I don't think so since the test was taken in june of 05'

I'm pretty sure they're mistaken typographically or an uninformed writer. That is more in keeping with the M5 time. It's also more in keeping with what R & T, Motor Trend, AutoWeek, C & D, Roundel, and Bimmer Mag. indicate - all of which I subscribe to. Automobile, Dec. 2005, test between the M6 and CLS55 indicate 0-60 for the M6 at 4.4 seconds. 3.9 is NOT possible by a stock 550.

:wow:

Car mags are good to read but I don't really care about those stats.

The real point is not about the stats but about taking one stat for granted from a website. One source of information does not make a trustworthy case - especially if it was wrong to begin with. Many sources on the same subject give a reader a broader view of the truth, whether it is regarding speed, reliability, handling, et al - because there will be, there are, many different outcomes from different tests and subjective opinions from different testers...as well as plain old human error. Reading is good...I just don't believe everything I read the first time I see it.

Exactly!

I think there is something goofy about the 5.2 time. Note that the quarter mile time is essentially what everyone else gets--13.7 or 13.8. The 1/4 should have been more like 13.2 or 13.3 if 0 to 60 was 5.2.
[/quote]

I gave the mag to a car fan sitting next to me on the plane today - If you find the car mag with a silver z06 vs. a red viper (this Month) look at the back table for times and you'll see a 5.2

I thought the same that this couldn't be true!
[/quote]
I know it's there. Here are the big 3 US mag results for the 545i.

BMW 545i R&T 6/05 5.2 13.7 104.0
BMW 545i MT 8/04 5.4 13.7 102.1
BMW 545i MT11/05 5.5 13.8 102.8


Some of the other times given were way off too--e.g., Infinity M45.

3.9 no way. Even the M5 will not pull a 3.9. Someone is smoking some funny stuff.

5.2 is believable, but on the very low side of the numbers I have seen. Most places rate the 550 at 5.3 to 5.4.

Imagine the poor guy that will buy the 550 based on those stats!

Would love to see his face when he floors it after the beak in period !!! hahahaha :P

Wait a minute...maybe he was going downhill :lol:

Maybe they meant 0-60 km/hr!

I think there is something goofy about the 5.2 time. Note that the quarter mile time is essentially what everyone else gets--13.7 or 13.8. The 1/4 should have been more like 13.2 or 13.3 if 0 to 60 was 5.2.
[/quote]

That magazine has had the 5.2 time listed for a while. I read once where one of the magazines (don't recall which one) uses a formula to adjust times based on barometric preasure, temperature, and altitude of the test site, essentially changing the actual test results based on these readings and possibly others. The purpose of the result changes is because each track during a test can produce different results depending on these factors and their goal is to put all vehicles on a level playing field, which is impossible. You'd have to test every single car on the same track at the same time of day on the same day. Also, track adhesion can affect results. To state the obvious, more grip equals quicker times. They also utilize different launch techinques to attempt to maximize a cars potential.