AutoCar Battle: BMW M5 vs. Vauxhall VXR8(GTS)

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Grippy

Agreed, it pretty much sums that bloke up and any credability he had.

Looked like he knew how to swing the tiller pretty good to me. Most people doing what he was doing in the same place would be scraping bark off those trees.

[Grippy]

Power sliding for 80% of the review is no way to give a well balanced assessment of performance cars.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

What do M5's do 0-60mph in ? I fondly remember destroying a previous generation M5 (E60) at 3 consecutive sets of lights in a BA with FG F6 / 6spd auto running gear and a 3.46 Diff, and no turbo badges and running on LPG. Bloke musn't have been impressed.

from wiki
E60 M5 0-60 4.5 secs V10 n/a
F10 M5 0-60 3.6 secs V8 twin turbo (that's insane!) & could be wrong the video clip posted shows 4.5 secs

FG F6 0-60 5.1 secs

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by Grippy

Power sliding for 80% of the review is no way to give a well balanced assessment of performance cars.

Tell that to a WRC Rally driver. They spend their whole lives setting up their cars to be balanced on the knife edge to be sure they can slide them into and out of corners with a high level of predictability . Power sliding a 2 tonne car around an unsecured level of road at those speeds would be enough to ascertain balance and steering input sensitivity as well as throttle response to keep it on the edge of the slide.

Looked like a whole heap of fun to boot !

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by ESP

That's a hell of a lot of coin and IMHO - the new series Beemers are as ugly as a bag of smahed crabs. Go like stink though.

Each to their own hey, I think the entire range of current BMW's are stunningly handsome cars, even if slightly conservative in some instances. IMO it's been Mercedes Benz building the ugly ducklings, although the newer stuff coming out is a return to form.

But on the current M5, every review/comparison I've read haven't been so kind, placing it well behind the E63

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by f6_benito

Didn't the hsv beat the fpv with Miami?

People are saying the Miami have 380kw at the motor stock so why isn't the hsv claim of 430kw reasonable?

I'm not saying the HSV is slow but from the dyno numbers, they're definitely not making the officially claimed outputs.

I have never seen a car lose more than about 22% through the driveline, plus we should remember that high horspower cars typically have less powertrain losses.

When people say around 20% power loss, that equates to huge discrepencies when the car is supposedly making 577bhp!

Examples....

316rwkw - 430kW = 26% loss
327rwkw - 430kW = 24% loss
335rwkw - 430kW = 22% loss
344rwkw - 430kW = 20% loss

BOSS 335's average about the same as the GTS at the wheels and with the claimed overboost feature (375kW at the crank), it all adds up to a 16% loss through the driveline.

BMW M5 makes 393rwkw stock (Dynojet)
http://www.bmwblog.com/2012/09/10/dy...ated-527-rwhp/

Would explain why it smashed the GTS in the drag race.

[Motorbreath310]

Why is everyone still so hung up on GTS dyno numbers? It's the most capable Australian performance car made, to date. I doubt anything from now is going to change that, unless they (HSV) make further tweaks at the end of it's model cycle.

The fact it's being sold in far away lands, and being compared to the world's best super saloons is an achievement in itself.

Credit where it is due, people.

Remember too, HSV only has a couple-hundred-or-so staff, and a development budget which probably looks like M Division's weekly lunch bill. But nah let's neglect all the good things about it (too many to list) and instead focus on how much power it loses through it's heavy duty driveline, from that 430kw (+/-) supercharged V8 it has.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by Motorbreath310

Why is everyone still so hung up on GTS dyno numbers? It's the most capable Australian performance car made, to date. I doubt anything from now is going to change that, unless they (HSV) make further tweaks at the end of it's model cycle.

The fact it's being sold in far away lands, and being compared to the world's best super saloons is an achievement in itself.

Credit where it is due, people.

Remember too, HSV only has a couple-hundred-or-so staff, and a development budget which probably looks like M Division's weekly lunch bill. But nah let's neglect all the good things about it (too many to list) and instead focus on how much power it loses through it's heavy duty driveline, from that 430kw (+/-) supercharged V8 it has.

Totally agree the GTS is a great performance sedan, the best Australia has to offer but what I'm getting at is the fabricated power outputs. (funnily enough, the torque numbers appear to be understated by HSV)

While not properly tested, it was compared to a Euro heavyweight and lost miserably, not exactly a great achievement if you ask me.

If HSV had M division's budget, maybe it would have been a different story but then there's always the aftermarket to improve every aspect of the GTS and probably still come in at half the cost of a stock M5.

Maybe HSV should stick to battling it out with FPV's and leave the much more expensive Euro hotrods alone for now...

[strik9]

you can,t compare a 100k car to a 240k car and say it compared miserably really. people were making all sorts of excuses when it wiped the floor with the gt r spec. and they were only 20k apart in price.( or there abouts)

would be safer to compare it next to the new gt-f when it comes. thats apples and apples. who would win then do you think? now thats a comparison i want to see.

and perhaps another question, do you think they will be comparing the new gt-f to a performance pack m5 or a e63.

[Motorbreath310]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Maybe HSV should stick to battling it out with FPV's and leave the much more expensive Euro hotrods alone for now...

So we'll condemn them for even trying instead? HSV gave their followers exactly what they wanted. And most would consider it a viable alternative to the German contenders. It's an almost-as-capable, lower cost option. Like a WRX to an RS4, or a Mustang GT to a V8 Vantage, or an HSV GTS to a...

[Ben73]

Reminds me of when top gear (or was it one of clarksons dvd's) a 300c V8 against a V10 M5 which cost twice as much.
Seriously why even compare 2 cars if they are different classes. British love doing this to make the Euro's seam better.
That's like doing an off road test and say "Suprise Suprise the Ranger is better off road than a Kuga"

[GTP534]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Reminds me of when top gear (or was it one of clarksons dvd's) a 300c V8 against a V10 M5 which cost twice as much.
Seriously why even compare 2 cars if they are different classes. British love doing this to make the Euro's seam better.
That's like doing an off road test and say "Suprise Suprise the Ranger is better off road than a Kuga"

To be fair to the reviewer he did say you could see where the money had been spent that made the BMW the better drive. It didn't seem to be a put down of the GTS.

It's been done to death in other threads but HSV should be congratulated on the GTS.

[Rodge]

Key to the M5's performance is its making its maxium torque from about 1500 rev's right through to 5,700 revs. I read recently they're working on an all new lightweight super stiff chassis for the next model, due 2016, (carbon fibre and high tensile steel).

GTS is about 90 kg's less heavy than an M5 and aside from being a fantastic bit of kit in its own right deserves credit for keeping the weight down considering the massive amount of technology in that car.

[mcnews]

I drove the V10 M5 and found it a little disappointing and unwieldy at the track, certainly that model was a poor cousin of the M3. The new twin turbo V8 job though seems the business, still it would be an M3 for me I reckon, actually no I would still buy the Cayman S :-)

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by mcnews

I drove the V10 M5 and found it a little disappointing and unwieldy at the track, certainly that model was a poor cousin of the M3. The new twin turbo V8 job though seems the business, still it would be an M3 for me I reckon, actually no I would still buy the Cayman S :-)

read this yesterday re the E60 M5, so when I saw your comment I had to post it.

According to Jeremy Clarkson of BBC's Top Gear, “It’s a world of motoring perfection. If you want to take it on...don’t bother. It doesn’t matter what you’ve got. It doesn’t matter what you’ve ever driven. This is quicker, it’s faster, it’s MORE astonishing. You just can’t believe you’re in a big 4-door saloon because it goes and it feels and it SOUNDS like a Ferrari 430, and that’s about the best car I’ve ever driven. The steering, the brakes, the power. And this noise… The driving experience just dominates everything…. It’s an epic car, just brilliant.”

[Trump]

Originally Posted by strik9

you can,t compare a 100k car to a 240k car and say it compared miserably really. people were making all sorts of excuses when it wiped the floor with the gt r spec. and they were only 20k apart in price.( or there abouts)

would be safer to compare it next to the new gt-f when it comes. thats apples and apples. who would win then do you think? now thats a comparison i want to see.

and perhaps another question, do you think they will be comparing the new gt-f to a performance pack m5 or a e63.

You can actually compare the two cars. The reason: in the market that they were both tested, their prices (after exchange rates) are $100k for the GTS and $147k for the M5.

[Alan D Segal]

Originally Posted by Grippy

Power sliding for 80% of the review is no way to give a well balanced assessment of performance cars.

It may come as a surprise but he probably put on a show to entertain us, the viewers. He probably did drive it for quite a while in a range of locations and developed a good understanding for what it was like and what it could do, before shooting the video.

I'm no tv expert but just because they show him sliding a car doesn't mean that's all he ever did in it.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

You can actually compare the two cars. The reason: in the market that they were both tested, their prices (after exchange rates) are $100k for the GTS and $147k for the M5.

Agreed, to put it simply, They are both high powered V8 versions on their standard large 4 door sedan.

is anyone going to argue that the targeted buyers are not the same.

I'd suggest the BMW buyers just have a bigger Wallet.

[saba1972]

Interesting read but M5 buyers are unlikely to be the same as GTS buyers. Look at it here, how many walk out of a BMW dealership after testing the M5 and straight into a HSV dealer.

[Trump]

Better shocks and matched springs plus the engine actually putting out 430kW would have the GTS taking it right up to the M5.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Bent8

I'm not saying the HSV is slow but from the dyno numbers, they're definitely not making the officially claimed outputs.

I have never seen a car lose more than about 22% through the driveline, plus we should remember that high horspower cars typically have less powertrain losses.

When people say around 20% power loss, that equates to huge discrepencies when the car is supposedly making 577bhp!

Examples....

316rwkw - 430kW = 26% loss
327rwkw - 430kW = 24% loss
335rwkw - 430kW = 22% loss
344rwkw - 430kW = 20% loss

BOSS 335's average about the same as the GTS at the wheels and with the claimed overboost feature (375kW at the crank), it all adds up to a 16% loss through the driveline.

BMW M5 makes 393rwkw stock (Dynojet)
http://www.bmwblog.com/2012/09/10/dy...ated-527-rwhp/

Would explain why it smashed the GTS in the drag race.

considering hsv run a testbed and dyno the crank and you claim there exaggerated.

ok do we agree it run 116/118 mph at the strip? 1320ft (1/4)
car with driver weighs what 2000kg (4400lbs)

4400 @ 116 = 472.50 bhp at the bags 352 rwkw
4400 @ 117 = 508.90 bhp at the bags 379 rwkw
4400 @ 118 = 521.05 bhp at the bags 389 rwkw

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by burnz

considering hsv run a testbed and dyno the crank and you claim there exaggerated.

ok do we agree it run 116/118 mph at the strip? 1320ft (1/4)
car with driver weighs what 2000kg (4400lbs)

4400 @ 116 = 472.50 bhp at the bags 352 rwkw
4400 @ 117 = 508.90 bhp at the bags 379 rwkw
4400 @ 118 = 521.05 bhp at the bags 389 rwkw

Sorry Burnz! But those Loss Figures simply don't stack up with the beefed up drive train that Holden put into the GTS.
The Loss Figures that Bent8 has given would be close to the mark.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Blue Roo

Sorry Burnz! But those Loss Figures simply don't stack up with the beefed up drive train that Holden put into the GTS.
The Loss Figures that Bent8 has given would be close to the mark.

no that's 1/4 mile trap speed weight shifted BHP, not pseudo dyno results.

[SensationFG8]

So burnz how much power do you believe the GTS has at the rear wheels, 352 or 389?

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by burnz

considering hsv run a testbed and dyno the crank and you claim there exaggerated.

ok do we agree it run 116/118 mph at the strip? 1320ft (1/4)
car with driver weighs what 2000kg (4400lbs)

4400 @ 116 = 472.50 bhp at the bags 352 rwkw
4400 @ 117 = 508.90 bhp at the bags 379 rwkw
4400 @ 118 = 521.05 bhp at the bags 389 rwkw

What calculator did you use?

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by burnz

considering hsv run a testbed and dyno the crank and you claim there exaggerated.

ok do we agree it run 116/118 mph at the strip? 1320ft (1/4)
car with driver weighs what 2000kg (4400lbs)

4400 @ 116 = 472.50 bhp at the bags 352 rwkw
4400 @ 117 = 508.90 bhp at the bags 379 rwkw
4400 @ 118 = 521.05 bhp at the bags 389 rwkw

I think those quarter mile times have more to do with the torque output which appears to be understated by HSV... over 780Nm according to this site http://www.hsvforum.com.au/showthrea...and-After-Dyno

[40RDT]

Originally Posted by Bent8

I think those quarter mile times have more to do with the torque output which appears to be understated by HSV... over 780Nm according to this site http://www.hsvforum.com.au/showthrea...and-After-Dyno

Some people seem to disregard or ignore torque figures and just focus on rwkw/rwhp like its the only way to measure the performance of a car. Its like that old saying "horsepower sells cars but torque wins races"

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by saba1972

Look at it here, how many walk out of a BMW dealership after testing the M5 and straight into a HSV dealer.

To put it simply, those looking for a cheaper alternative.

[Uwish]

Originally Posted by mcnews

I drove the V10 M5 and found it a little disappointing and unwieldy at the track, certainly that model was a poor cousin of the M3. The new twin turbo V8 job though seems the business, still it would be an M3 for me I reckon, actually no I would still buy the Cayman S :-)

Really???
Our M5 V10 E60 with Hatgage 21" rims ran 12.3 for the 1/4 mile and was
stock and a rock ( Driveline ...no tune / no after market exhaust / BMC Air filters ect ect )
Insanely quick for a car back in 2006.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by dragons90

What calculator did you use?

a 12" Pickett slide rule.
that is 4 measurements In one.
liquid, gas, bhp sae, volumetric efficiency..