BMW // M5 v Panamera v E63 v XFR

[FaSTandFurious]

//M Power FTW

 

[Prev]

raise: M5 :inlove:

 

[tarintino]

Slaughtered by the M5 – Legendary!raise:raise:raise:raise:

 

[CocoPops]

New M5 looks mighty impressive indeed.

Lots of mis-information amongst forum members though. Tests done at Gerotek shpw that the Panamera Turbo is quicker than the M5 all the way through to the 1km mark. And although the M5 is quicker than the E63 without the performance pack that Merc offers, I'm sure the E63 with the performance pack will run the M5 very close. In fact, the CLS63 without the performance pack tested marginally quicker than the M5 at Gerotek.

Here are the Gerotek results:

Porsche Panamera Turbo S: 3.77 seconds (0-100); 11.82 seconds @ 192.62 km/h (quarter mile) and 21.50 seconds @ 246.88 km/h (km sprint)

Mercedes Benz CLS 63 AMG 4.32 seconds (0-100); 12.38 seconds @ 192.51 km/h and 22.00 seconds @ 249.06 km/h

BMW M5: 4.60 seconds (0-100); 12.65 seconds @ 192.46 km/h (quarter mile) and 22.27 seconds @ 249.34 km/h (km sprint)

Mercedes Benz E 63 AMG: 4.78 seconds (0-100); 12.80 seconds @ 189.12 km/h (quarter mile) and 22.64 seconds @ 241.52 km/h

this is the New // M5 or the previous one?

Didnt know they were testing the new one here yet?

Do you have a source.. would like to have a look..

thanks bud!

---

hahaha and the panamera Turbo S already Owned the Porsche Around the track.. keke.

// M Power.

 

[ajm]

Its the new M5

Visit: www.performancemotormedia.co.za

Shot

 

[CocoPops]

thanks bud!

 

[ajm]

thanks bud!

Sweet

---

Funny reading the comments of the guys on the site the video was posted...When BMW fans brought up the displacement difference between E60 M5 (5.0l) and E63 (6.2l), M3 (4.0l) and C63 (6.2l), we where making excuses and being . Now we are more or less comparing apples with apples and look who's doing the now. Yes the Porsche is much faster, but its not competing with the M5, its way more expensive. The fact that Merc finds the need to be offering performance packs for their cars, well, says it all doesn't it.

Personally, I like both brands. Both bring some really good stuff to the table. Your observation about whose doing the crying now seems to overlook the fact the the CLS63 without the performance pack out-guns the M5. The margin would undoubtedly be enhanced if the performance pack version were introduced into the mix. And this is an option not available to an M5 buyer

 

[v1p3r]

And although the M5 is quicker than the E63 without the performance pack that Merc offers, I'm sure the E63 with the performance pack will run the M5 very close. In fact, the CLS63 without the performance pack tested marginally quicker than the M5 at Gerotek.

The E63 in this test had the performance package
404kW and 802Nm

 

[ajm]

And although the M5 is quicker than the E63 without the performance pack that Merc offers, I'm sure the E63 with the performance pack will run the M5 very close. In fact, the CLS63 without the performance pack tested marginally quicker than the M5 at Gerotek.

The E63 in this test had the performance package

If, by "this test", you're referring to the Gerotek test (the results of which I posted), I disagree. 386kw is the stock version. If you're referring to the test featured in the video clip attached to the initiating post, where will one see a reference to the fact that the E63 was fitted with the performance pack?

 

[v1p3r]

If, by "this test", you're referring to the Gerotek test (the results of which I posted), I disagree. 386kw is the stock version. If you're referring to the test featured in the video clip attached to the initiating post, where will one see a reference to the fact that the E63 was fitted with the performance pack?

No I'm referring to the test from evo.

If you look for the full evo test you'll see it in there

Here is a link if you want to read it
http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=620186

BTW you've listed performance figures for the Panamera Turbo S, not the Panamera S used in the test.

The price in USD for each model is as below

S - 89 000
Turbo - 137 000
Turbo S - 173 000

Even the Panamera Turbo was too expensive in the company of the M5, E63 and XFR so the only comparable model in that price bracket (the Panamera S) was included.

 

[Nic_s]

If I had to spend my money on one of these it would be the XFR :fencelook:

That's because you already have an M5

 

[ajm]

If, by "this test", you're referring to the Gerotek test (the results of which I posted), I disagree. 386kw is the stock version. If you're referring to the test featured in the video clip attached to the initiating post, where will one see a reference to the fact that the E63 was fitted with the performance pack?

No I'm referring to the test from evo.

If you look for the full evo test you'll see it in there

Here is a link if you want to read it
http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=620186

BTW you've listed performance figures for the Panamera Turbo S, not the Panamera S used in the test.

The price in USD for each model is as below

S - 89 000
Turbo - 137 000
Turbo S - 173 000

Even the Panamera Turbo was too expensive in the company of the M5, E63 and XFR so the only comparable model in that price bracket (the Panamera S) was included.

Thx bud. It seems the E63 in the Evo test did have the performance pack fitted. It's noteworthy though that the margin between the M5 and the E63 in that test is as close as dammit to the margin between the M5 and the stock (non performance pack) E63 featured in the Gerotek test.

I'm mindful of the point re the turbo Panamera. I only posted the performance data concerning the turbo in the light of your comment that "...Even the Panamera Turbo won't run away from the ///M5 though, there are comparisons on the internets already ...". Clearly the M5 is no match for the turbo, certainly as far as quarter-mile stats go.

Anyway, all awesome cars but only for the wealthy.

 

[tcal69]

If, by "this test", you're referring to the Gerotek test (the results of which I posted), I disagree. 386kw is the stock version. If you're referring to the test featured in the video clip attached to the initiating post, where will one see a reference to the fact that the E63 was fitted with the performance pack?

No I'm referring to the test from evo.

If you look for the full evo test you'll see it in there

Here is a link if you want to read it
http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=620186

BTW you've listed performance figures for the Panamera Turbo S, not the Panamera S used in the test.

The price in USD for each model is as below

S - 89 000
Turbo - 137 000
Turbo S - 173 000

Even the Panamera Turbo was too expensive in the company of the M5, E63 and XFR so the only comparable model in that price bracket (the Panamera S) was included.

Yeah you are right, I didn't think about the pricing:fishwack:

I was just thinking that maybe the Turbo will be in more of the same range power with the other cars:rollsmile:

But either way, they are all crazy fastraise:

 

[ZED1]

Bravaraise:

 

[Andy1GP]

The king is back :thumbs:

+1000

All things considered price / performance etc.. The ///M is the car to beat :rollsmile:

 

[Henry330i]

I wouldn't mind owning any of these cars. I think when you start looking at buying these sort of cars it all comes down to personal taste.

 

[Diablo Jnr]

CLS63 will be competing with the next M6, not the M5. So i will wait for the M6, and do a comparison then.

 

[v1p3r]

Yeah Diablo Jnr, and the crazy thing is, the ///M6 and ///M6 Gran Coupe are expected to get a power bump over the ///M5...raise:

 

[China]

BMW M5 takes on the Mercedes E63, Jaguar XFR and Porsche Panamera

[video=youtube]

 

[ChefDJ]

Repost.

Threads merged.