 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / September 2006M5 versus Shelby GT500
2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower & 480 torque). I am not a mechanic and don't know exactly what torque is but I heard that if a car has more torque, it has more power. If I am right, does that mean Ford Shelby can out run M5 from zero to sixty and high speed?. Also M5 costs almost twice as much than Shelby GT500 so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. The bitterness of low quality lasts long after the sweetness of low cost is gone. > 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) > versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to > this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. >The bitterness of low quality lasts long after the sweetness of low cost is >gone. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to >> this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. That's awesome! Another - my lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes... > 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) > versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower > & 480 torque). I am not a mechanic and don't know exactly what torque > is but I heard that if a car has more torque, it has more power. If other things (such as weight, Cd, gearing, etc.) are equal, then more torque = faster acceleration and more horsepower = higher top speed. > If I am right, does that mean Ford Shelby can out run M5 from zero to > sixty > and high speed?. Not necessarily. > Also M5 costs almost twice as much than Shelby GT500 > so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? No. > Is there other side to this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please > if I am. For most of us, automotive value involves a good deal more than straight line acceleration and top speed. Tom K. > 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) > versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to > this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. Assuming you're not a troll; According to Car & Driver, the Shelby does 0-60 in 4.5s, the 1/4 mile in 12.9s. The M5 does 0-60 in 4.2s, 1/4 mile in 12.5s. The M5 stops faster, in 158 feet from 70 mph vs. 172 feet for the Ford. The M5 also has a higher top speed, if the governors were removed. The M5 also takes 4 adults in comfort, while the Ford really only takes two adults and 2 children. The Ford won't even beat a Corvette - even a Coupe with LS2 will beat it. The Z06 will destroy it. FloydR >Assuming you're not a troll; Why on earth would you make such an assumption?  SignatureDan. > Assuming you're not a troll; > According to Car & Driver, the Shelby does 0-60 in 4.5s, the 1/4 mile in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > FloydR Should have read your response first, before my long-winded one. BTW, the M5 can't hold a candle to the Z06 either, although it gives it a good run. Eisboch > Assuming you're not a troll; > According to Car & Driver, the Shelby does 0-60 in 4.5s, the 1/4 mile in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > speed, if the > governors were removed. I think the biggest difference you will notice is when you start going round corners NOT in a straight line. > The M5 also takes 4 adults in comfort, while the Ford really only takes > two > adults and 2 children. Well indeed, the M5 is just an ordinary saloon with sports car performance and handling. With the possible exception of the Maserati Quattreporte no one else really makes a car like it. > The Ford won't even beat a Corvette - even a Coupe with LS2 will beat > it. The Z06 will destroy it. > > FloydR A few years ago now, but we once hire a Pontiac? Grand Am. A 3litre injected V6 in a two door coupe it should have been great. In practice with a rubbish three speed auto and utterly appalling handling* it has to be one of the worst drives I have ever had. * no feel at all, you had to open the window and listen for tyre squeal to know how you were doing around bends... > 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) > versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to > this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. According to road tests by Road & Track and Car & Driver, the M5 is a bit faster in the 0-60 and quarter mile runs due, in part, to the 7 speed SMG transmission that shifts in something like 50 milliseconds in the S6 mode. But that's only part of the comparison. The M5 is much more of a total driver's car and I get a kick out of the straight line, quarter mile tests or drag race results. Put them on a winding track or road and the M5 walks away due to superior handling capabilities. The Shelby is a fun, fast car but the BMW is much more refined overall. If you are into drag racing, (which I am not) my guess is that the Shelby would initially pull ahead slightly but the M5 would quickly close the gap and then pull away once the engine RPM got up into the power band. (The M5 develops full horsepower at 7,400 RPM and redlines at 8,250 RPM). The M5 acceleration above 100 mph is simply incredible. According to BMW it is electronically governed to 155 mph, however most owners that try it are reporting that the limiter cuts in at 168-172 mph. With the limiter disabled, it tops out at just over 200 mph. I have no idea what a Shelby GT500 costs, so I don't know if the M5 is near twice the cost or not. Think of it this way. The M5 is a bit faster overall than a Ferrari f430 which sells for more than twice the price of a fully equipped M5. (the F430 is well over $200k) I am sure the Shelby is a spirited, fun car to drive ... for a while. But take it on a day long road trip and I'll bet you will feel the affects of long distance driving. Do the same trip in a M5 (or regular 5 or 7 series for that matter) and you will arrive at your destination refreshed and ready for more. Think of it this way. The M5 is a bit faster overall than a Ferrari f430 which sells for more than twice the price of a fully equipped M5. Eisboch '06 Silver Grey BMW M5 >> 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) >> versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Eisboch > '06 Silver Grey BMW M5 -edit- deleted repeated sentence. >> 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) >> versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to >> this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. Just read a review on the '07 Shelby GT500 at Edmunds.com. Looks like a potent car. It's turbocharged as compared to the naturally aspirated M5. Edmunds mentions it as being a challenge to the M3 and doesn't mention the M5. I'll betcha the M3 can still out-handle it, overall. Looks like you are correct in the pricing. The Shelby 500 is just over 40K whereas the M5 starts at about 82k. Eisboch > Just read a review on the '07 Shelby GT500 at Edmunds.com. Looks like a > potent car. It's turbocharged as compared to the naturally aspirated M5. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Eisboch -edit- actually it is supercharged rather than turbocharged. Eisboch Thanks all for the information. Another question. If you could buy both M5 and shelby GT500, would you buy it with manual transmission or auto, why on both? > > Just read a review on the '07 Shelby GT500 at Edmunds.com. Looks like a > > potent car. It's turbocharged as compared to the naturally aspirated M5. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Eisboch Manual! Sports cars with Auto's are a waste of money. You lose sooo much performance value. /me wish's his e39 was a manual and not a crummy auto =( -Branden > Thanks all for the information. Another question. If you could buy both > M5 and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Eisboch > Thanks all for the information. Another question. If you could buy both > M5 and > shelby GT500, would you buy it with manual transmission or auto, why on > both? I know I'll get some flack here, but for the M5 .... I've become very fond and a believer of the SMG transmission. It takes some time to get used to it, but once you do it's really nice and is capable of shifting much faster than any human can. The Mustang? I don't know. Probably the manual, if available. Reason? I have a '67 GTO with a manual 4-speed and I like it over an auto. Eisboch > Thanks all for the information. Another question. If you could buy both > M5 and > shelby GT500, would you buy it with manual transmission or auto, why on > both? What makes you think either one offers an automatic transmission? The GT has a manual 6-speed and the M5 a 7-speed SMG, both with no transmission options so far. Tom K. >What makes you think either one offers an automatic transmission? The GT >has a manual 6-speed and the M5 a 7-speed SMG, both with no transmission >options so far. The GT also has - wait for it - a solid rear axle. What on earth was Ford thinking? Apart from "cheap," that is... SignatureDan. > What makes you think either one offers an automatic transmission? The GT > has a manual 6-speed and the M5 a 7-speed SMG, both with no transmission > options so far. > > Tom K. A six speed manual is reported to be available in the M5 for the 2007 model year. There are rumors however that it's introduction has been delayed due to problems with the clutch. Don't know if that is true or not. It is interesting that those of us that have '06 M5s initially had some reservations about the SMG when we first took delivery of our cars. Many people on the M5board.com forum share the experience. The SMG takes a while to adjust to and there is no way you can get used to it in a single test drive or even in a week of driving it. However ... once you learn how to use it properly it becomes second nature and, in the opinion of most with some experience with it, is superior to a regular manual shift transmission. Most of us now would not want to change. The SMG gets a bad rap sometimes in some car reviews and I get a kick out of them because I can tell the author is new at using it. There's a reason they are used in Formula One racing. Eisboch > > What makes you think either one offers an automatic transmission? The GT > > has a manual 6-speed and the M5 a 7-speed SMG, both with no transmission [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > There's a reason they are used in Formula One racing. Since you have an 06 M5, this is probably not a concern for you, but one thing I'm wary about is the durability of SMG. Will SMG trannies be as durable as BMW automatics or its manual transmission? For those who purchase E60 M5 when it has over 100K miles, they maybe in for an expensive surprise. However, if SMG trannies are "as durable" as manual transmission, then it might be OK. Further, a recent study has shown that only something like 15% of all Americans know how to shift a manual transmission. That's really sad.... > Since you have an 06 M5, this is probably not a concern for you, but one > thing I'm wary about is the durability of SMG. Will SMG trannies be as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Further, a recent study has shown that only something like 15% of all > Americans know how to shift a manual transmission. That's really sad.... The durability of the SMG remains to be established, for sure. The E60 M5 has been out in Europe since the 2005 model year and in the US for the 2006 model year (still less than 12 months) so it's way to early to tell. So far though there have been more problems with minor issues such as bad steering angle sensors and a batch of bad Vanos oil lines. Both have been addressed by BMW. I know of two cases where the transmissions had to be replaced, one in Great Britain and one in the US, but these are on cars with relatively low mileage and could be manufacturing defects. The one in Great Britain however is owned by a "launch control junkie", so that may have been a factor. The E60 M5 is a high performance car and most (but not all) owners are like me .... the car is not a daily driver and does not accumulate mileage quickly. Since last December, when I first took delivery, I've only put 3000 miles on mine. That, plus the fact that both the SMG and the V10 engine have their design origins in BMW Formula One race cars, significantly detuned to extend their life and durability works in favor of the second owner market. I've noticed that some owners have decided to trade their M5s in within a few months of ownership and frankly, it crossed my mind also. The car has so much performance capability that you really can't utilize unless you take it to a closed track that you start wondering if it makes sense to have it. When I get this feeling I take it out for a spin and quickly convince myself to keep it. Eisboch > > Since you have an 06 M5, this is probably not a concern for you, but one > > thing I'm wary about is the durability of SMG. Will SMG trannies be as [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Eisboch Bit OT but out of interest what sort of MPG are you getting? Having just sold my M3 I'm thinking of an M5 but keep hearing horror stories of 8-9mpg which in the UK at £1 per litre is scary! Especially with a small tank. >> > Since you have an 06 M5, this is probably not a concern for you, but >> > one [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > sold my M3 I'm thinking of an M5 but keep hearing horror stories of 8-9mpg > which in the UK at £1 per litre is scary! Especially with a small tank. I average around 14-15 mpg (US gal). Drive it hard and it will drop to 12. Drive it crazy and it drops to about 10 mpg. Easy highway driving yields about 17. The tank *is* small however (I forget how many gallons) but it seems like a full tank is good for about 220 miles or so, maybe a bit more. Eisboch > Am I right? Is there other side to > this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. No grasshopper, you are wrong. Yes grasshopper, you are undoubtably ignorant about many things, this just being one of them. Poor grasshopper, enlightenment can't come to a troll. Here's a goodie for you M5 fans from the current Roundel... A current 3-series (might even be with a 5-Series) diesel will out accelerate an M5 in the 50-70 mph range because of the superior torque of the diesel. I think that is way cool and wish BMW sold their diesels in the U.S. > 2006 BMW M5 (5 liter V10 7 speed with 500 horsepower & 383 torque) > versus 2007 Ford Shelby GT500 ( 5.4 liter V8 6 speed with 500 horsepower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so seems Shelby is a better value. Am I right? Is there other side to > this that I am ignorant about? Enlighten me please if I am. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.