BMW unveils special edition E60 M5 CSL with 580hp!

[rotaryfan]

http://www.bimmerpost.com

580bhp and close to 400lb ft tq.
No performance claims have been made for the powered-up-and-pared-down M5, but Biermann says it is “comfortably faster the standard M5’s 4.1sec 0-100km/h”.

http://e60.5post.com/forums/sh...16340

[63GrandSport001]

Now that is some serious fire power

[K-1]

Taking after Honda, I see. Big on HP, little on TQ.

[gdsm3]

Originally Posted by K-1

Taking after Honda, I see. Big on HP, little on TQ.

If having 400 ft-lb on tap is a motor that is little on torque i'll take a torqueless motor anyday.

[ptviperz]

Originally Posted by gdsm3

If having 400 ft-lb on tap is a motor that is little on torque i'll take a torqueless motor anyday.

No kidding. I'm going to assume that was just a bit of silly hyperbole.

[Xenon]

Originally Posted by K-1

Taking after Honda, I see. Big on HP, little on TQ.

This is coming from someone that drives a horrible 3.5L V6?
That M5 has more torque than all the vehicles listed on your whole sig.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by gdsm3

If having 400 ft-lb on tap is a motor that is little on torque i'll take a torqueless motor anyday.

Look at the differential in HP and TQ numbers. That's Honda-esque (in reference to the S2000 and Civic Si). Granted 400 ft-lb is a lot, but I'd rather have 580hp and nearly that in torque. Contrast those numbers with the CTS-V: 556hp, 551 lb-ft. If this new M5 isn't faster around the 'Ring (we'll see), then what's the point.

Originally Posted by ptviperz

No kidding. I'm going to assume that was just a bit of silly hyperbole.

A tad.

Originally Posted by Xenon

This is coming from someone that drives a horrible 3.5L V6?

Nope, no 3.5L V6 here. The '09s dropped the second V6. My (wife's) XE is the uber-smooth, uber-efficient 2.4L + 6-speed. Not that it matters one iota with respect to the M5's engine. But hey, if you can't attack the argument, attack the person, right?

Originally Posted by Xenon

That M5 has more torque than all the vehicles listed on your whole sig.

Which means absolutely nothing, but thanks for playing.

[baloo]

Originally Posted by K-1

Look at the differential in HP and TQ numbers. That's Honda-esque (in reference to the S2000 and Civic Si). Granted 400 ft-lb is a lot, but I'd rather have 580hp and nearly that in torque. Contrast those numbers with the CTS-V: 556hp, 551 lb-ft.

The higher an engine revs, the bigger the difference between horsepower and torque. Not because torque goes down but because horsepower goes up. In the end it's pretty much irrelevant because torque at the wheels is what moves a car, and an engine that makes 30% less torque, revs 30% higher and runs a 30% steeper final drive puts the same torque to the ground.

The only difference between 400ft-lb/550hp and 600ft-lb/550hp is the position of the tach needle and the noise the car makes.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by baloo

The higher an engine revs, the bigger the difference between horsepower and torque. Not because torque goes down but because horsepower goes up. In the end it's pretty much irrelevant because torque at the wheels is what moves a car, and an engine that makes 30% less torque, revs 30% higher and runs a 30% steeper final drive puts the same torque to the ground.

The only difference between 400ft-lb/550hp and 600ft-lb/550hp is the position of the tach needle and the noise the car makes.

Precisely, I want my torque lower in RPMs, where it's usable, and flatter. There's something to be said for the sound of an engine screaming at 9,000 RPM, but "peaky" engines just don't do it for me.

[baloo]

You should have bought a diesel then.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by baloo

You should have bought a diesel then.

CTS-V: >400 lb-ft from ~1200RPM on up.

[ptviperz]

Originally Posted by K-1

Precisely, I want my torque lower in RPMs, where it's usable, and flatter. There's something to be said for the sound of an engine screaming at 9,000 RPM, but "peaky" engines just don't do it for me.

Having full torque available at 1200 rpm only makes the car trickier to launch IMO. I'd rather the car get moving and get into the full power around 4000 RPM. Then your gearing keeps you in the 4000-7000 happy full power range

[K-1]

Originally Posted by ptviperz

Having full torque available at 1200 rpm only makes the car trickier to launch IMO. I'd rather the car get moving and get into the full power around 4000 RPM. Then your gearing keeps you in the 4000-7000 happy full power range

At that point, you're looking at tail-lights from launch-4000.

[ptviperz]

Originally Posted by K-1

At that point, you're looking at tail-lights from launch-4000.

Not really, if the other guy has any problems launching, you'll smoke him. Add to that you have more RPM to work with - while he's shifting at 5500RPM you are driving right past.

Torque is NOT the end all be all of acceleration.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by ptviperz

Not really, if the other guy has any problems launching, you'll smoke him. Add to that you have more RPM to work with - while he's shifting at 5500RPM you are driving right past.

Torque is NOT the end all be all of acceleration.

The other guy having problems launching has more to do with driver skill than the engine, which makes the point irrelevent. You may be "driving right past" above 5500, but he'll be revving up hard in 2nd when you're ready to shift. Any gains had by shifting later are nullified by having torque available across the RPM band, rather than just up high.

Torque is what moves the car, of course it's the be all, end all.