m5 @ 340 km/h !
10-23-2006, 05:59 PM
#2
Contributors
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2007 E60 M5
Originally Posted by Mguy' post='348139' date='Oct 23 2006, 09:58 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=29BTv9oT2NE
Looks like 340ish !
Insane! Who would've thought a 4 door family car can do that eh!!!
Cant wait till i get my m5!
Looks like 340ish !
Insane! Who would've thought a 4 door family car can do that eh!!!
Cant wait till i get my m5!
10-24-2006, 12:44 AM
#3
Senior Members
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 6,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah outstanding!!
I'm wondering what is the exact fuel consumption at that speed. It interests me in pure theory. I'm wondering how many miles you cover with a full tank at that speed or in how many minutes the tank is emptyed.
I'm wondering what is the exact fuel consumption at that speed. It interests me in pure theory. I'm wondering how many miles you cover with a full tank at that speed or in how many minutes the tank is emptyed.
10-24-2006, 03:08 AM
#5
Contributors
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E61 535d Apr 05. UK spec + Media Pack, Luxury Pack & Visibility Pack
I'm not sure it hits 340. A stock M5 (507 bhp) should "stop" around 320. To get the extra 20 km/h, you'd need about 600 bhp.
And - just to be a spoilsport - I'm not sure that I like people doing 300+ km/h on a public road with other traffic and filming themselves in the process. :thumbsdown:
At 300 km/h you are doing over 80 m/s - just to put that into perspective, that's roughly 17 car (E60) lengths every second. Just look on the street and count 15 cars parked. You are going through that much space every heartbeat. Reaction time (eye-to-pedal) is ~0.4 seconds for a good, alert driver. That's enough to go through 30m... before you start braking. Then - assuming 1g average deceleration, which is reasonable for a sports car from 200 km/h, but is probably excessive from 300 km/h - it takes another 180m to stop. Total 210+ m. From 300 km/h.
B M W: rough calculation for consumption, assuming the engine is producing 507 bhp:
507 bhp = 372,600 W = 372,600 J/s
calorific power of petrol ~45 MJ/l
BIG assumption: thermodynamic efficiency = 25% (if anybody has better info, let me know; I calculated this ages ago for engines ranging from F1 cars to Diesel power generators based on averaging a variety of methods - and a late 1980s F1 car was about 25%)
consumption in l/s = 372,600 / (45,000,000 x 25%) = 0.033 l/s
Tank is 70 litres, so it runs out in 2100 seconds i.e. 35 minutes. Say 36 including pipes, pump and slight overfill. Effective range is less than 200 km!
Equivalent consumption in l/100km is 37.2 (7.6 mpg UK / 6.3 mpg US). This assuming top speed is 320 (not 340, which is physically impossible with 507 bhp)
And - just to be a spoilsport - I'm not sure that I like people doing 300+ km/h on a public road with other traffic and filming themselves in the process. :thumbsdown:
At 300 km/h you are doing over 80 m/s - just to put that into perspective, that's roughly 17 car (E60) lengths every second. Just look on the street and count 15 cars parked. You are going through that much space every heartbeat. Reaction time (eye-to-pedal) is ~0.4 seconds for a good, alert driver. That's enough to go through 30m... before you start braking. Then - assuming 1g average deceleration, which is reasonable for a sports car from 200 km/h, but is probably excessive from 300 km/h - it takes another 180m to stop. Total 210+ m. From 300 km/h.
B M W: rough calculation for consumption, assuming the engine is producing 507 bhp:
507 bhp = 372,600 W = 372,600 J/s
calorific power of petrol ~45 MJ/l
BIG assumption: thermodynamic efficiency = 25% (if anybody has better info, let me know; I calculated this ages ago for engines ranging from F1 cars to Diesel power generators based on averaging a variety of methods - and a late 1980s F1 car was about 25%)
consumption in l/s = 372,600 / (45,000,000 x 25%) = 0.033 l/s
Tank is 70 litres, so it runs out in 2100 seconds i.e. 35 minutes. Say 36 including pipes, pump and slight overfill. Effective range is less than 200 km!
Equivalent consumption in l/100km is 37.2 (7.6 mpg UK / 6.3 mpg US). This assuming top speed is 320 (not 340, which is physically impossible with 507 bhp)
10-24-2006, 06:55 AM
#6
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, North York
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E60 M5 (very soon)
Why does it need 600 hp? I think its quite possible to hit 330 in m5 and m6 and its been done, and few people went beyond 330km/h we all know that the accutall speed is around 10 km/h less and the only way to find out the ture speed is with gps. Still its freaking fast!
10-24-2006, 07:07 AM
#7
Contributors
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E61 535d Apr 05. UK spec + Media Pack, Luxury Pack & Visibility Pack
Originally Posted by Mguy' post='348348' date='Oct 24 2006, 03:55 PM
Why does it need 600 hp? I think its quite possible to hit 330 in m5 and m6 and its been done, and few people went beyond 330km/h we all know that the accutall speed is around 10 km/h less and the only way to find out the ture speed is with gps. Still its freaking fast!
a) They have aerodynamic modifications (i.e. Cd <0.3, which I think is the official BMW value)
b) The air is considerably thinner than "standard" (sea level) density. But if you go too high, you'll have problems of oxigen content not being enough.
Remember that power requirements increase with the cube of speed. 320 km/h is plenty fast enough for me!
See this thread for a more in-depth discussion of power vs. speed (though not M5 specific)
10-25-2006, 04:35 AM
#8
Senior Members
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 6,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dlevi67' post='348299' date='Oct 24 2006, 02:08 PM
I'm not sure it hits 340. A stock M5 (507 bhp) should "stop" around 320. To get the extra 20 km/h, you'd need about 600 bhp.
And - just to be a spoilsport - I'm not sure that I like people doing 300+ km/h on a public road with other traffic and filming themselves in the process. :thumbsdown:
At 300 km/h you are doing over 80 m/s - just to put that into perspective, that's roughly 17 car (E60) lengths every second. Just look on the street and count 15 cars parked. You are going through that much space every heartbeat. Reaction time (eye-to-pedal) is ~0.4 seconds for a good, alert driver. That's enough to go through 30m... before you start braking. Then - assuming 1g average deceleration, which is reasonable for a sports car from 200 km/h, but is probably excessive from 300 km/h - it takes another 180m to stop. Total 210+ m. From 300 km/h.
B M W: rough calculation for consumption, assuming the engine is producing 507 bhp:
507 bhp = 372,600 W = 372,600 J/s
calorific power of petrol ~45 MJ/l
BIG assumption: thermodynamic efficiency = 25% (if anybody has better info, let me know; I calculated this ages ago for engines ranging from F1 cars to Diesel power generators based on averaging a variety of methods - and a late 1980s F1 car was about 25%)
consumption in l/s = 372,600 / (45,000,000 x 25%) = 0.033 l/s
Tank is 70 litres, so it runs out in 2100 seconds i.e. 35 minutes. Say 36 including pipes, pump and slight overfill. Effective range is less than 200 km!
Equivalent consumption in l/100km is 37.2 (7.6 mpg UK / 6.3 mpg US). This assuming top speed is 320 (not 340, which is physically impossible with 507 bhp)
And - just to be a spoilsport - I'm not sure that I like people doing 300+ km/h on a public road with other traffic and filming themselves in the process. :thumbsdown:
At 300 km/h you are doing over 80 m/s - just to put that into perspective, that's roughly 17 car (E60) lengths every second. Just look on the street and count 15 cars parked. You are going through that much space every heartbeat. Reaction time (eye-to-pedal) is ~0.4 seconds for a good, alert driver. That's enough to go through 30m... before you start braking. Then - assuming 1g average deceleration, which is reasonable for a sports car from 200 km/h, but is probably excessive from 300 km/h - it takes another 180m to stop. Total 210+ m. From 300 km/h.
B M W: rough calculation for consumption, assuming the engine is producing 507 bhp:
507 bhp = 372,600 W = 372,600 J/s
calorific power of petrol ~45 MJ/l
BIG assumption: thermodynamic efficiency = 25% (if anybody has better info, let me know; I calculated this ages ago for engines ranging from F1 cars to Diesel power generators based on averaging a variety of methods - and a late 1980s F1 car was about 25%)
consumption in l/s = 372,600 / (45,000,000 x 25%) = 0.033 l/s
Tank is 70 litres, so it runs out in 2100 seconds i.e. 35 minutes. Say 36 including pipes, pump and slight overfill. Effective range is less than 200 km!
Equivalent consumption in l/100km is 37.2 (7.6 mpg UK / 6.3 mpg US). This assuming top speed is 320 (not 340, which is physically impossible with 507 bhp)
More than i asked but thank you...i bow to you Sir!
10-25-2006, 06:13 AM
#9
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, North York
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E60 M5 (very soon)
ok but wouldnt gearing play a big role too? I mean if its physically impossible to hit 330-340 km/h why the needle still going if the car is not accelerating? I mean There is 3-4 videos of people reaching 330 in m6 and m5. I think it is possible and gearing of SMGIII helps ALOT in achieving that speeds.
here are some videos
329km/h
moded m6 @ 340 km/h
another m6 @ 330
again m6 with 330
There's another few videos of m5 in South Africa hitting 330km/h
So i think 330 is possible.
here are some videos
329km/h
moded m6 @ 340 km/h
another m6 @ 330
again m6 with 330
There's another few videos of m5 in South Africa hitting 330km/h
So i think 330 is possible.
10-25-2006, 06:31 AM
#10
Contributors
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: E61 535d Apr 05. UK spec + Media Pack, Luxury Pack & Visibility Pack
Originally Posted by Mguy' post='348714' date='Oct 25 2006, 03:13 PM
ok but wouldnt gearing play a big role too? I mean if its physically impossible to hit 330-340 km/h why the needle still going if the car is not accelerating? I mean There is 3-4 videos of people reaching 330 in m6 and m5. I think it is possible and gearing of SMGIII helps ALOT in achieving that speeds.
[snip]
So i think 330 is possible.
[snip]
So i think 330 is possible.
Oh - and BTW - all of your videos are of M6s. I wonder if the aerodynamic is different, and Cx of an M6 is lower than that of an M5. It probably is, because the car is lower and therefore has a smaller frontal area.
Anyway - you are welcome to keep your opinion. AFAIK magazines haven't hit (never mind broken through) 330 with stock cars on testing grounds with proper equipment. Personally, I'd be more than happy with 320. I'm decidedly less happy with nearly 40l/100km and a 70l tank.