ipp

You need to remap your tow truck
[/quote]
I don't understand why Iceman is calling his 545 a tow truck??? It's not that slow... j/k...

By the way, do you got any pics of your tow truck, and are you sure it has more torque than the 535d??

clived

LOL - firstly, damn right about the pasting - I did that when I originally found and posted the data on another forum. I did this because the model designation was shown much higher on the page, above some other data, and I wanted to keep the size of the image down. You can link to the original, clearly showing 535d and 545i, from here: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46139

Secondly, you've obviously never driven a 535d AND a 530i - if you had there was no way you'd think that numbers this close together for two models represented a 535d and a 530i. The guy who lives opposite me has a manual 530i and I can tell you it has nothing like the acceleration of a 535d. And as there isn't a model between the 530i and the 545i, what does that leave us thinking these performance figures are for? I don't disagree with any post that says that some of the 545i figures look a little poor however - I'm sure it is possible for a 545i to turn in better times than this - don't forget that it was an automatic car being tested however.

Interesting quote on this thread: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showpost....101&postcount=6

I still don't know which would be quicker in various different increments, but I'd still like to find out :-)

Merv the Derv

Merv, if you're thinking about the numbers that Clived posted, I'm pretty sure that the numbers that were shown as 545 are actually for the 530 (as another poster pointed out). The "545" specs as listed look like the 530's, plus, to my untrained eyes, it looks like someone has edited the graphic to paste "535d" and "545i" over what was actually there in the first place. Do you or anyone else have any better numbers?
[/quote]

That's exactly right. The posted numbers DO lie!
And I WILL leave the 535d behind, not just in most situations...
[/quote]

From Clived's last post it would appear the link proves the figures are correct.

clived

Merv, I don't think it proves the figures are "correct" as in totally definitive performance figures for a 545i, but I think it does show there were from *a* 545i Auto... :-)

swajames

I'm still calling BS clived, I have never seen numbers that slow for a 545. As I said, R&T here just posted 5.2 0-60 with a 545 auto, and to me all the numbers in the article that clived found lose credibility as a result of their 6.6 0 to 62 number. I can tell you that if 545's were routinely posting numbers as bad as those (and so far from US published specs) you would have had a lot of happy class action attorneys over here. As it is, you don't.

E60525d

Firstly, im not trying to start a arguement here, just my personal views.

I'm also pretty sure that thise figures can not be for the 530i. Ive driven a 535d and its a monster. I've never driven a 545i but have driven a 745 which i know does weight alot more than the E60. Personally i felt the 535d engine was much better that the 745.

The 535d did feel like a big V8 because there was no lag and you got masses of power from every part of the rev range.

Personally i would take a 535d because everyday driving is about in gear acceleration and the 535d is much quicker than the 545i. If you look the in gear times for the 535d, they are much much quicker than the 535d.

The difference between a stock 545i and 535d is that the 545i has 61bhp more and the 535d has 82lb ft more.

The difference between a remapped 545i and 535d is that the 545i will have 38bhp more but the 535d will have 108lb ft more.

The figures for the remapped 545i are taken from Iceman and figures for the remapped 535d are taken from DMS.

Conclusion is that the 535d will have gained more if both cars are remapped. The 545i has a better chance if both cars are stock.

swajames

If you are basing the "much quicker" in gear times on the table that clived found then I think it's safe to say that those numbers are suspect. They are, by far, the worst stats that I have seen attributed to the 545. The article was also in German so many of us won't have had the benefit of reading the article to get a baseline for their agenda.

E60525d

Im not basing the times on that table. Every road test suggests this. Its obvious aswell because it has more torque than the 545i. More torque gives better in gear accelation.

Also was reading an article on the new 3.0d in the merc c-class. The mid range acceleration times were exactly the same as the AMG C55.

Iceman

Just need to get rid of the speed limiter...


Well, a tow truck for towing trucks should have more torque than a 535d, don't you think?

It's actually not "MY" tow truck. Whenever I have time I work for a company that has more than 15 tow trucks. So I drive different ones and don't have one myself (I own a travel agency and do it just for fun, because I love to get my hands on all those differnt cars ).





No. Why do you think they are correct? Because they were published in a magazine?
If the same magazine tells you that Elvis is still alive and that a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (1001 HP) needs 15.2 seconds 0-100 Km/h... Would you believe it? Does it make the numbers true, just because they say so?
Look at the official numbers from BMW.





Here comes the typical "my-diesel-is-better-and-faster-than-your-petrol-car-diesel-driver-argument".
THIS IS BS!!!!!!

Iceman

You know, this is the BEST BS I've heard in years!!!

If you are talking about remapped cars, you are not talking about the stock car anymore, youare talking about a TUNED car. If you want to compare tuned cars, then check out the Hamann tuning for the 545 engine! You don't have ANY chance to get anywhere near that with your diesel.

You can do chiptuning and other stuff with any car, but then the comparison is unfair, since one has more money and a better tuning company than the other one.



ALSO: More torque DOES NOT make your car faster!