Last post on Apr 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Jaguar XJR, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG, Audi S6, Maserati Quattroporte, Audi S8, Sedan
#880 of 1045 Re: [portknoxxa]
Jul 28, 2004 (2:11 am)
0-60 times are, IMO nearly meaningless numbers to measure the performace of the M5, E55 or even sports cars, IMO. None of these vehicles could match one of my childhood friend's restored 1970's Buick SS that, for about $20k was capable of 0-60 in under 3 seconds and the 1/4 mile in under 11. "Numbers" that a 2004 $650k Ferrari Enzo can't match. But, at the end of 1/4 mile, you had pretty much extracted all the Buick was good for. And around corners, it had the handling characteristics of our Isuzu Trooper.
The current E55 and future M5 are able to compete with the 911 Turbo in stoplight drag racing, and both are capable of sustaining speeds of 100+ mph over any legal limit in the United States. Personally, I think further escalation of the power war is not productive. I'd like to see the handling and "fun to drive" side of the equation further improved. I recently had the opportunity to drive the 545i 6-speed sport and, although it is very good by sedan standards, it did not match the handling and steering precision of my former $32k Honda S2000. Nor did the BMW 6-speed transmission shift as precisely and effortlessly as the little Honda's. I realize that this is a tall order for a 4,000 lb 5 passenger sedan. But I'd rather see some effort on the part of BMW's Motorsports and Mercedes AMG engineers redirected to that objective, rather than seeing who will be the first to break the 600, 700 and 800 hp barriers. Hell a Honda Formula 1 car "only" has 700+/- horspeower. But it's capable of pulling 3g's vs the 0.65 to 1.05 g's representing the range of an Isuzu Trooper to an Enzo. And the E55 and M5 are only in the upper middle of that rather unimpressive range. I believe there is room for handling improvement that would make my daily 35-40 mph drive through D.C.'s Rock Creek Park more enjoyable. I'd prefer this improvement over having to go to the Bonneville Salt Flats just to see the difference between the last M5 and the next one.
And, as I said before, the fact that the V10 M5 "only" has 380 ft-lbs of torque to go along with its 500+ horsepower is a potentially very good thing in my book. Made even better by the 8,250 rpm redline. But completely pissed away on me, if they only offer an SMG transmission. For the infititesimal increase in 0-60 performance the Game Boy inspired SMG might offer against my amateur old-fashioned hand and foot shifting, they have taken away 75%+ of the fun to drive factor for me. I would have never bought the former E55 against the former M5 for that very reason. Now I've got two lousy choices compared to the former M5 6-speed on the fun to drive front. And for what - to have me act like a stupid, immature high school kid at a stop light just to tell the difference between the old and new M5? I don't think so.
#881 of 1045 Such Passion Habitat1!
Jul 28, 2004 (2:46 am)
I agree with you on the manual trans issue, but I think you're asking too much of a 4000lb+ sedan to even come close to matching a Honda S2000 in handling. Likewise the Honda can't come close to matching those sedans in ride and comfort, every vehicle is a compromise. Even the S2000 was toned down for better daily use.
Sure BMW and Mercedes could build a sedan to match a S2000 in handling if they truly wanted, but it would ride like it had no suspension at all and wouldn't appeal to anyone but dedicated track folk and lets face it most of the people that buy these cars still are luxury car buyers for the most part or at least expect some luxury (reasonable ride comfort) in these cars.
#882 of 1045 Re: Such Passion Habitat1! [merc1]
Jul 28, 2004 (6:34 am)
Sorry, I guess I should save my passion if I ever run for political office (or, better yet, the Board of Directors of BMW)!
I agree that the "supersedans" are indeed sedans and, as such, they have a broader duty than a dedicated sports car. But I'll somewhat stick to my position that 500 horsepower is enough, already. Perhaps an adjustable suspension system, like the ones popping up on Porsche and VW SUV's could be further engineered to provide both luxury and a more serious sport setting. I know Mercedes utilizes an airmatic suspension, but it could probably be developed further if the AMG guys got their heads out of the engine compartment.
Speaking of harsh, the S2000 wasn't. Sitting on 16" wheels with 55 and 50 series rubber, I didn't find the ride harsh except over serious potholes. No more so than our new Acura TL sitting on 17" wheels and 45 series tires. And probably less so than the "luxury" oriented E55 sitting on 18" and 40 and 35 series tires. Which gets back to my point, that, for the relative harshness of the former E55, I was not at all impressed with it's handling. The less harsh M5 handles much better, IMO. I have not yet had the opportunity to drive the new E55.
IMO, the S2000's "harshness" wasn't the ride, but the noise. My wife never got used to the sound of the engine and interior even when cruising on the highway. I didn't find it too objectionable, but it certainly wasn't as easy on the ears as an Acura TL or Mercedes E-class. Still, I wouldn't trade the 9,000 rpm 2002 model we had for the new 8,000 rpm de-tuned version. Earplugs are cheap. 9,000 rpm was unique. It still hurts a little to be driving down the road in our insulated cabin, listening to a digital music DVD, checking the 8" voice activated navigation system for directions, calling a restaurant on the Bluetooth phone and then seeing a Spa Yellow S2000 cruise by with it's top down. Oh well, at least our TL has a "real" 6-speed!
Jul 28, 2004 (7:06 pm)
Why have a M- Divison and and AMG division if you are not going go all the way with performance. 4 years ago a 394hp M5 was the king of the hill, and now you have the S65 with 600hp. I know this has probably been said before, but when Fast and Furious came out, men, women, and children wanted fast and sporty cars, weather coupe, sedan, suv, or truck. The story in autoweek did say that E60 M5 will have a launch button. The S2 Dinan recorded 0-60 in 4.2s. 0-60 times are very important to the M and AMG. I'm also curious to see the curb weight of the E60 M5. Not fare to compare sedans to roadsters. It's funny but in all the comparos i've seen for the M3, they've always compared it to a C32 AMG, Audi S4, and even a porcshe and corvette. Saw one comparo against a CLK55 AMG. I know i rambling but i admire the M5, mainly for not using turbo/super chargers, and having a true manny. How does a S2000 match up to a Z4?
#884 of 1045 habitat1
Jul 28, 2004 (9:32 pm)
No problem with passion, I enjoy reading your posts.
When I was talking about the S2000 I meant they made it more driveable/livable for everyday use, not just better riding. I didn't mean to imply that it had a rough ride.
I agree about the old E55 vs the old M5, they old M5 did handle better without the ride penalty according to most, though Road and Track did say the E55 handled better - a curious decision.
#885 of 1045 Re: [portknoxxa]
Jul 30, 2004 (4:46 pm)
I'm going out on a limb here, but I am willing to bet that among the actual purchasers of $80,000+ M5's or E55's or $125k+ S65's, fewer than one tenth of 1% paid $6.50 to see the Fast and Furious.
And to go a little further out on that limb, I am going to bet that fewer than one tenth of 1% of those that paid $6.50 to see the Fast and Furious will ever actually be able to afford an AMG or M car.
The Motorsport and AMG divisions clearly have performance as a priority, as they should. I would submit, however, that prospective buyers that can actually afford their cars have a different and broader definition of "performance" than those that can't. And if I were in charge of AMG or BMW, I'd make damn sure I focused my attention on the former.
As far as an S2000 matching up against a Z4, both are very good cars that achieve similar results using very different methods. The S2000 essentially has a half size Formula 1 engine. Low torque, 9,000 rpm redline (pre-2004) and perhaps the best 6-speed transmission money can buy. The Z4 uses a torquier ubiquitous engine that you can find in every vehicle they sell from the X5 to the 330i to the 530i. It gets the job done with power, but not as much sophistication, intensity or excitement. Similar comparison could be made between the chassis.
#886 of 1045 Re: [habitat1]
Aug 02, 2004 (4:21 pm)
I must take issue with your reported time slip numbers for the 70's-era Buick. "SS" was a Chevy nameplate. Also, no Buick 455 Gran Sport (GS) or any other flavor ever recorded sub 3-second 0-60's or sub 11-second quarter miles.
Was this a Super-Stock (your use of "SS") modified Buick?
#887 of 1045 Re: [lovemyclk]
Aug 02, 2004 (5:34 pm)
Now that you mention it, I think it was a "GS" not an "SS". And it was somewhat modified, as I recall, with "headers" and racing slicks. But my buddy still drove it daily to his summer job working for UPS. I believe the year was 1977 or 1978.
I am quite certain he showed me time slips in the high 10's / low 11's from the local drag strip. Just for the fun of it, I'll try contacting him and, if successful, report back on the actual times. My memory may be a little rusty, that was going on 30 years ago.
My point was that you don't have to buy an AMG or "Motorsport" sedan if drag racing is your sole measurement of "performance". It's not mine. Wasn't back then, and I certainly didn't regress over the years since.
#888 of 1045 Re: [habitat1]
Aug 04, 2004 (4:41 pm)
Absolutely... we buy the AMG or M-Sport BMW's for the engineering excellence combined with top-end performance. Built as high-speed cars for the wealthier buyers, they combine sheer performance, luxury, solidity and status in a single package. Many classes at this level of investment (911, DB9, SL55, etc) to whet your appetite for speed.
My Submariner doesn't keep better time than my Seiko sports watch, but I certainly don't confuse them or their mission Although my 2003 530 SP does not offer the highest acceleration attribute of the performance equation, it does everything else to my sheer delight.
Someone in an E55 ain't gonna get to work any faster than I can! This is why my dream garage would look something like Jay Leno's... something for every occasion and every mood! From the Subie WRX STi to the E55/M5... "it's all good".
I dig the older American performance cars as well... 65-67 GTO, any pre-'68 Corvette, SS396 Chevelles, Boss Mustangs (302, 351, 429), and of course... HEMI Cuda's!
#889 of 1045 E55 vs S500 in terms of interior noise, squeaks, rattles
Aug 06, 2004 (7:24 am)
Hi all, I was a fan here years ago when I was thinking 2002-2004 E55 as my lease on a 2001 S500 was ending. I couldn't get the 2004 E55 last summer and ended up with a Lexus LS430 after my S500 lease. After 13 months in the limo, I am very bored. The LS430 is indeed absent of the annoying panel squeaks, center console rattles, and tire noise of the S500, but drives like a Towncar.
Rode in a friend's 2004 E55 recently, and that acceleration in a compact car is out of sight.
Since my ride was short and I was busy talking business, let me ask those here with experience with both S500 and E55. Is the E55 better in terms of the annoying interios noise? I remember the 99 E55 was very quiet over even cobblestone roads and the side roads around Scarsdale NY.
I had driven a E500 for about 10 miles and it was pretty rattle free, although that dealer demo had a loose part in the trunk.
Any help is appreciated.