# M5 Beats R8!!



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Was only a matter of time. This is quoted from Car & Driver Magazine in the US. Not huge differences & i think the R8 will/would win cross country with the advantage of Quattro, but at least the M5's quicker in a straight line & on the drag strip 8)

No one doubts the R8 will be fast around a race track but the beast stomps on it in a straight line.

From the April 2007 Road and Track.....

Audi R8
Curb Weight 3440 pounds
Test Weight 3630 pounds
HP - 420 DIN at 7800 RPM
Torque - 317 foot pounds 4500-6000 rpm
6 Speed DSG

0-60 - 4.3 seconds
0-100 - 10.5 seconds
1/4 mile - 12.7 seconds @ 111.0 mph
0-120 - 15.3 seconds

versus BMW M5

0-60 - 4.1 seconds
0-100 - 9.5 seconds
1/4 mile - 12.4 seconds @115.8 mph
0-120 - 13.3 seconds

Looking at the data, the R8 takes off well but like the other Audis we have seen, starts to choke up after weight becomes less of an issue and power / aero are the main variables


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Paul,

Seeing as the M5 has a huge horsepower advantage, are you really surprised?

The R8 quotes 420PS, the M5 is well over 500... you need to compare apples and apples.

By the same token, the M5 walks all over every Porsche under the 911 Turbo.

Lets see the saloon car carry that speed around some curves then.

A more interesting battle would be the V10 R8 vs the M5 - at least the power should be similar.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> The R8 quotes 420PS, the M5 is well over 500...


I thought it was 501 :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > The R8 quotes 420PS, the M5 is well over 500...
> ...


507PS... :lol:

Even so, that's a HUGE power advantage.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Paul,
> 
> Seeing as the M5 has a huge horsepower advantage, are you really surprised?
> 
> ...


Is that all you've got?? :lol:

To be sure it would be different if the result was different :wink: . The R8 has over 1/3 ton weight advantage, more than enough to equal out the extra 70BHP the M5 has (507 is not well over 500). Aged old, 4dr saloon beats sports car. Never such a thing as apples to apples in the real world. In most head to heads, one car has more power, the other is lighter or something like that. So V10 R8 would not be apples to apples as it would likely still be 1/3 ton lighter but with the same power (although likely more). So V8 R8 vs M5 is the closest anyone could match apples to apples in the bigger picture.

Totally agree the R8 will of course be a quicker car cross country & on a track. The M5 still has the higher achievable top speed though for all those times when you can drive at more than 189MPH :lol:

Also, the 997 Turbo has LESS power than an M5 but it is still a good 1/2 second quicker to 60. IIRC the R8 has more Torques than the M5 :wink:

No matter as i no longer own an M5 & TBH it was posted on M5 Board, so only posted for a bit of fun :wink:

Quite surprised they managed a 4.1 for the


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Carlos said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


against the R8's HUGE weight & handling advantage :lol: :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

There's no doubt Audi sandbagged the performance quotes for the R8. They said 4.6, we're reckoning more like 4.1/4.2...

Wonder if the R8 was R-Tronic or Manual?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

jampott said:


> There's no doubt Audi sandbagged the performance quotes for the R8. They said 4.6, we're reckoning more like 4.1/4.2...
> 
> Wonder if the R8 was R-Tronic or Manual?


I re-read your post. It was a DSG. Funny that, Audi don't do a DSG that can handle the power. :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > There's no doubt Audi sandbagged the performance quotes for the R8. They said 4.6, we're reckoning more like 4.1/4.2...
> ...


Them in-accurate journos :lol: My money is on R-Tronic as it was a US car but who knows as no idea if the M5 was 6sp manual or SMG.

TBH BMW quote 4.6 (might be 4.7) for the M5 SMG so if Audi quote the same then the test 0-60's are probably about right as the article says 4.3 for the R8.

Also if i'd been buying today & did not need the rear seats i'd defo take the R8 over the M5 even without having yet driven an R8, but it does show just what class the M5 can play in as it defo punches well above its weight in most areas. Bit of a compliment that they tested an M5 against the R8 & finally the M5 is well over Â£10K cheaper than the R8. Can't work out though why they didn't use an M6 instead, as that's even quicker being 80KG lighter.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


But the difference between 4.6/4.7 (BMW) and 4.1 (tested) is ENORMOUS in real terms.

The .3 second difference in the standing quarter is a lot closer than the acceleration figures would suggest.

Those figures just don't add up. If the bimmer is a second quicker to 100 and 2 seconds quicker to 120, I can't understand how it is only .3 seconds quicker over the standing quarter mile distance, which effectively lies somewhere between 60 and 120 doesn't it?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Carlos said:
> ...


Don't talk such cock. You said yourself, when the cars are moving, power and aero are more important than weight. Can't have it both ways!


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Those figures just don't add up. If the bimmer is a second quicker to 100 and 2 seconds quicker to 120, I can't understand how it is only .3 seconds quicker over the standing quarter mile distance, which effectively lies somewhere between 60 and 120 doesn't it?


I'd guess the Audi's better traction off the line gives it an advantage in the standing qtr.

I agree with Paul - the M6 would have provided a more appropriate comparison.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

b3ves said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Those figures just don't add up. If the bimmer is a second quicker to 100 and 2 seconds quicker to 120, I can't understand how it is only .3 seconds quicker over the standing quarter mile distance, which effectively lies somewhere between 60 and 120 doesn't it?
> ...


But the traction off the line is a factor in all the quoted 0-60, 0-120 and standing quarter times...

0-100 is a distance just under 1/4 mile, 0-120 is a bit over. So how can a difference of ONE second at 0-100 and TWO seconds at 0-120 equate to only a .3 second gap over the standing quarter.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

He's right you know.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Those figures just don't add up. If the bimmer is a second quicker to 100 and 2 seconds quicker to 120, I can't understand how it is only .3 seconds quicker over the standing quarter mile distance, which effectively lies somewhere between 60 and 120 doesn't it?


You'd only expect them to actually add up if all the figures came from the same acceleration run. However, the figures are of course all individual "bests", so gears will have been changed at different points etc. different amounts of fuel on board, different driving styles. I must admit though, that like you, I think the figures look odd, but that's Americans and magazines for you


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

clived said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Those figures just don't add up. If the bimmer is a second quicker to 100 and 2 seconds quicker to 120, I can't understand how it is only .3 seconds quicker over the standing quarter mile distance, which effectively lies somewhere between 60 and 120 doesn't it?
> ...


I gathered they were unlikely to be for the same run... but even so, if the R8 can do the standing 1/4 only 1/3 second slower than the M5's quickest time, I'd still think it would be a LOT closer to 100 than those numbers show.

I'm dubious to say the least. Not that I care, the M5 still has almost 25% extra power...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > There's no doubt Audi sandbagged the performance quotes for the R8. They said 4.6, we're reckoning more like 4.1/4.2...
> ...


But VW do in the Veyron. :wink:


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2007)

jampott said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


Dont bite. I know which i'd rather have. 8)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

PS R8 quicker than M5 around the 'ring by about 5 secs.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


I can when it suits me.

Correct though once moving weight has less of an impact, but the weight advantage (which is big) should be enough to overcome the lower power in the R8, plus the R8 must be more aerodynamic than the M5. Surely that's why TVR's are so rapid as they're not blessed with huge power or tourque numbers but do weigh abaout the same as a packet of crisps.

The once moving again only really applies at higher speeds which is why the V8 R8 won't/can't crack 190MPH but i'd have had it slightly faster or at least no slower on the drag.

As said, posted semi in jest so no need to bite as i've had the same done to me many times. Had to combat folk saying a 545i/550i is only very slightly slower than the M5. The test showed what it showed rightly or wrongly. Love the R8 but was a tad shocked that a US car mag had pitched those cars head to head & was surprised at the result.

If i had a pound for everytime people have said it's all about WEIGHT not just POWER than i could possibly buy an R8 :wink: It must be important if you're a heavy car but have no impact if you have a light car.

An example springs to mind aka the current M3 vs new RS4. The RS4 has the power & traction advantage, but the M3 is lighter & more nimble & often quoted as the better (see more fun) car to drive.

You're a very lucky fella & i still wish i was getting one. Just a shame i'd have always had you off the lights if i'd still had my M5 :lol: Wonder what extra advantage a DMS M5 would have, perhaps enough to remove the 5sec Nurburgring advantage although defo not with me driving :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


 & 20% more weight :wink:


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> You're a very lucky fella & i still wish i was getting one. Just a shame i'd have always had you off the lights if i'd still had my M5 :lol: Wonder what extra advantage a DMS M5 would have, perhaps enough to remove the 5sec Nurburgring advantage although defo not with me driving :lol:


Surely owning either car is far more about 'having someone at the lights' or am I missing something? :wink:

Driving experience and handling are surely more relevant than one-upmanship and pub-bragging rights. Spouting 0-60 times and standing start runs is pretty churlish.

Still, accelerating in a straight line does not take much skill so easy to perfect and satisfy - if that is your bag.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Why do people keep banging on about the better traction of 4 wheel drive - this only really becomes an advantage in the wet, in the dry it's just extra weight.

I remember when Autocar tested the M5 against a Carrera S and the M5 beat the Porker off the line. It's still a BMW 5 series though and if acceleration off the line is so important why don't we all drive Caterhams or Vipers? :?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jdn said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > You're a very lucky fella & i still wish i was getting one. Just a shame i'd have always had you off the lights if i'd still had my M5 :lol: Wonder what extra advantage a DMS M5 would have, perhaps enough to remove the 5sec Nurburgring advantage although defo not with me driving :lol:
> ...


Yep, you're missing something :wink: It's all about Traffic light GP's as with congestion the way it is & ever increasing speed cameras it's about the only fun you can still have without fear of dying or losing your licence, so the faster car between lights is where it's all at unless you're very into track days.

JK, i was only jesting & TBH the traffic light GP is likely the only place where the M5 could woop the R8 as trying to get the 500ponies mated to tarmac in anything other than perfect conditions is a rather large challenge & the extra weight/size a bit un-forgiving when on the very twisty roads. However the M5 can hold the 0-60 & 0-100 crown & i'm sure it wears that crown with pride :lol:


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

Sounds like someones not taking the 'no longer the fastest car (previously owned, forgetting the fezzas) on the forum' demotion too well. :lol:

Jampott - very happy for you in both owning a car like that and taking the throne. Congrats.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

r1 said:


> Sounds like someones not taking the 'no longer the fastest car (previously owned, forgetting the fezzas) on the forum' demotion too well. :lol:
> 
> Jampott - very happy for you in both owning a car like that and taking the throne. Congrats.


Not in the slightest. Why would i care?? was just pointing out what the press were saying & they're always right . So when you're ready feel free to get a life :lol: Having more money for other things is now a higher priority than owning/running a very quick car & the A8 4.2 is hardly a slow car. You must have missed the point somewhere in this thread.

Ps. mine was quicker than the Fezzas for the record :lol: I've never owned a car to be the fastest on the forum as i've far better things to care about.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

The thread can be distilled into:

"The car which I no longer own is faster in a straight line than the car which you do not yet own"

Sounds like pointless one-upmanship to me...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jdn said:


> The thread can be distilled into:
> 
> "The car which I no longer own is faster in a straight line than the car which you do not yet own"
> 
> Sounds like pointless one-upmanship to me...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

btw the car that I'd _like_ to won is faster than both. :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jdn said:
> 
> 
> > The thread can be distilled into:
> ...


No it isn't. :lol:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jdn said:


> The thread can be distilled into:
> 
> "The car which I no longer own is faster in a straight line than the car which you do not yet own"
> 
> Sounds like pointless one-upmanship to me...


How can folk get the wrong end of the stick??

You'll no doubt have seen that the thread was made from detail in a head to head test run by a US Car Magazine. It was also very much tongue in cheek as no doubt Tim is aware. Why no turn the tables & feel the need to think it's sour grapes on my part.

To point out, I HAD an R8 on order well over 18mths ago (1st on my dealers pre-list) but cancelled last Spring when confirmed it would only be a 2-seater as this would not be suitable for my requirements. Next point is i think the R8 is an awesome motor & although i had/have a couple of reservations as to whether Audi can pull off a car in this market it is a thing of beauty & i kinda wish i could get away with owning/running a 2-seater. Lastly i'm not in any way jealous that Tim's getting one, quite the opposite being that i'm excited for him & can't wait to see it/one in the flesh.

Perhaps this now clarifies a few peoples mis-understanding as to my views on both my previous M5 & Tim's up-coming R8. If i had my time again & could get away with a 2-seater i'd take an R8 over an M5 but i still smile reading that the M5 is quicker in a straight line than the R8.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> jdn said:
> 
> 
> > The thread can be distilled into:
> ...


In fairness to Paul, I didn't read anything different into it than that, either...

I dispute the fact that their figures don't appear to add up. At best its an inaccurate article... but that isn't Paul's fault (or point...)


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

In fact, for what it is worth, there will be MANY cars faster than an R8 - both in a straight line and around a track...

But *THIS YEAR* I doubt there will be such a rare, unusual and sought-after addition to the range of ANY of the major manufacturers.

Having seen the R8 in the flesh, and having read some of the initial reviews filtering through the online/offline press at the moment, I'm happy with my choice.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> In fact, for what it is worth, there will be MANY cars faster than an R8 - both in a straight line and around a track...
> 
> But *THIS YEAR* I doubt there will be such a rare, unusual and sought-after addition to the range of ANY of the major manufacturers.
> 
> Having seen the R8 in the flesh, and having read some of the initial reviews filtering through the online/offline press at the moment, I'm happy with my choice.


So you should be mate as it does promise to be a beauty/beast. The press are loving it which was really my only concern with it's position in the market it will reside so me thinks it will be an outright winner.

Spot on that the articles figures are a little keen as i struggle to believe a standard M5 could hit 60 in 4.2 secs however & as you state all i did was post the article so it's level of accuracy is hardly my doing :lol:

As an aside, are you going to the Wales TT outing on Sunday??


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, for what it is worth, there will be MANY cars faster than an R8 - both in a straight line and around a track...
> ...


No


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> In fact, for what it is worth, there will be MANY cars faster than an R8 - both in a straight line and around a track...


Especially with you being the driver of the R8! :lol: :wink:

I pop onto this forum now and then and it seems to get more and more people who instead of embracing the collective enjoyment of cars, they just seem intent on trying to cause divisions.

Perhaps one day they'll get their heads out their arses...or perhaps not.

In the mean time just ignore them and wait for them to grow up [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

So are you actually going to buy one Tim or sell your slot for a profit :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> So are you actually going to buy one Tim or sell your slot for a profit :wink:


I'm actually buying one...

I put my money down last summer, hoping to be in a position to afford it (still) by the time delivery was due, but with a back-up plan of being able to sell my slot if the financial side didn't work out...

As it happens, (touching a certain amount of MDF) I'll be happily able to take delivery (I don't know when, yet!). I'd always hoped to own it rather than profit from it, but I was confident that an initial outlay with Audi would give me SOME return on my investment, even if I couldn't go ahead personally...


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

Good man!

I was genuinely hoping that was the case but with a mild amount of scepticism  as a few people have ordered lavish motors only to sell the slot.

I devoured the Evo test the other week - you lucky bugger! - enjoy [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> Good man!
> 
> I was genuinely hoping that was the case but with a mild amount of scepticism  as a few people have ordered lavish motors only to sell the slot.
> 
> I devoured the Evo test the other week - you lucky bugger! - enjoy [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


I held off from saying much until I could be reasonably sure I was buying (rather than trading).

Of course its never a done-deal until it arrives, but plans would have to change seriously in order for me to miss out now...

I know Kev bought solely with the idea of selling on, and good luck to him. He's got his profit. Whether the guy he sold to will actually see the car is another matter entirely. If I was Kev, I wouldn't be spending the money *just* yet... Let's just say the "R8 Team" are against people trading their slots and may not allocate a car to Kev's buyer afterall. As no build slots have even been allocated yet, I personally would not have parted with ANY money, except directly to an Audi dealer.

Still, Kev knows what he's doing, I'm sure... :wink: He'll have protected himself against being sued for selling something which he wasn't legally entitled to sell. If I'd paid good money to buy someone's position on the waiting list, and didn't get the slot, I'd be going to whatever lengths necessary to get my cash back. But everything will be fine, I'm sure...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> Was only a matter of time. This is quoted from Car & Driver Magazine in the US. Not huge differences & i think the R8 will/would win cross country with the advantage of Quattro, but at least the M5's quicker in a straight line & on the drag strip 8)
> 
> No one doubts the R8 will be fast around a race track but the beast stomps on it in a straight line.
> 
> ...


Strangely, someone on the R8 Forum posted completely different figures for the R8, from Car & Driver:

0-60mph: 4.0s
0-100mph: 9.9s
0-120mph:14.3s

1/4mile 12.6s @113mph

Those figures seem to be a bit more what you'd expect. Certainly more "linear" versus the M5.


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

jampott said:


> 0-60mph: 4.0s
> 0-100mph: 9.9s
> 0-120mph:14.3s
> 
> 1/4mile 12.6s @113mph


they look like my times tim :wink: albeit without the v8 sound and styling of a R8


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > Was only a matter of time. This is quoted from Car & Driver Magazine in the US. Not huge differences & i think the R8 will/would win cross country with the advantage of Quattro, but at least the M5's quicker in a straight line & on the drag strip 8)
> ...


Them blinking journo monkeys can't get anything right can they? :lol:

Any chance the 2 tests differ in gearboxes?? One test being in a manual & one being in the Semi-Auto variant?? Only a guess.


----------



## ttroy225 (May 18, 2002)

There is a possibility my old man will still have his M5 when he takes delivery of his R8.. He might be up for a mini head to head..


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

ttroy225 said:


> There is a possibility my old man will still have his M5 when he takes delivery of his R8.. He might be up for a mini head to head..


I'll drive the M5 for him to exploit it's full performance :lol: :wink:

Lucky Dad.


----------



## ttroy225 (May 18, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> ttroy225 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a possibility my old man will still have his M5 when he takes delivery of his R8.. He might be up for a mini head to head..
> ...


 Someone should.. He never drives it and when he does its like driving Miss Daisy :roll:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > jdn said:
> ...


It is now. I just merely thought about upgrading it with virtual remap. Shaving 0.00001 sec fo 0-60mph. 

PS there is a nice poster of an all black R8 front 3/4 angle just next to the PC World Store at Ashton Gate Bristol. Best shot yet of the car. Made the Rover 400 parked beneath look positively dowdy and last year. :wink:


----------

