Crown

Board: Other Sports Cars Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    Gabriel343 said:
    0-200km/h for M5 13.5 sec (e55 stand no chance to 200km/h, 13.5 sec is freaking fast).




    I am very positive that the tested car is not representative of the product actually sold to customers. We know this from the first tests of AMG models: initial test results were never confirmed in later tests.

    BMW officially claims 14.4 secs for 0-200. Why should they understate the actual performance by one second? Also in other tests in the German press the 0-200 time was close to 15 secs.

    I really do not like car companies trying to fool potential customers

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    Quote:
    Gabriel343 said:
    0-200km/h for M5 13.5 sec (e55 stand no chance to 200km/h, 13.5 sec is freaking fast).




    I am very positive that the tested car is not representative of the product actually sold to customers. We know this from the first tests of AMG models: initial test results were never confirmed in later tests.

    BMW officially claims 14.4 secs for 0-200. Why should they understate the actual performance by one second? Also in other tests in the German press the 0-200 time was close to 15 secs.

    I really do not like car companies trying to fool potential customers



    It's not easy to do upgrade an atmospheric engine in order to gain 1 second to 200Kph. You'll have to spend a fortune in mods ro reach that. It's way more easy to do that in a turbo/supercharger engine, just put more boost on the turbo and remap the ECU for the test drive day and your on. The final numbers will be atractttive for future buyers and this sell cars, that's exactly what Porsche and AMG did with their cars delivered to car magazines, BMW couldn't do the same with their atmo engines.

    J.Seven

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Is there any disadvantage to using Turbo/Supercharges as opposed to an atmospheric engine?

    I'm sorry, I'm not very techinical

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    danny828 said:
    Is there any disadvantage to using Turbo/Supercharges as opposed to an atmospheric engine?

    I'm sorry, I'm not very techinical



    The disadvantage in the turbo engines is the slightly decreased responsiveness due to the turbo lag and do not rev as high, and supercharged engines are even less rev happy and work on lower revs with lots of torque like diesel engines which make them less sporty. Of the two the turbo is the better solution in sportcars, thats why you don't see many supercharged sportcars (Only makers like Ford, Jaguar, Mercedes use supercharging for example, though the later finnally dropped supercharging in favour of turbocharging) but many turbocharged (Porsche, Lotus, Noble, Mitsu, Subaru, tunners, etc), though given the same power output, atmospheric is generally better still, atmospheric engines reach higher engine speeds and are more responsive with a more linear and instant power delivery. The problem is that its much harder to achieve the same power output from an atmospheric so sometimes the power advantage of the turbo outweights the atmospheric. (Enzo, Pagani, CGT, McLaren F1, etc are atmospheric but need huge engines and costly materials)

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    MKSGR said:
    I am very positive that the tested car is not representative of the product actually sold to customers. We know this from the first tests of AMG models: initial test results were never confirmed in later tests.

    BMW officially claims 14.4 secs for 0-200. Why should they understate the actual performance by one second? Also in other tests in the German press the 0-200 time was close to 15 secs.

    I really do not like car companies trying to fool potential customers




    I read only three different tests where the M5 has really been tested and in one test (AMS?), the 0-200 kph acceleration time was over 14 seconds (I don't remember the exact figure anymore) and in two tests, it was below 14 seconds. Of course car manufacturers sometimes play it dirty and gives cars to the press which are more powerful.
    But maybe BMW has to fight with initial production quality of the engines and high power variations at the beginning.

    Look at the BMW M3: I never read so many different performance figures for this car. I saw everything, from 16.7 seconds from 0-200 kph up to 19.3 seconds. How do you explain that? The 997 Carrera S for example is pretty "steady": 16.1,16.5,16.6.

    I just think we should wait until the BMW M5 is actually on the street. I don't trust too much manufacturer claims and I started to mistrust car magazines test figures too. The SL55 comparison test we did vs. the 996 Turbo was a very good example for that.

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    carlos fromspain said:
    Quote:
    danny828 said:
    Is there any disadvantage to using Turbo/Supercharges as opposed to an atmospheric engine?

    I'm sorry, I'm not very techinical



    The disadvantage in the turbo engines is the slightly decreased responsiveness due to the turbo lag and do not rev as high, and supercharged engines are even less rev happy and work on lower revs with lots of torque like diesel engines which make them less sporty. Of the two the turbo is the better solution in sportcars, thats why you don't see many supercharged sportcars (Only makers like Ford, Jaguar, Mercedes use supercharging for example, though the later finnally dropped supercharging in favour of turbocharging) but many turbocharged (Porsche, Lotus, Noble, Mitsu, Subaru, tunners, etc), though given the same power output, atmospheric is generally better still, atmospheric engines reach higher engine speeds and are more responsive with a more linear and instant power delivery. The problem is that its much harder to achieve the same power output from an atmospheric so sometimes the power advantage of the turbo outweights the atmospheric. (Enzo, Pagani, CGT, McLaren F1, etc are atmospheric but need huge engines and costly materials)



    Thankyou so much Carlos , you're very knowledgable regarding techincal matters and always so helpful .

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    My pleasure danny, thats what the forum is for, we all learn

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    danny828 said:
    Is there any disadvantage to using Turbo/Supercharges as opposed to an atmospheric engine?

    I'm sorry, I'm not very techinical



    HP is related to the amount of fuel/oxygen mixture you can get into the cylinder. The easiest way is to increase displacement or extend the margin of possible revolutions on the upper end.
    If this doesn't work, forced induction has the same effect without the need to increase displacement. Every piston engine's exhaust fumes have a certain velocity throught the exhaust system. This is how turbos work.
    Superchargers are strapped to the engine itself and their speed is directly related to engine speed.

    All three systems have advantages and disadvantages and those keep moving constantly whenever new technologies are introduced.

    The pre-F1 racecars from Mercedes for example used superchargers (hence MB's traditional attempt), in 80ies' F1 turbos were the way to go since they produce astonishing numbers out of fairly small engines. We shouldn't talk about gas consumption though...
    N/a-engines have the best response and are usually the easiest to drive due to its linear power and controllable character.

    Any more questions?

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    BMW used to understate the 0-100 times, but more recently it's quite the opposite.. Makes you wonder how fast the M5 realy is..
    Anyway, AutoBild used avaliable cars to them, knowing that people like to read about both of them, throwed them together and had hopefully a good time.
    Interesting cars, but no real copmarasion between them. I'd like to have both of them, not to pick just one of them!

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    A few more questions

    So Turbo's have much worse fuel consumption than atmospheric engines?

    Would that mean Ferrari's are more sporty than turbo Porsche's? Because as far as I know, all current Ferrari models are atmospheric.

    Thanks

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    danny828 said:
    So Turbo's have much worse fuel consumption than atmospheric engines?


    Not necessary "much worse". According to Porsche, GT3's fuel mileage is 15/23mpg and Turbo is 15/22mpg. It is much worse in Ferrari 360. Do you really care fuel comsumption in sport car?

    Quote:

    Would that mean Ferrari's are more sporty than turbo Porsche's? Because as far as I know, all current Ferrari models are atmospheric.


    You should look at the total package rather than just by looking at the linear power output to define the sporty.

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    They have "in general" worse fuel consuption but its not that big of an issue nowadays.
    As to the sportiveness, the V8 atmospheric engine of the Modena has a sportier feel than the 996TT's yes, its more in line with the GT3's engine if you want to compare it to a Porsche's. But there are other factors that influence in the power delivery and responsiveness, from the flywheel to the size or number of turbos, from the size and number of cilinders to the transmision type, etc, so a large atmospheric sedan type engine will not end up being sportier than a turbocharged sportcar's engine for example just because its atmospheric.

    Also, like iia says, just because the engine may be sportier doesn't mean necesarily the car is sportier though, the E46-M3 has a very high reving atmospheric L-6 engine and the new M5 has also an atmospheric V10 that revs up to 8300RPM but that doesn't mean they are sportier "cars" than a GT2 or a Mitsu Lancer EVO VIII MR400.

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Hi Danny,

    usually turbo engines consume more gas at full load than atmospheric ones but this would work on exact the same engine only. Ferrari's layout (high revs, shorter gearratios) don't generally improve gas mileage whereas the Turbo-Porsches are far from their maximum in terms of reliability and output. Enhancing the later is much easier on a Turbo than on an atmospheric engine (in certain limits of course).
    Turbos use a certain amount of gas for cooling purposes as far as I know (they inject more than necessary at full load) but this might be for certain models only.

    The big disadvantage of Turbo-engines is their turbolag and sometimes a not very linear response - Porsche solved this problem pretty well by now.
    This also is mainly important with high-output engines and RWD since tires can break loose pretty fast - the above mentioned turbo-cars (Mitsu Evo, Subaru Impreza, 996 Turbo) all have AWD which cures the problem pretty well.

    Audi launched the Turbo-Direct Injection models recently (also available in the new Golf GTI) which seems to reduce gas consumption to a certain extend.

    By the way, WRC rally cars have a very complex intake system to solve lag which is in my eyes too complicated for serial production yet.

    I am no expert on turbo engines specifically so I hope someone can assist me on this issue...

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    danny828 said:
    So Turbo's have much worse fuel consumption than atmospheric engines?




    I believe it is true to say that the "specific fuel consumption" = fuel consumption per hour per horse-power (or kilowatt) of max. engine power output of turbocharged engines is better than for normally aspirated engines, if both are tuned as well as the state-of-the-art allows.

    But the fuel consumption in a car depends on other factors not related directly to the type of engine, like the car's weight, aerodynamics and transmission!

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    True! That's why the Modena's gas mileage is not any better than the Turbo's...

    Anyways, most turbo engines have no advantage over atmospheric engines at full load but I'd say this is only partly due to the reason I stated above.

    Same goes with direct-injection engines which run in a different, less fuel-saving mode at full load.

    P.S. Fritz, you're not a big fan of watching TV at nights...?

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    Ferdie said:
    P.S. Fritz, you're not a big fan of watching TV at nights...?



    Ferdie, you're surely familiar with the concept defined by one of the newest words to have been absorbed into the German language: - "Multitasking"!

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    fritz said:
    "Multitasking"



    Hey, didn't know that you're female.

    Honestly, considering the current TV shows in Germany makes the choice in favour of Rennteam even easier...

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Atmospheric or naturally aspirated engines are ofter preferred by purists because of lack of turbo lag, so more immediate responsiveness. GT3 is a classic example of this type of engine. Preferred by purist drivers.

    The interesting thing about this comparison is like comparing a weightlifter vs a sprinter in 100m dash with the weightlifter as a winner! This must be a special weightlifter!

    It shows that BMW has finally knocked at the door of P!

    Re: Autobild: M5 test

    Quote:
    TurboSport said:
    ...comparing a weightlifter vs a sprinter in 100m dash with the weightlifter as a winner! This must be a special weightlifter!



    Only if both'd be carrying a tractor wheel across this distance.

    In my humble view I don't think BMW knocked on Porsche's door - they already did since the 1st edition of M5 and later with the M3. The target group and the projected use varies on those cars in my eyes. I am just wondering how much satisfaction one could get out of the M5 when carving along countryroads.

     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 5/18/22 8:03 AM
    RCA
     
     
     
     
     
    572550 1305
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche 911 Turbo S (2020) 4/23/22 1:43 PM
    Rossi
    222095 1179
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 5/18/22 6:34 AM
    GnilM
    111041 957
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 4/1/22 7:14 AM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    108016 405
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Short Review 1/3/22 7:55 AM
    Rossi
    89191 531
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: Cayman GT4 RS (2021) 1/15/22 10:41 PM
    watt
    31397 1
    Porsche Cayman GT4 10/5/21 7:04 PM
    Topspeed
    511611 3587
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 9/28/21 3:25 AM
    WhoopsyM
    426915 3507
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 2/1/22 10:14 PM
    SSO.
    423848 3954
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 11/17/21 5:18 PM
    Rossi
    387247 3256
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 2/1/22 9:49 AM
    RCA
    364489 2655
    Porsche 992 GT3 5/13/22 3:48 PM
    Grant
    346051 3536
    Porsche OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 9/29/21 1:59 AM
    watt
    289213 1587
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 2/10/22 9:08 PM
    Topspeed
    137317 772
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 4/25/22 7:26 PM
    bluelines
    134390 1388
    McLaren F1 7/10/21 7:43 AM
    BiTurbo
    110635 209
    AMG AMG GT R 3/13/22 8:52 PM
    spudgun
    109649 834
    Lambo Aventador and SV 4/20/22 3:29 PM
    Enmanuel
    107325 709
    Others Tesla 2 the new thread 5/12/22 9:01 PM
    Leawood911
    92225 1637
    Porsche GT4RS 5/16/22 7:03 AM
    Porker
    83327 933
    Motor Sp. [2021] Formula 1 4/19/22 10:08 PM
    Leawood911
    75718 1590
    Others Bugatti Chiron 4/12/22 9:24 PM
    blueflame
    74733 520
    Ferrari Ferrari 812 Superfast 12/15/21 8:04 PM
    Topspeed
    70118 533
    BMW M BMW M2 Rumors 2/28/22 7:42 PM
    Topspeed
    61595 409
    Porsche Red Nipples 991.2 GT3 Touring on tour 4/4/22 7:10 AM
    GnilM
    54476 472
    Lambo Urus (SUV) 7/21/21 6:22 PM
    Topspeed
    53905 592
    Porsche Dave and Gnil @ Nürburgring Nordschleife 10/16/21 1:07 PM
    Pentium
    53822 719
    Others Corvette C8 11/8/21 8:04 PM
    Topspeed
    49769 442
    Others Toyota Yaris GR 4/13/22 8:33 PM
    Grant
    26474 640
    AMG AMG plotting new SLR with hybrid power for 2018 launch 2/22/22 2:34 PM
    Topspeed
    24032 275
    224 items found, displaying 1 to 30.