F90 M5 first performance test numbers

[Andy M]

philmots said:

Sooo it makes no difference...

Assuming the Merc has a good years worth of miles under its belt being a 17, wonder if that’s enough to make the difference?

BMW should by now be more than familiar with the N63/S63 engine which they've been using extensively for over a decade - and which has been fitted to the F10 M5 since 2011 - yet it has clearly been usurped by Mercedes' smaller (4.4 litre vs Mercedes 4 litre) more powerful and newer engine.

The S63 is an excellent engine, but you'd have thought - given that BMW have had over a year to benchmark it against the Mercedes E63s etc - that BMW would have used the extra capacity and their greater experience of their engine to ensure the new M5 was at least as powerful as that of the main competition.

Additionally, they chose a more dated gearbox as well - the 8 speed ZF versus the Mercedes' 9 speed ZF box. Why?

Quite a few reviews of the new M5 say that it is softer than expected (the reviewers choice of word, not mine), and on the evidence of the CarWow video it's clearly slower than the competition too (in acceleration at least).

The Mercedes is the heavier car, was running with double the amount of fuel than the M5, had a driver who reacted slower (giving a significantly worse start), yet still finished a car length ahead. That's quite surprising IMO, and I don't think it can be explained by the mileage on each car; the M5 should be sufficiently well run in by 2,000 miles.

Let's hope the Competition Package unlocks something which is currently hidden within the standard M5.

[rassi]

Fully agreed with the above. The S63 is a very effective engine but maybe not an engine that will go down as truly legendary, like the S54, S62, S65 or S85 engines.

The MB 4 litre seems highly tuneable and clearly has the S63 beaten for sound and torque (850 nm in E63S format).

[Welshbeef]

rassi said:

Fully agreed with the above. The S63 is a very effective engine but maybe not an engine that will go down as truly legendary, like the S54, S62, S65 or S85 engines.

The MB 4 litre seems highly tuneable and clearly has the S63 beaten for sound and torque (850 nm in E63S format).

How does a smaller engine punch harder? I’d understand if there are generations different ie E39 M5 is a 4.9ltr yet “only” makes 400bhp yet a 5ltr E60 makes 507bhp?... how is that possible both being N/a.


AMGs have always sounded utterly filthy.


Had the pleasure today whilst sat in traffic see a E63 AMG (no idea if S or no as it was moving so quickly) but what a noise it just exuded “POwER”

[Habu71]

it seems down on power,doesn’t it and that gearbox just seems a bit slushy.
The pressers had more of an edge it seems.

M5s were never defined by figures but it’s still a bit disappointing,I expected it to blitz the 760 aswell.

[Welshbeef]

Habu71 said:

it seems down on power,doesn’t it and that gearbox just seems a bit slushy.
The pressers had more of an edge it seems.

M5s were never defined by figures but it’s still a bit disappointing,I expected it to blitz the 760 aswell.

So is the W212 E63 onwards the “daddy”/“Owns M5’s”? Or were the BMW or Merc press cars remapped?

[garystoybox]

Welshbeef said:

Habu71 said:

it seems down on power,doesn’t it and that gearbox just seems a bit slushy.
The pressers had more of an edge it seems.

M5s were never defined by figures but it’s still a bit disappointing,I expected it to blitz the 760 aswell.

So is the W212 E63 onwards the “daddy”/“Owns M5’s”? Or were the BMW or Merc press cars remapped?

From my experience of owning 3 cars with this same series engine from new (2xF10’s and X5M) they both need c5-7k miles on the clock before feeling like running full power. All of my have been disappointingly tight for the first 3k so I wouldn’t read too much into this. Oh and the 8 speed box is a no ‘slusher’, it really does render the dct redundant it’s so good.

[Wills2]

Andy M said:

"New BMW M5 vs Mercedes-AMG E63 S - DRAG RACE, ROLLING RACE & BRAKE TEST"

https://youtu.be/EfZtr6Sc6q0

Tiny margins on the track so on the road there is nothing in it, nothing in the performance between them to be a meaningful factor in deciding which one you want IMHO.

Road and Track timed the M5 quicker than the e63S in their figured tests but again tiny margins so not really relevant.

[Welshbeef]

Wills2 said:

Tiny margins on the track so on the road there is nothing in it, nothing in the performance between them to be a meaningful factor in deciding which one you want IMHO.

Road and Track timed the M5 quicker than the e63S in their figured tests but again tiny margins so not really relevant.

We’ve reached the level bikes did a few decades ago on speed.

So now it mush be noise looks handling dynamics and options.

[zainster]

Andy M said:

BMW should by now be more than familiar with the N63/S63 engine which they've been using extensively for over a decade - and which has been fitted to the F10 M5 since 2011 - yet it has clearly been usurped by Mercedes' smaller (4.4 litre vs Mercedes 4 litre) more powerful and newer engine.

The S63 is an excellent engine, but you'd have thought - given that BMW have had over a year to benchmark it against the Mercedes E63s etc - that BMW would have used the extra capacity and their greater experience of their engine to ensure the new M5 was at least as powerful as that of the main competition.

Additionally, they chose a more dated gearbox as well - the 8 speed ZF versus the Mercedes' 9 speed ZF box. Why?

Quite a few reviews of the new M5 say that it is softer than expected (the reviewers choice of word, not mine), and on the evidence of the CarWow video it's clearly slower than the competition too (in acceleration at least).

The Mercedes is the heavier car, was running with double the amount of fuel than the M5, had a driver who reacted slower (giving a significantly worse start), yet still finished a car length ahead. That's quite surprising IMO, and I don't think it can be explained by the mileage on each car; the M5 should be sufficiently well run in by 2,000 miles.

Let's hope the Competition Package unlocks something which is currently hidden within the standard M5.

This is the standard M5 and up against the standard E63 I'm sure it would be the quicker accelerating car.

Up against the 'S' version of the E63 it was pipped.

Car magazine did a twin test of these two and gave the edge to the M5.

However, the M5 competition pack car is released later this year with 625 hp and I'm sure that will be the direct rival to the E63 S with its 612 hp.

Either way, both great cars!

[cerb4.5lee]

zainster said:

Either way, both great cars!

[Welshbeef]

zainster said:

This is the standard M5 and up against the standard E63 I'm sure it would be the quicker accelerating car.

Up against the 'S' version of the E63 it was pipped.

Car magazine did a twin test of these two and gave the edge to the M5.

However, the M5 competition pack car is released later this year with 625 hp and I'm sure that will be the direct rival to the E63 S with its 612 hp.

Either way, both great cars!

At this level of performance does 25bhp Male any difference at all in the 0-100mph time? It’s under 4% delta

[Andy M]

zainster said:

This is the standard M5 and up against the standard E63 I'm sure it would be the quicker accelerating car.

Up against the 'S' version of the E63 it was pipped.

Car magazine did a twin test of these two and gave the edge to the M5.

However, the M5 competition pack car is released later this year with 625 hp and I'm sure that will be the direct rival to the E63 S with its 612 hp.

Either way, both great cars!

Why would the M5 be compared to the E63, rather than the E63s?

The M5 is more expensive that the E63s, and a lot more expensive than the E63.

The M5 and E63s both have switchable AWD (so called ‘drift’ modes), the E63 does not.

It seems evident that the M5 and E63s are the one another’s natural completion?

That BMW feels it has to release the Competition Package earlier than usual (for example, with the F10 M5 and current gen M4 - both released after 3 years) speaks volumes IMO.

Both Evo and Top Gear prefered the E63s.

Edited by Andy M on Sunday 25th March 22:09

[TheAngryDog]

Welshbeef said:

rassi said:

Fully agreed with the above. The S63 is a very effective engine but maybe not an engine that will go down as truly legendary, like the S54, S62, S65 or S85 engines.

The MB 4 litre seems highly tuneable and clearly has the S63 beaten for sound and torque (850 nm in E63S format).

How does a smaller engine punch harder? I’d understand if there are generations different ie E39 M5 is a 4.9ltr yet “only” makes 400bhp yet a 5ltr E60 makes 507bhp?... how is that possible both being N/a.

E60 is a V10, more cylinders to make more power. Newer engine, newer technology, it all adds up.

[rassi]

And rev limits of 7000 for the S62 and 8400 rpm for the S85

[Welshbeef]

rassi said:

And rev limits of 7000 for the S62 and 8400 rpm for the S85

If the E39 M5 was bored out from 4.9 to 5.0 ltr and then enabled to rev to 8,400r would the power output be the same?

Or is it truck exhaust and headers that the E60 trumps the E39?

[TheAngryDog]

Welshbeef said:

rassi said:

And rev limits of 7000 for the S62 and 8400 rpm for the S85

If the E39 M5 was bored out from 4.9 to 5.0 ltr and then enabled to rev to 8,400r would the power output be the same?

Or is it truck exhaust and headers that the E60 trumps the E39?

No. Engine size has nothing to do with how high an engine can or cannot rev. It is to do with con rod length. The S85 has shorter rods which enables it to rev higher. The s62 has longer rods so it is limited by this. You would need to change the rods and possibly crank to get the s62 to rev as high as the S85 (8250 rpm).

There is of course more to it, but so far as engine revs are concerned this is the gist.

The manifolds on the s62 are st. They're pretty much the same as on the 4.4 m62 in the 540. The cats are restrictive, but they are on the S85 as well.

Edited by TheAngryDog on Monday 26th March 13:43

[jm doc]

The test was rubbish. You can't compare 0-60 mph times unless done independently, so much depends on reaction times of the driver. Even more so with the rolling start and brake test. And was it only me who thought the start in the first test by the M5 was very poor?

[Andy M]

Some may find this interesting:

M5 vs E63s

[DVandrews]

TheAngryDog said:

Welshbeef said:

rassi said:

And rev limits of 7000 for the S62 and 8400 rpm for the S85

If the E39 M5 was bored out from 4.9 to 5.0 ltr and then enabled to rev to 8,400r would the power output be the same?

Or is it truck exhaust and headers that the E60 trumps the E39?

No. Engine size has nothing to do with how high an engine can or cannot rev. It is to do with con rod length. The S85 has shorter rods which enables it to rev higher. The s62 has longer rods so it is limited by this. You would need to change the rods and possibly crank to get the s62 to rev as high as the S85 (8250 rpm).

There is of course more to it, but so far as engine revs are concerned this is the gist.

The manifolds on the s62 are st. They're pretty much the same as on the 4.4 m62 in the 540. The cats are restrictive, but they are on the S85 as well.

Edited by TheAngryDog on Monday 26th March 13:43

Bugger all to do with rod length IMO, The V10 is gloriously oversquare , (92mm x 75.2) a shorter stroke and larger bore gives more room for increased valve area and a more favourable rod angle. Lower rod angles permit higher RPM without spitting a rod out. The S62 is 88 x 78, a longer rod would give a *more favourable* rod angle for any given stroke so would be advantageous.

Dave

[R33FAL]

Another test- a different result.

https://youtu.be/Wz67B038gwA