Maybe it is just me, but I can understand him. He is in Switzerland, so maybe English isn't his native language, but I don't think there are big errors in his post. If you could tell me what is confusing maybe I could clarify it for you?
Frankly, and quite strangely, i never had anyone complaining about my english. Anyway, would be my pleasure to give you lessons in that too
Anyway, i'll try to improve. You = loving 1/4 ml drag races and Indycar, think that's real motorsport and racing. You = love M5 because, US-Like, bigger IS better, and M5 has plenty of power, so it's better as well than any competition. Me = saying you that power is nothing without traction. Me = proving my point with Porsche 911, as it has better 0-60 miles per hour times (by a good second) than comparable cars with same power/weight ratio, just because it has a good traction, given that the mass transfer during acceleration (and braking...) is good for that ! This already shows that even on a dragstrip, big power alone = nothing Now we speak track. To be fast on a track in a car you don't know you need : - To have confidence in the cars' reactions at the limit - To be quick around corners, in and out. - To have very strong brakes (cars usually brake twice as fast as they do accelerate, so it can be a big difference) - Of course, some straight line punch as well. What i was trying to explain you is that the QP probably gives you this confidence, at least, it gave it to me, that it has an amazing roadholding, compared to any car, be it a GT, and that it has string brakes, unlike all the M-BMWs, that are known for having quick brake fade. Better like that ? BTW, if you ever happen to speak french, german, russian and arabic as well as i do english, it'll be fine....
readable = easily read here me intrepretation: intro claims power to weight means nothing in all racing including the only race (some other board member - parkerfe??) has knowledge of, namely dragracing. cites, the 911's acceleration times as evidence. then claims bmw's are very front heavy (not as heavy as MB) but compared to other cars. the next blurp - i have no clue. is that MB that he saying have very poor brakes ??? thx
I have watched this thread for a while and feel it approaches the sort of childish competition you would find on the school playground where a bunch of kids playing top trumps. Who really cares if the M5 is a second slower round a race track than a QP. They a two quite different cars. I used to have an Maser 3200Gt which I sold 3 years ago because I had acquired an Audi RS6 - at the time I thought the Maser was pointless because I had bought the Audi, which was faster expecially in the real world on real roads. Much as I like the Audi and am impressed with its efficiency, pace, reliability etc, I have always found myself missing the Maser, because of the way it does what it does. Maserati are cars, like Ferraris, that you buy with you heart not your head. It is not a scientific analysis - on that score German cars would win. They are so enjoyable to drive at any speed that ultimate pace doesnt matter. I have recently test driven several QP's and Gransports, both on the track and road and whilst I am sure they are not as quick as my RS6 point to point, I feel I want something that is more of an experience to drive. To sum up I will quote the last couple of sentances of the EVO article that started this thread - 'There's no doubt that when it created the original M5, BMW wrote the supersaloon rulebook. Whats more it then proceeded to rewrite it with every subsequent generation of M5. Thats why the current M5 is a superior dynamic proposition to the E55, B5, CTs, RS6 and S Type R. Trouble is nobody told the boys at Maserati that they had to play by BMW's rules, which is why the QP is such a breath of fresh air, beating them all at their own game without ever appearing to demean itself by actually competing against them'
reading thru the posts, i have no clue who you are responding to. who is ignorant ? on what claim ? are u responding to parkerfe's claim that a e39 will outrun a qp in a straight line?
Come on, you can't be that d...b, or are you really? Though one must be to have the assumptions you have and such a bad understanding of english....How can one living in such a wide country be so narrow-minded leaves me perplex...
Now concerning the Thread, it was intentionally started in a childish way, as usually BM lovers/drivers tend to overreact.... Proof here. I had big fun anyway.
Learn to drive it and love the car in spite of its problems. Then get rid of it and drive something new. I too drove an RS6 for 2 years. Loved every minute of it. I bought an 05 QP to take its place and have had no regrets. The RS6 definitely has more punch, but it's a totally different feel as it's a totally different car. As much as I enjoyed the RS6, I don't miss it all that much.
spare me your insults. you posts wouldn't pass an intro high school english class for comprehension. what assumptions? explain. "First power/weight etc means nothing EVEN for the only race kind you know, aka dragstrip" 100% false. a cars performance is a function of power, weight, handling and braking among other attributes. i have yet to see a race team that is trying to reduce horsepower and increase weight. "Or how could you explain that a Porsche is faster 0-60 than most cars with 100 bhp more ? Simply because it has better traction (mass transfer under acceleration)." the porsche is an exception rather than the rule. other factors play an important role in accelaration such as gearing. "BMWs, if you ever drove one outside your childish dreams, are very tail-light, maybe not compared to MBs, but compared to real cars, they are." bmw sedans ar considered the benchmark for handling and driver feedback and enjoyment, so i don't follow how they would be lesser than "real cars". is MB=mercedes benz ?? "Also, all M BMs are known to have very poor brakes, but again, on a 0-400 ft race, who cares, eh ? And on a track FADE is an issue very quickly." really, have never read that, please elaborate.
Henry, you wrote, "here me intrepretation:" in post #105 I am confused to what that meant. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
firstly, we all know the M5 would spank the Qp on a strait and in most situations, secondly the advantage for the QP is small, so it dosnt kill it around the track. BHP and torque dont make the fastest laps, it could just be that the QP is extremely balanced and has wonderful turn it and on a smaller circuit it could have an advantage over the M5.
Next , you should drive a BM, you deserve it. Again, why does R&T et al. (did you get that, means and similar magazines !) quote that you have to gently (means take care) bring the engine to 4000 rpm (you know, rotations per minute) before sliping the clutch ?Eh ? Are you really so stupid to think even a Mustang brings 100 % of its full power down the road in 1st gear ? Hopefully not, otherwise, please don't reply, i'll see it as an insult. Porches ain't an exception, otherwise no car would have the engine in the back (central), as it's more complicated to cool down, and all cars would have 99 % of the weight in the front. BMWs are indeed considered as benchmark compared to crap in handling terms. Mercedes, Buick anyone....come one ! But again, they can't compete with real sports cars. No of course MB is not Mercedes Benz, but My Brain is gone....or Me Bored FYI, my grand uncle used to race benz before WWI and directed FPorsche during WWII... If you never heard that M tech BMS have poor brakes, first get a drive, second, read what is written in all MAGS testing cars round the 'ring as you asked for it (like Sport Auto, but it's german, and since you have trouble reading english, forget about foreign stuff) Frankly, the funny thing with forums is that they're like airplanes, you end up talking to people that you wouldn't even consider worth otherwise. My mistake and my apologies.
That's exactly the point, thank you. For sure the M5 eats the QP alive on a straight, but the car is indeed extremely well balanced.
Like I said before, I have never raced any of them...I am only going by the stats as published in several car magazine tests...Plus, I've driven all four of those cars, a QP, Mustang, M5 and Maser coupe and the perception is the M5 and Mustang are faster...and, with a road car, perception is what counts anyway...how many of those four cars have you driven?
HP and TQ actually do make for faster laps. I don't know what planet you live on. The M5 is also lighter and probably has a more aggressive suspension. Only on FerrariChat.com could you ever find people suggesting that BMWs lack handling or balance. ****, these cars are famous for having great handling and feel. Its their trademark. This is the first test where I've seen the QP be faster than anything in its class.
then you have a real problem. dropping an " 's my" is a far cry from the what was posted. nice try on being cute.
sure they are crucial, so according to you a MB E55 AMG should kill a Lotus ELise on the track, so much more powerful and torquey.
ur using magazines as an example, and stating that a stang convertible is faster than ur M5, do u see the credibility in your words?
