Close

Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,025
    Rep Points
    1,244.8
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No

    E63S vs F90 M5 drag and roll racing

    Despite the numbers we've seen so far it looks like the E63S is stronger competition than we thought!

    Click here to enlarge

    /
    //A L E X A N D R E ' S Photography///ALX1983.COM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    140,502
    Rep Points
    42,507.0
    Mentioned
    2455 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    426


    Yes Reputation No

    Press ringers? 2018 Mercedes-AMG W213 E63 S takes the F90 BMW M5 from a stop and roll

    All the latest press for the F90 generation BMW M5 has it blowing everything away in a straight line. Magazine trap speeds show 129 miles per hour and the latest sedan comparison had the M5 coming out on top against all challengers.

    Click here to enlarge

    So how do you explain what you see in the video below?

    The E63 wins despite a worse start from a dig. That implies it is also stronger from a roll. They go again from a stop and the E63 gets a better start and pulls. Unfortunately, the people at CarWow don't know how to properly drag race so we get no trap speed data.

    They do a roll race next but for some reason put the cars in standard modes and wait for a kickdown of the gearbox instead of having the cars in the proper gear to begin with. It's infuriating how stupid this is.

    The roll race is close but it is difficult to know if this is because of the time wasted waiting for a gearbox kickdown. They do not provide any supplemental data because this is a mediocre automotive outlet at best.

    CarWow states the cars weigh the same but they get this wrong. The M5 is significantly lighter by just under 300 pounds. This means that Mercedes-AMG is heavily sandbagging output.

    Someone will have to get a dyno overlay of the two for us to really know what is going on.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,193
    Rep Points
    3,261.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Sticky, check out that C&D comparison you link. They ran the E63S on 91oct, while others were on 93oct. When the two cars were within a tenth of a sec and 1 mph of each other. That could make up the difference for sure.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,193
    Rep Points
    3,261.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    There is a F90 M5 dyno on other forum, not entirely impressive. Although on a mustang dyno, I expected more...471awhp, 509awtq.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    140,502
    Rep Points
    42,507.0
    Mentioned
    2455 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    426


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    Sticky, check out that C&D comparison you link. They ran the E63S on 91oct, while others were on 93oct. When the two cars were within a tenth of a sec and 1 mph of each other. That could make up the difference for sure.
    I didn't realize that. They shouldn't have done that but it could explain the discrepancy if they even tested the cars in the same conditions and didn't just do a mashup of data.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    140,502
    Rep Points
    42,507.0
    Mentioned
    2455 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    426


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    There is a F90 M5 dyno on other forum, not entirely impressive. Although on a mustang dyno, I expected more...471awhp, 509awtq.
    Link me.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    11
    Rep Points
    11.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Link me.
    https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1478756

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    578
    Rep Points
    961.0
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    I was pretty shocked when I saw this video over the weekend. The result didn't add up. I would like to see a rematch from a different channel along with some data.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    140,502
    Rep Points
    42,507.0
    Mentioned
    2455 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    426


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    Although on a mustang dyno, I expected more...471awhp, 509awtq.
    Hmm I expected more as well.

    I don't see how it is doing 129 on the strip then.

    Something isn't quite right. That's less power than a 991.2 Turbo S.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    493
    Rep Points
    612.0
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Hmm I expected more as well.

    I don't see how it is doing 129 on the strip then.

    Something isn't quite right. That's less power than a 991.2 Turbo S.

    We all know that Mustang Dynos read lower numbers than others, also and this is most important EVERY dyno reads differently it's all based on how they have it setup. A best comparison would be one dyno and get a c63s on it and the f90 and see what happens.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    140,502
    Rep Points
    42,507.0
    Mentioned
    2455 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    426


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ms335i Click here to enlarge
    also and this is most important EVERY dyno reads differently it's all based on how they have it setup.
    To a degree but that's why we have correction factors.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ms335i Click here to enlarge
    A best comparison would be one dyno and get a c63s on it and the f90 and see what happens.
    That's what I'm trying to make happen right now.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    493
    Rep Points
    612.0
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Yes Reputation No
    That would be great, get it done Click here to enlarge.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    11
    Rep Points
    69.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Hmm I expected more as well.

    I don't see how it is doing 129 on the strip then.

    Something isn't quite right. That's less power than a 991.2 Turbo S.
    A comment on that thread suggests that output is artificially limited until the car receives the first required break in service. Something re: software/coding

    FWIW (probably not much Click here to enlarge) I also spoke to a buddy who recently underwent training for the F90, who also confirmed that output is limited until first service.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    409
    Rep Points
    527.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Keep the m5 rather the amg wagon.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,323
    Rep Points
    801.6
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Yes Reputation No
    That virgin in vehicle dude did 0-60 in 2.7 and 2.8 seconds vbox verified in his e63s on a random street/ unprepared surface

    The m5 has its work cut out going up against that brute. Good thing the modification scene is more with the bmw.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,193
    Rep Points
    3,261.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ZTZ1010 Click here to enlarge
    A comment on that thread suggests that output is artificially limited until the car receives the first required break in service. Something re: software/coding

    FWIW (probably not much Click here to enlarge) I also spoke to a buddy who recently underwent training for the F90, who also confirmed that output is limited until first service.
    Like many in that thread, I am calling BS on those claims. That rumor was around for F8x launch, turned out BS too.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,323
    Rep Points
    801.6
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Yes Reputation No
    There was also talk of a "press tune" back when the F10 M5 launched? I am not sure, but I think it was debunked.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,323
    Rep Points
    801.6
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Yes Reputation No
    The car jerked pretty bad off the line @ 0:36, and @ 1:36 when they tried it again.

    im not sure the guy knows how to launch the car, maybe traction control was kicking on or he didnt have the right MDM mode or whatever.

    Not smooth launches at all.

    doesn't explain the roll racing though...the merc is strong up top!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,187
    Rep Points
    573.9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Bowser330 Click here to enlarge
    There was also talk of a "press tune" back when the F10 M5 launched? I am not sure, but I think it was debunked.
    Yeah, and it was BS...every F10 M5 that's ever been timed has been able to equal or beat magazine times...there's plenty of bone stock F10 M5s that have put down incredible times on Vboxes and on drag strips.

    And just like the F10 M5, I wouldn't trust any dyno numbers early on for these cars either...not sure how any claims it's "BS" that these cars aren't limited during their break-in period, as far as I know they absolutely are...you have to take it back to the dealer so they can reprogram it, in fact. At best, I'd say the press cars are obviously not running in "break in" mode, as that would be dumb, as dumb as this stupid drag race with kick-downs.

    Also, the F10 M5 knew when it was on a dyno, and was very picky about that...took a while for good dyno runs to be had with that car as well...same thing is happening all over again. This remains the only time I've seen an E63 go quicker than an M5...may not be the last, but I guarantee you there's reasons behind it. A 3 mph trap speed difference is not insignificant...in fact it's a reasonable gap.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    102
    Rep Points
    232.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    The F90 just made 569whp in 5th and 592whp in 6th on a dynojet

    There is no additional power ‘unleashed’ at the 1200 mile service. I never did that service on my first F10 and it ended up
    makkng the most power to-date on a stock motor.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,193
    Rep Points
    3,261.0
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by allmotor_2000 Click here to enlarge
    The F90 just made 569whp in 5th and 592whp in 6th on a dynojet

    There is no additional power ‘unleashed’ at the 1200 mile service. I never did that service on my first F10 and it ended up
    makkng the most power to-date on a stock motor.
    Exactly.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •