Is the E60 M5 the greatest sedan ever?

[NISSANSPDR]

New M5



Old M5



Sorry...I am a sucker for the old M5

[DinanM3_S2]

Neutrino, I have a hard time believing that a 350 hp turbo will be more reliable then a 350 hp n/a engine. Every mechanic that I've ever known considers turbos to be comparitivly unreliable. I've never heard anyone ever tell me that a turbo is more reliable then N/A.

But I do agree that most motorsports would use turbos if allowed. Just look at WRC.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

Neutrino, I have a hard time believing that a 350 hp turbo will be more reliable then a 350 hp n/a engine. Every mechanic that I've ever known considers turbos to be comparitivly unreliable. I've never heard anyone ever tell me that a turbo is more reliable then N/A.

But I do agree that most motorsports would use turbos if allowed. Just look at WRC.

you missed a crucial piece of info: they are both 2.0 L engines.

If would read again my initial reliability statement, I was refering to very high specific output engines

so a 2.0L NA vs a 2.0L turbo. Which will make 350Hp more reliable?

[DinanM3_S2]

If there were such a thing as a stock 2.0L n/a or even a stock turbo 2.0L i might have to agree. A naturally aspirated 2.0 L would have to be running at rpm's of F1 proportion to dream of 350 hp, while a 2.0 turbo would still have a very hard time.

Odds are you wont find a turbo engine in the same class as a n/a engine with the same displacement though. In reality you would find a 2.5L (STi) against a much larger engine like a 3.5 (350z). Or a n/a 5.0L (E60 M5) against a 4.2t (RS6). Now in this, more realistic comparison which engine will be more reliable?

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

If there were such a thing as a stock 2.0L n/a or even a stock turbo 2.0L i might have to agree. A naturally aspirated 2.0 L would have to be running at rpm's of F1 proportion to dream of 350 hp, while a 2.0 turbo would still have a very hard time.

actually a 2.0 turbo with 350 Hp would not have a hard time and it would be quite reliable. Evos get that easily. A stage 2 from vishnu would do.

Or you can get the evos in the UK at 330Hp with warranty as in the case of the

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

Odds are you wont find a turbo engine in the same class as a n/a engine with the same displacement though. In reality you would find a 2.5L (STi) against a much larger engine like a 3.5 (350z). Or a n/a 5.0L (E60 M5) against a 4.2t (RS6). Now in this, more realistic comparison which engine will be more reliable?

and that is exactly the point, with smaller displacement you can compete with much bigger displacement using turbos. So basically you can get more power out of less weight which is the number one enemy or perfomance especially handling.

And i just though of another example for the turbo's superiority. Take an M12 noble, it has virtually the same displacement as a 360 Modena CS and it still beats it at a 1/3 of the price by using turbos using way simpler tech than the ferrari.

Now imagine all the technology in the 360 CS with turbos.

[VQuick]

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

Neutrino, I have a hard time believing that a 350 hp turbo will be more reliable then a 350 hp n/a engine. Every mechanic that I've ever known considers turbos to be comparitivly unreliable. I've never heard anyone ever tell me that a turbo is more reliable then N/A.

Think about this for a second: When racing their touring Primeras, Nissan maxes their SR20DE out at about 300hp. A street SR20DET can make that with little or no trouble at all.

When an engine is making big power normally aspirated, they don't have any help. It's very stressful. With forced induction, the engine has help from a supercharger or turbocharger to produce more power. It doesn't have to run as hard.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

And i just though of another example for the turbo's superiority. Take an M12 noble, it has virtually the same displacement as a 360 Modena CS and it still beats it at a 1/3 of the price by using turbos using way simpler tech than the ferrari.

Now imagine all the technology in the 360 CS with turbos.

Actually the Noble M12 GTO only has a maximum of 3L, and some only had 2.5. The Noble's motor is just a 'lowly' Ford Duratec V6, compared to the 360M and CS's 3.6L V8. It only makes the Noble seem even more impressive.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by VQuick

Actually the Noble M12 GTO only has a maximum of 3L, and some only had 2.5. The Noble's motor is just a 'lowly' Ford Duratec V6, compared to the 360M and CS's 3.6L V8. It only makes the Noble seem even more impressive.

Yeah you are right, i don't know why I was thinking the Duratec in the noble is a 3.5L

OH and BTW one of my dreams is to take a 360 Modena and make it twin turbo. From what i hear the CEO of ID sofware has a twin turbo F50 and its insane.





PS I would like to apologise (especially to the tread starter) for taking this thread from its original topic. Due to some statements I just felt it necessary to bring some info on FI engines.

[DinanM3_S2]

You are forgiven Neutrino, i mighta done the same as you have. You made some good points, and this thread getting off course is as much my fault as it is yours.

I guess my final point on stock turbo v stock n/a is that through tuning, you will get alot more power out of a larger displacement engine then a stock turbo engine. When you turbo or TT a car like a Corvette, you end up with a hell of a lot more power then you could from a stock turbo car at the same price with a new turbo unit, like say an S4. Having a N/A engine with bigger displacement allows for you to take a road car and compete with it, or if you so desire, you could turbo it (or supercharge for that matter) and get alot more power then a smaller engine could ever dream of. Cars like the Noble are great, but they can only go so far, while stock N/A cars can go further.

You also may want to look at the Koenig Ferrari 550 Marenello. I would take that car any day over the henessy Viper.

[CrzyMR2T]

you could turbo charge the n/a bigger displacement engine, but a turbocharged engine it just easier to begin with, the engine is already turbocharged, and the engines already made to take boost. now if your making big hp, then you would have to build the engine either ways, or swap it out for a different one, but that depends on how much power you want, if its only 300-600hp range depending on engine, and car, i would pick the smaller lighter engine that already comes turbocharged.

[DinanM3_S2]

But say a company made like Dinan or AA made a turbo package for the M5. Wouldn't you rather have an E60 M5 with that then an RS6 with a Turbo package of a similar price. I think you would see much bigger numbers from the M5 then you would the RS6.

(this is me trying to get this thread back on subject)

[91300zxtt]

no id still take the rs6. its a turbo engine, and would take a turbo upgrade better than putting a turbo onto than the m5. plus like ive said with the audi ppl dont expect it to blow their doors off, m5 is another story

[del]

91300zxtt makes a good point. adding an upgrade to an already boosted engine is more reliable than adding boost to an engine not designed for boost in the first place. you have to consider an RS6 engine is specifically designed and engineered as a turbocharged engine factory spec. everything about the engine is calibrated to withstand the added stress of a turbocharger. not so much to a factory n/a motor. common sense stuff of course. but just a few more things to consider in deciding what makes a car better than others. the E60 M5 ain't even out yet so everything that's been said is merely speculative until someone puts the production E60 M5 to the pavement. looks quite promising at this point. i'm split between an RS6 and E55 AMG as the current greatest sport sedan. all 3 cars (M5, E55 and RS6) are great cars. i'd take any one of them any day.

[Layla's Keeper]

Well Neutrino, let's take a look at the pinnacle of automotive engineering in competition - Le Mans - during it's most recent heyday - The Group C era.

Look at the winning cars from Group C.

1982 J. Ickx / D. Bell Porsche 956
1983 V. Schuppan / A. Holbert / H. Haywood Porsche 956
1984 K. Ludwig / H. Pescarolo Porsche 956
1985 K. Ludwig / P. Barilla / J. Winter Porsche 956
1986 D. Bell / H. Stuck / A. Holbert Porsche 962C
1987 D. Bell / H. Stuck / A. Holbert Porsche 962C
1988 J. Lammers / J. Dumfries / A. Wallace Jaguar XJR-9LM
1989 J. Mass / M. Reuter / S. Dickens Sauber-Mercedes
1990 J. Nielsen / P. Cobb / M. Brundle Jaguar XJR-12
1991 V. Weidler / J. Herbert / B. Gachot Mazda 787
1992 D. Warwick / Y. Dalmas / M. Blundell Peugeot 905
1993 G. Brabham / C. Bouchet / E. Helary Peugeot 905

I count 4 turbo cars and 3 N/A cars. The turbos taking 8 wins and the N/A's taking four. That's hardly supremacy, though it was a proven fact that the customer Porsches (the 956 and 962C) had superior reliability to their contemporaries (the Lancia LC2, Jaguar XJR/5, EMKA Aston-Martin, and all manners of Spices and Tigas). But once companies like Jaguar and Peugeot figured out how to make the N/A cars last and make power, they were absolutely on the ball. Not to mention the IMSA GTP cars that were N/A superlatives like the Jaguar XJR-17 and Chevrolet-Intrepid.

It isn't turbochargers that are superior. It isn't superchargers that are superior. It isn't naturally aspirated that's superior. It's the practical application of thoughtful engineering that makes any one engine and its design superior to another.

[91300zxtt]

Originally Posted by del

91300zxtt makes a good point. adding an upgrade to an already boosted engine is more reliable than adding boost to an engine not designed for boost in the first place. you have to consider an RS6 engine is specifically designed and engineered as a turbocharged engine factory spec. everything about the engine is calibrated to withstand the added stress of a turbocharger. not so much to a factory n/a motor. common sense stuff of course. but just a few more things to consider in deciding what makes a car better than others. the E60 M5 ain't even out yet so everything that's been said is merely speculative until someone puts the production E60 M5 to the pavement. looks quite promising at this point. i'm split between an RS6 and E55 AMG as the current greatest sport sedan. all 3 cars (M5, E55 and RS6) are great cars. i'd take any one of them any day.

that is true. look at the rx-8 and tiburon. they are making 20 less horsepower than what they are said to be making. so you are correct DEL, as of now its all hearsay.

[CrzyMR2T]

Originally Posted by DinanM3_S2

But say a company made like Dinan or AA made a turbo package for the M5. Wouldn't you rather have an E60 M5 with that then an RS6 with a Turbo package of a similar price. I think you would see much bigger numbers from the M5 then you would the RS6.

(this is me trying to get this thread back on subject)

well in that case, id wanna keep the m5 naturally aspirated, cause its engine is big enough, without turbo, to acheive the horsepower numbers i want in that kind of car.