S6 vs M5 manual vs E63 AMG

[Tornado]

Obviously the Corvette Z06 is a completely different beast, but for comparison, I'll post the cogs from her:

1st: 2.66
2nd: 1.78
3rd: 1.30
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.74
6th: 0.50

Axle Ratio: 3.42

The difference is, of course, that every Corvette since the ZR-1 could very easily go with 6th chopped off and only suffer from lowered fuel mileage.

 

[YSSMAN]

Certainly so! The only reason why the Corvettes (even the hi-po models) escape the gas guzzler tax is that extremely tall 6th gear and the skip-shift feature. But when you can get nearly 30 MPG even with a Z06, that certainly is impressive no less.

 

[Poverty]

MotorTrend Figures

E63 AMG

0-30 1.8
0-40 2.5
0-50 3.3
0-60 4.3
0-70 5.5
0-80 6.8
0-90 8.3
0-100 10.1
1/4 mile 12.7 @113mph

M5 SMG

0-30 1.8
0-40 2.5
0-50 3.8
0-60 4.4
0-70 5.6
0-80 6.9
0-90 8.3
0-100 10.0
1/4 mile 12.7 @114.6mph

S6

0-30 1.6
0-40 2.8
0-50 3.8
0-60 5.1
0-70 6.7
0-80 8.4
0-90 10.2
0-100 12.5
1/4 mile 13.6 @104.4mph

They also tested the 3 at Buttonwillow Raceway Parks East Loop. The M5 was the quckest here.

M5 58.66 seconds
S6 58.76 seconds
E63 60.06 seconds


Comments:

For some odd reason the motor trend guys tested the E63 in automatic mode hence the poor track time. Also for the drag race if it wasnt in automatic mode it would have won. In automatic mode the car shifts 50% slower than in manual!

A excellent showing from the S6! Only .1 of a sec slower round the track than the M5. The next RS6 is gonna be a BEAST!

 

[YSSMAN]

Who, if I may ask, did Motor Trend declare the winner? I've pretty much lost all faith in that magazine after they have handed awards out to the Mercedes GL and Toyota Camry. Thankfully they gave truck of the year to the Silverado, but even then, that doesn't make up for all of their stupidity on the whole.

...Thats why I read Car and Driver...

 

[Poverty]

Audi first, MB last.

The E63 is easily the best car out of the 3, if only the idiots didnt test it in auto (cruise) mode

 

[harrytuttle]

The V10 really needs a close ratio box in order to get the most out of it. It is a fairly peaky motor. I haven't done the math on the 6 speed ratios, but I'd wager having only 6 gears instead of 7 gives the tranny insufficient coverage.

My understanding of things is that the manual transmission is identical to the SMG in all gear ratios, except for having lost the 7th forward gear.
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/56359/manual_m5_m6.html

BMW USA's website does not specify that there are different gear ratios between the SMG and manual models, but only lists the SMG ratios.
http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/M/M5Sedan/techdata.htm

Thus, the decision to go SMG was partly because a 7-speed manual pattern would cause a super complicated linkage that would be impractical to produce, let alone use.

Yes, "pretzel" comes to mind. I can't imagine what Toyota was thinking when they proposed 8 gears. Then again, it was supposed to be for Lexus, and the chances of that being controlled manually are as likely as a Lotus Elise competitor from Mercedes debuting next year.

 

[Carlos]

BMW ftw cus teh Mercedes is teh suck. Audi is just to different, business car..

Seriously, the Mercedes is SO damn ugly.. Jugh.. the BMW is really nice and the Audi to, but the Audi is more a business car then a car to play with.

 

[YSSMAN]

Comparison of the SMG vs Manual cogs:

- SMG:

1st: 3.99
2nd: 2.65
3rd: 1.81
4th: 1.39
5th: 1.16
6th: 1.00
7th: 0.83

Axle ratio: 3.62

- Manual:

1st: 4.06
2nd: 2.40
3rd: 1.58
4th: 1.19
5th: 1.00
6th: 0.87

Axle Ratio: 3.60

So it is pretty easy to see why the car would be slower, the gears appear to be spaced just a bit too far apart for a start, and then the rest just a bit too close together to be worth anything. Hmmm, you would think with a company like BMW, they would have been able to come up with something better...

BMW ftw cus teh Mercedes is teh suck. Audi is just to different, business car..

Seriously, the Mercedes is SO damn ugly.. Jugh.. the BMW is really nice and the Audi to, but the Audi is more a business car then a car to play with.

I was hoping that someone else would answer that, but I'll do my best.

To be completely honest, you have forgotten the most important part about these cars. The BMW blows it because of too many computers doing too much to ruin the experience. Added to that, looks in the case of the Mercedes do little to distract from the outstanding performance of a car that had gone from dreadfully passive to outstandingly active. The Audi again strikes the balance between the two, making it a winner in performance and in price, and should bring plenty of people into showrooms around the country.

...I completely and whole-heartedly agree with C/D decision, but as for Motor Trend, well... They all are a bit delusional, and aren't to be trusted...

 

[///M-Spec]

My understanding of things is that the manual transmission is identical to the SMG in all gear ratios, except for having lost the 7th forward gear.

They are the same ratios as the E39 M5. See the number YSSMAN posted above. In fact, it is the same tranny, according to the C/D article. While the ratios were good for the V8 (7,000RPM redline), they are slightly on the tall side for the V10 (8,200 RPM redline).


M

 

[harrytuttle]

They are the same ratios as the E39 M5. See the number YSSMAN posted above. In fact, it is the same tranny, according to the C/D article. While the ratios were good for the V8 (7,000RPM redline), they are slightly on the tall side for the V10 (8,200 RPM redline).


M

Ah. I get it now. Thanks. 👍

 

[neanderthal]

Who, if I may ask, did Motor Trend declare the winner? I've pretty much lost all faith in that magazine after they have handed awards out to the Mercedes GL and Toyota Camry. Thankfully they gave truck of the year to the Silverado, but even then, that doesn't make up for all of their stupidity on the whole.

...Thats why I read Car and Driver...

i certainly thought thier picks were winners. the GL is an amazingly capable vehicle. i cant think of a "better" SUV out there today. for a "one car,"do everything" choice its very very high out of all the cars currently on sale today. not many can best it.

the camry is much improved over the last one. worth a nod as COTY, but still not as sporty as my first choice would be.

 

[YSSMAN]

The GL? You're kidding, right? The vehicle did absolutely nothing to forward the industry at all other than being a nicely made SUV that generally only appeals to a small group of people. Simply put, they would have been far better off rating the Chevrolet Tahoe or GMC Yukon as SUV of the Year, given that it is accessible to far more people, actually makes a difference in the industry, and is arguably more important for the company it represents.

...As for the Camry, I believe my distaste for the car is well known here, and it is indeed my opinion that the car simply doesn't deserve any of the recognition it gets. Yes, it is a Camry, and it is indeed a "decent" car. However, poor build quality (as noted by Car and Driver and several other sources), rather uninspiring driving, and generally not all too special in the forwarding of the segment doesn't get the car any kudos. As noted in the issue itself, the award probably should have gone to the Porsche Cayman. Why didn't it? Pricing pretty much sealed the deal there. Oddly enough, pricing didn't seem to stop them from picking the GL, did it?

...As for truck of the year, I'm happy they made the right choice, but that still doesn't mean they are out in the clear for the crap they pull year after year...

To be honest, thats why I'm happy that magazines like Automobile, Road and Track, and Car and Driver are there to offset Motor Trend's stupidity when it comes to car reviews. Car and Driver had the balls to say that they didn't like the new Civic or the new Camry (all while they get COTY from Motor Trend), and Automobile had the guts to give COTY to the VW GTI.

...I've lost a lot of respect for that magazine, and I'm surprised that it has taken so many people this long to figure out how stupid they are...

 

[Tornado]

i certainly thought thier picks were winners. the GL is an amazingly capable vehicle. i cant think of a "better" SUV out there today. for a "one car,"do everything" choice its very very high out of all the cars currently on sale today. not many can best it.

Correction: Not many cars going on sale right now can beat it. I agree that the GL is a nice piece, but OTY worthy it is not. The Tahoe demanded and should have gotten the prize. Period.
The XC90, Touareg and even the LR3 are still better cars than the new GL is. One could argue that I'm biased, because I lament the loss of the G-Wagen; but I'd like to think that my bias isn't obscuring my opinion too much.
My opinion varies widely, of course. I think the Honda Ridgeline deserved the Truck of the Year award it got (probably pissing off YSSMAN in then process), but at the same time I hate how the Camry got Car of the Year.
And before I'm called on American bias, I do not think the Aura should have won either. I think the Kia Optima should have won, but Motor Trend denied it by saying it didn't have a hybrid engine (like that actually matters), when there was apparently nothing else wrong with the car. The fact that Kia didn't win with the equal quality but $10,000 cheaper Optima is my problem with this year's farce.
Kia deserved to win, and Motor Trend gave it to Toyota apparently because they could (unless MT is stupid enough to believe that a hybrid engine is really a deal breaker for the quality of a car). That pissed me off, even as I read it the first time, and even more on reflection.

In case anyone cares, I rewrote this post 9 times. A new personal record.

 

[red70mach1]

It looked the M5's weak link is the six speed manual option. Go with seven speed SMG.

 

[YSSMAN]

My opinion varies widely, of course. I think the Honda Ridgeline deserved the Truck of the Year award it got (probably pissing off YSSMAN in then process), but at the same time I hate how the Camry got Car of the Year.

To be honest, there really weren't too many trucks that really were award-worthy that year. Competitors were limited to Dodge Ram 1500, Dodge Ram Mega Cab, Honda Ridgeline, Isuzu i350, Lincoln Mark LT, and Mitsubishi Raider... The only thing that maybe deserved anything would have been the updated Ram, but even that is a stretch.

And before I'm called on American bias, I do not think the Aura should have won either. I think the Kia Optima should have won, but Motor Trend denied it by saying it didn't have a hybrid engine (like that actually matters), when there was apparently nothing else wrong with the car. The fact that Kia didn't win with the equal quality but $10,000 cheaper Optima is my problem with this year's farce.
Kia deserved to win, and Motor Trend gave it to Toyota apparently because they could (unless MT is stupid enough to believe that a hybrid engine is really a deal breaker for the quality of a car). That pissed me off, even as I read it the first time, and even more on reflection.

And to be honest, I can't say that I disagree with you. Although I certainly think the Aura got the shaft in some circumstances, the Kia is actually outstandingly good at everything... As Car and Driver put it, "Out Toyota-ing Toyota." I would have pushed for the Porsche Cayman myself, Aura and Optima as well. But I think most "sane" people would agree that the Camry doesn't deserve COTY.