regarding track conditions, as for the wet or dry conditions EVO clearly states the condition of the track, whether it was damp in places or completely dry. As for the temperature and wind, I don't really know if they account for that or not, but I can see that the test done for the QP and the M5 was one month apart. Of course this doesn't mean that the temperature or the wind were the same.
But the fact that a car with 207 hp/ton is able to record a better lap time than a 277 hp/ton car is just so sad
. This shows clearly that if they had the same power to weight ratio, the QP would have completely destroyed the M5 regardless of the wind, or temperature. Which consequently means that the QP's chasis is far more superior than the M5's. Am I making sense or not?
10-19-2005, 02:07 AM
#36
Senior Members
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Eire
Posts: 2,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: Collected Sept 2009 - BMW E90 M3, Silverstone II, Novillo Black leather, 19" M Double-Spoke alloys, High Beam Assist, Electronic Damper Control, Voice Control, PDC, USB, DAB, High Gloss Shadowline, Sliding armrest, Trim Finishing in aluminium grey.
You just have to laugh.
Why is everybody getting so upset. Just because an M5 lost a particular round by a value that is barely measurable on a wrist watch.
There are some cars that are more tuned (suited) to road rather than the track and display different performance characteristics in each environment. On normal road driving, the M5 would probably better acquaint itself. And possibly over teh QP.
From a looks point of view, the Maserati certainly puts the E60 in the shade. The M5 does look ordinary. Bodykit nothwithstanding. There is a cartain flair that the Italians seem to be able to capture that for some reason eludes other manufacturers.
Finally, I think some people are getting too carried away especially when an M5 is not even on their shopping list.
Just my $0.02.
10-19-2005, 02:21 AM
#37
Contributors
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: -04 530D
Originally Posted by wolverine' date='Oct 19 2005, 04:20 AM
Sorry, but there is something out of whack here.? Just because EVO has a great reputation doesn't mean you must accept everything they say as the absolute gospel.? It looks like all the stars aligned to give the Maserati the best time it will ever see in any test relative to other cars.
Any track comparison that gives a better time for a 4,000 lb sedan with a lower power-to-weight ratio than the Porsche 997 is clearly an anomoly.? Think about it, Maserati has managed to develop a car that is faster than a 997 around a track, and carries 700 extra pounds, and has a lower HP/weight ratio.? It just doesn't compute.
Take any track in the world, and run the 997 against the Quattroporte with equal drivers.? The 997 wins 99 times out of 100.? Lighter car, better acceleration, better cornering, quicker transitioning, better braking.?
The 997/Quattroporte comparison shows that the test of the Maserati on this track was NOT representative of it's performance against other cars.? Could have been the driver, the temperature, the wind, or perhaps the track was the one in 100 that was absolutely perfectly tailored to the Maserati gearing.? I'm not debating that the Maserati is a great handling car, but I'll bet you lunch you will never find another comparison that rates the Quattroporte as highly as this EVO test.
Any track comparison that gives a better time for a 4,000 lb sedan with a lower power-to-weight ratio than the Porsche 997 is clearly an anomoly.? Think about it, Maserati has managed to develop a car that is faster than a 997 around a track, and carries 700 extra pounds, and has a lower HP/weight ratio.? It just doesn't compute.
Take any track in the world, and run the 997 against the Quattroporte with equal drivers.? The 997 wins 99 times out of 100.? Lighter car, better acceleration, better cornering, quicker transitioning, better braking.?
The 997/Quattroporte comparison shows that the test of the Maserati on this track was NOT representative of it's performance against other cars.? Could have been the driver, the temperature, the wind, or perhaps the track was the one in 100 that was absolutely perfectly tailored to the Maserati gearing.? I'm not debating that the Maserati is a great handling car, but I'll bet you lunch you will never find another comparison that rates the Quattroporte as highly as this EVO test.
[snapback]185961[/snapback]
Originally Posted by Shebs' date='Oct 19 2005, 11:01 AM
Thanks for a very objective post . I agree with you, and it is even difficult for me to figure out how the QP can achieve a better lap time than the Carrera 997. That is why I stressed on that point in my earlier posts trying to show that the QP is really a great car. I still love the M5, but I can't just disregard the fact that my favorite magazine (EVO), which I really trust, is stating that the QP is a better handler.
Regarding track conditions, as for the wet or dry conditions EVO clearly states the condition of the track, whether it was damp in places or completely dry. As for the temperature and wind, I don't really know if they account for that or not, but I can see that the test done for the QP and the M5 was one month apart. Of course this doesn't mean that the temperature or the wind were the same.
But the fact that a car with 207 hp/ton is able to record a better lap time than a 277 hp/ton car is just so sad . This shows clearly that if they had the same power to weight ratio, the QP would have completely destroyed the M5 regardless of the wind, or temperature. Which consequently means that the QP's chasis is far more superior than the M5's. Am I making sense or not?
. I agree with you, and it is even difficult for me to figure out how the QP can achieve a better lap time than the Carrera 997. That is why I stressed on that point in my earlier posts trying to show that the QP is really a great car. I still love the M5, but I can't just disregard the fact that my favorite magazine (EVO), which I really trust, is stating that the QP is a better handler. Regarding track conditions, as for the wet or dry conditions EVO clearly states the condition of the track, whether it was damp in places or completely dry. As for the temperature and wind, I don't really know if they account for that or not, but I can see that the test done for the QP and the M5 was one month apart. Of course this doesn't mean that the temperature or the wind were the same.
But the fact that a car with 207 hp/ton is able to record a better lap time than a 277 hp/ton car is just so sad
. This shows clearly that if they had the same power to weight ratio, the QP would have completely destroyed the M5 regardless of the wind, or temperature. Which consequently means that the QP's chasis is far more superior than the M5's. Am I making sense or not?[snapback]186059[/snapback]
And no Shebs, to me You are not making sense. Sorry but to my small mind it just fit when I look specs of the cars.
By the way, I have not yet read the article. But I have read an other where was even more performance cars in. Try to post it tomorrow.
No I woul not take Maserati, not even Ferrari, over M5. Well maybe Scaglietti... to sell it and then by M5!
No offence,
Skaffa
10-19-2005, 04:34 AM
#38
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Originally Posted by skaffa' date='Oct 19 2005, 01:21 PM
Vote for Wolverine! Those result really don't compute!? But hey maybe Maserati/Ferrari payed better.
And no Shebs, to me You are not making sense. Sorry but to my small mind it just fit? when I look specs of the cars.
By the way, I have not yet read the article. But I have read an other where was even more performance cars in. Try to post it tomorrow.
No I woul not take Maserati, not even Ferrari, over M5. Well maybe Scaglietti... to sell it and then by M5!
No offence,
Skaffa
And no Shebs, to me You are not making sense. Sorry but to my small mind it just fit? when I look specs of the cars.
By the way, I have not yet read the article. But I have read an other where was even more performance cars in. Try to post it tomorrow.
No I woul not take Maserati, not even Ferrari, over M5. Well maybe Scaglietti... to sell it and then by M5!
No offence,
Skaffa
[snapback]186070[/snapback]
. No offence, just kidding.And if Ferrari/Maserati payed better to EVO, then why does the F430 rank after the Gallardo although Top Gear puts them the other way around? (in Top Gear the Gallardo is 1:25.8, the F430 is 1:22.9) May be Lamborghini payed better this time? I don't think so.
I would love to see a track time for the QP from another source.
10-19-2005, 04:44 AM
#39
Senior Members
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Nottingham (UK)
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wolverine, you talk sense.
As beutiful and wonderful as the QP is (hell, I'd have one!), there is no way that a saloon larger than the current 7 series/S-class should get anywhere near the M5/B5 time, and by anywhere near I would say within 3 seconds, let alone beat the M5 time.
As beutiful and wonderful as the QP is (hell, I'd have one!), there is no way that a saloon larger than the current 7 series/S-class should get anywhere near the M5/B5 time, and by anywhere near I would say within 3 seconds, let alone beat the M5 time.
10-19-2005, 06:09 AM
#40
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Originally Posted by browellm' date='Oct 19 2005, 03:44 PM
Wolverine, you talk sense.
As beutiful and wonderful as the QP is (hell, I'd have one!), there is no way that a saloon larger than the current 7 series/S-class should get anywhere near the M5/B5 time, and by anywhere near I would say within 3 seconds, let alone beat the M5 time.
As beutiful and wonderful as the QP is (hell, I'd have one!), there is no way that a saloon larger than the current 7 series/S-class should get anywhere near the M5/B5 time, and by anywhere near I would say within 3 seconds, let alone beat the M5 time.
[snapback]186100[/snapback]
Cheers
.