First performance test, 0 -100 km/h!!!!
Thread Starter
Senior Members
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 965
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Latest test of the M5 performance ( German auto motor & sport ):
0-100 km/h: 4.7s
0-200 km/h: 14.8s
0-200 was a disappointment I think. The M5 was tested against the new MB CLS 55 AMG, and guess what - the AMG won the test!?
More comfortable and better engine ( ????? ) they said.
0-100 km/h: 4.7s
0-200 km/h: 14.8s
0-200 was a disappointment I think. The M5 was tested against the new MB CLS 55 AMG, and guess what - the AMG won the test!?
More comfortable and better engine ( ????? ) they said.
Senior Members
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,135
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally Posted by cidair' date='Oct 30 2004, 11:14 AM
Latest test of the M5 performance ( German auto motor & sport ):
0-100 km/h:? 4.7s
0-200 km/h:? 14.8s
0-200 was a disappointment I think. The M5 was tested against the new MB CLS 55 AMG, and guess what - the AMG won the test!?
More comfortable and better engine ( ????? ) they said.
0-100 km/h:? 4.7s
0-200 km/h:? 14.8s
0-200 was a disappointment I think. The M5 was tested against the new MB CLS 55 AMG, and guess what - the AMG won the test!?
More comfortable and better engine ( ????? ) they said.
[snapback]51156[/snapback]
! i don't want to hear that :'(. you have the figures for the cls 
?
Senior Members
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,135
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally Posted by cidair' date='Oct 30 2004, 10:27 PM
CLS 55 AMG:
0-100:? 4.7s
0-200:? 15.5s? ( slow sucker! )
0-100:? 4.7s
0-200:? 15.5s? ( slow sucker! )
[snapback]51322[/snapback]
. but 0-100 for amg is the same and 0-200 is slower. am i missing something ?
Thread Starter
Senior Members
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 965
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
I was thinking the same. But we are not just talking perforance here.
They take the comfort part into much consideration, and then MB always win!
It?s like comparing pears and apples
They take the comfort part into much consideration, and then MB always win!
It?s like comparing pears and apples
Senior Members
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,135
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally Posted by cidair' date='Oct 31 2004, 09:48 AM
I was thinking the same. But we are not just talking perforance here.
They take the comfort part into much consideration, and then MB always win!
It?s like comparing pears and apples
They take the comfort part into much consideration, and then MB always win!
It?s like comparing pears and apples
[snapback]51437[/snapback]
Contributors
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 0
From: Helsinki, Finland
My Ride: -04 530D
Why they compare 4d-coupe and 4d-sedan?
-Price: MB 96200,-?, M5 86200,-?
-engine: MB v8, 5439cc, 476 hp, 700Nm, M5 V10, 4999cc, 507hp, 520Nm
-weight: MB 1920kg, M5 1830kg
-gearbox: MB 5 speed auto, 7 speed SMG
-design: MB ugly, M5 aaaaah...
If you want cosy -> MB, if you have not yet stoped thinking and living ->M5.
Skaffa
-Price: MB 96200,-?, M5 86200,-?
-engine: MB v8, 5439cc, 476 hp, 700Nm, M5 V10, 4999cc, 507hp, 520Nm
-weight: MB 1920kg, M5 1830kg
-gearbox: MB 5 speed auto, 7 speed SMG
-design: MB ugly, M5 aaaaah...
If you want cosy -> MB, if you have not yet stoped thinking and living ->M5.
Skaffa
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
w8199
E60 Discussion
7
Jul 17, 2015 04:59 PM
PelicanParts.com
Vendor Classifieds
0
Jul 16, 2015 01:12 PM
BurtonSnol3order
E60 Discussion
1
Jul 3, 2015 09:28 PM
