motor

RC45 · 06-08-2005, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by dingo

For once I agree 100% with what RC has to say on a topic!

Please keep this n the QT - I do have a reputation to maintain you know..

5vz-fe · 06-08-2005, 12:56 AM

Thanks Sir_GT for the scan......after reading it......I decided to name that article the most exaggerated comparison article ever. Ferrari nowhere in sight?? ummm...are u kidding me. The numers as dingo said, is definitely abit suspicious.

sads · 06-08-2005, 01:22 AM

If by some miracle I had the money to choose which one to buy I'd buy the M5. I love it, 4 doors, big boot, massive performance what more do you want anyway?

RC45 · 06-08-2005, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by sads

If by some miracle I had the money to choose which one to buy I'd buy the M5. I love it, 4 doors, big boot, massive performance what more do you want anyway?

Anyhting that doesn't carry Bangles signature disaster - I mean design.

JoeHahn · 06-08-2005, 01:30 AM

After reading the article and looking at their stats sheet I was quite shocked. an F430 hitting 100mph in 9.4 secs? Autocar actually tested the base 360 Modena faster than that (8.8 I think), which is ridiculous. Another thing I considerably hate about car magazines is their lack of depth. OK an M5 may be able to outrun a F430 for a little while, but after a good 10mins of thrashing the M5's brakes simply would not be able to handle its weight, much like the brakes on an M6. This article was appaulingly shallow in almost every respect and showed - like you guys said how much they wanted to sell the magazine by talking up the BMW and hardly mentioning the F430. Me, personally? I would buy an M5 as the price range is alot easier on the eyes. But if I had the chance to afford either? C'mon thats a forgone conclusion.

dingo · 06-08-2005, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by JoeHahn

....an F430 hitting 100mph in 9.4 secs?....

yep - yet another strange number from these guys, its more like 7.9 secs for the F430 to hit 100mph.

styla21 · 06-08-2005, 02:04 AM

See Dingo that is my point - why are there such inconsistent numbers regarding this car. Don't get me wrong its one of my favourites, but it is interesting that across the board, the numbers fluctuate. On one hand - 0-60 in 3.8 is Enzo territory, then you get a 4.4 test. Then a 4.1 versus the ford gt (check autocars sitee..). Drop us an email btw. :fadein:

dingo · 06-08-2005, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by styla21

....Drop us an email btw. :fadein:

email sent

dangerously_cool · 06-08-2005, 03:10 AM

Thanks for the scan. I agree with RC, but another thing I'm wondering is about the driving characteristics the cars have.

From my experience with the new turbos on the SRT, if I keep it below 3500 rpm, really 4000, I will lose to any car I see. I had trouble passing a bastard in a civic because of a 2000 rpm short-shift into third, I almost didn't pass him.

Then at only 13psi of boost I held up with an E39 M5. I think it's only the way they were driving it, assuming they didn't outright lie about the numbers. If they started the F430 below it's ideal 5000 RPM [from what they said] power point, then the BMW could well have been faster, keeping it's edge as if it had a head start like RC said. If the driver shifted at the wrong time (either one of them, seeing as both drove) then it would do the same thing.

It sounds to me like the car was misdriven.

numerouno · 06-08-2005, 03:27 AM

I wonder how much BMW payed AC to publish this sort of bullshit (tripe

)!

mindgam3 · 06-08-2005, 03:30 AM

Nice article, saw it in the shops but decieded not to buy it.

For the majority I trust what Autocar write, they are a great magazine and Sutcliffe is an excellent driver.

I think they must have had a poor F430 though regarding some of the stats. However they do praise the handling of the M5 against the F430 which has nothing to do with power whatsoever.

To me, it doesen't matter what the exact stats are; it does show that the M5 is an awesome machine though and if I had my way, these two would be a good start for my ultimate garage

Just_me · 06-08-2005, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by BADMIHAI

AMG is much more than just slapping on a supercharger and suspension. They actually make reliable "tuned" cars, not ones that blow up after 10 000 km.

For your information there are blown up AMG engines as well.
MB is the one suffering from problems. if not engineroblems, AMG having several eletronical problems and I know several AMG owners having problems with their cars. So no, not only BMW have problems.

anyway, a M5 for daily-use and a F430 for trackmeeting and fun, great combination

|Nuno| · 06-08-2005, 06:42 AM

You know, if both cars were actually comparable then I could take this seriously. But they're not...

And of course that a "BMW beats Ferrari" cover will sell more...

And I won't even speak about the numbers...

The M5 is an awesome machine. I really like it, but saying that it out-handles an F430 is comical. No matter how good it is, it's still a 1800 kilos saloon, so not a true sports car like the F430.

blah · 06-08-2005, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by BADMIHAI

AMG is much more than just slapping on a supercharger and suspension. They actually make reliable "tuned" cars, not ones that blow up after 10 000 km.

HAHAHAHAHA.

You havent been around to many Mercs have you?

You should go read the Technical discussions forum on any mercedes site. You will have hours of good reads.

blah · 06-08-2005, 07:10 AM

I forgot to mention there is a problem with 03 AMG E55s stalling.