znod

It would be pure speculation on my part (or anybody else who hasn't driven one), so I'll reserve judgment until I drive one...
[/quote]
OK, no problem. But, I think reasonble extrapolations are possible, and one can factor in corporate motivations, etc.
[/quote]

Given the M5 was released 2 years after the E55, I would hope BMW made sure is was at least a tad quicker than the E55, since I would think they consider it to be the M5's most comparable competitor. So shave 0.1 off 0 - 60 MPH, and 0.2 off 1/4 mile, from the best E55 times! From what I've seen the M5 does have the advantage above 80 MPH or so.
[/quote]
I think your reasoning is sound. I'll add you to the list. Thanks. I was a tad conservative in my predictions because .... I am hoping that Bimmer32 is right though.

cobradav

My predictions just for this exercise as I too do not care if it has the best of these numbers over say MB, Porsche, etc. And besides, my M6 will be slightly better anyway

0-60 = 4.3
1/4 = 12.1/121
Based on antedotal write ups in Europe delivered M5s

znod

Thanks cobradav. I'm adding you.

znod

Thanks cobradav. I'm adding you.
[/quote]
I found some new info, but I'm not saying where I found it--only that it is publicly available. Still, I'm not changing my predictions. That wouldn't be fair anyway, would it? And, I'm not saying whether my new info implies that I should or shouldn't change my predictions.

znod

Just to tweak your interest (maybe), I have more new information which I will share with you, but not its source. The M5 will do 0 to 1,000 meters in 22.7 seconds. I wonder how fast it was going at the end. 1,000 meters is about 3,281 feet. A mile a minute is 60 MPH. 3,281 feet is about 62% of a mile. So, it would have taken about 37 seconds to cover 1,000 meters at a 60 MPH average. So, I guess the M5 averaged about 98 MPH over the 1,000 meters. Assuming constant rate of acceleration ( if that's the right phrase) , it would be going about 196 at the 1,000 meter point. But, of course, the M5's 155 MPH limit rules that out. I wonder what the M5's MPH curve looks like for 62% of a mile. Darn, if we had a picture of it, then we could make a some pretty good predictions. ~{;^) I keep coming up with a little over 9 seconds in the 1/4. ~{;^) That may be a tad fast. As I recall, I saw Don Garlits do 8.48 at 181.81 in top fuel in 1957 or, maybe, 1958.

stream

OK--now you've taken me back to a place that one of my brothers and I used to love! Raceway Park...Sunday...Sunday...funnnycars...!!!

Here's a blast from the past:


http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...&article_id=746

znod

OK--now you've taken me back to a place that one of my brothers and I used to love! Raceway Park...Sunday...Sunday...funnnycars...!!!

Here's a blast from the past:
Attachment 11402

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?se...&article_id=746
[/quote]Your blast/past is interesting. Actually, below is a pic of the car--first time Garlits ran those injectors--Freeway Dragstrip--in what used to be the open space between Houston and Galveston--near Texas City.

Centurion

Oh, why not: 4.4, 12.4, 117.

Interlagos Blue with Silverstone interior please.

znod

Indeed, why not? Thanks, I'll post. Your color choice, etc., has been sent to Munich.

znod

Indeed, why not? Thanks, I'll post. Your color choice, etc., has been sent to Munich.
[/quote]I saw a new to me online article where either R&T or C&D (the former I think) predicted 13 secs. for the quarter for the M5.