12th Jan 2006, 14:00
The subaru impreza WR1 will do 0-60 in 4.2 limited to 155 and the lancer FQ 400 will do it in 3.5 seconds on to 177 mph.
9th Feb 2006, 20:34
Just for your information the Lotus Carlton is slower than a E39 M5 at 177mph and 377BHP. I know a E39 M5 will reach an exceed 180Mhp EU version with 400BHP. I don't know about the US version.
Second of all. Every couple of years some new car will be last years. Now we have the E60 M5 with 507BHP, and various others. The guy was clearly talking about the M% being the fastest at that time.
16th Mar 2006, 23:58
All very very fast cars. I've owned an M5 and a Lotus Carlton. Sold them both, then bought a Sierra Sapphire Cosworth 4x4, that had been tuned by a]Andy Rouse and churned out 576bhp. Great fun when you're next to 150,000 pound super cars and eat them for breakfast.
20th Apr 2006, 10:11
We're talking about the M5, right?
It may or may not be the fastest, but with all the great safety and security systems it beats out most everything else.
21st Apr 2006, 09:52
I'm about to buy a used M5 with 60K on the clock from a BMW dealer. It's good to read the reviews, but the build quality issue scares me a bit now. Guess I better ensure it has a full extended BMW warranty.
22nd Apr 2006, 11:36
Early E39 M5 had engine problems so make sure you get one with the replaced, newer engine. The old engines also drank oil like crazy.
16th May 2006, 11:54
Id rather have the lambo too, but speed was the issue, and what other cars are capable of.
2nd Aug 2006, 05:00
To solve this all: the E60 M5 (2005-onward) is the fastest saloon car/sedan on the planet. This is to do, in part, the fact that the 5.0 Ltr 507 bhp V-10 does not red-line until 8200.
13th Jan 2007, 13:32
There is nothing stopping you exceeding the out of date 70 MPH speed limit 95% of the time, so cars like this are very relevant. If anyone wags the finger, tell them where to go!
14th Jan 2007, 09:36
Yes, the only irrelevant thing these days is that BMW, Mercedes, and the rest are adding horsepower with really no added value. The $200K (loaded) S65 goes 0 - 60.1 second faster than the much cheaper S600 and even S550. So why do you need an engine that churns out over 600 hp? Torque is amazing, but you can get that in lesser engines as well.
The new Viper is 600 hp now, as will be the new "super" Corvette. But, again, their 0 - 60 times and overall performance aren't that much different than their lesser-engined siblings.
I just don't see the point. These cars still aren't in superbike territory (0 - 60 in two seconds), so why pay more for incremental benefits?
18th Jan 2007, 16:02
Bikes? No thanks, just not very cool are they? Sat on your own, do a wheely! I'm just saying who cares about the speed limit unless they´re gonna physically stop you.
23rd Feb 2007, 12:39
I didn't realise a review about an M5 would cause such a debate! I'm looking for info on the car I'm thinking about buying not a feud about which car is faster! Early engine trouble concerns me as I was looking at an early model.
23rd Feb 2007, 13:47
When you start talking about cars of this caliber it really comes down to personal choice, and even reliability does not necessarily apply (just look at the Ferrari following).
It does get to be silly. I mean, Mercedes is coming out with $200K AMG vehicles that really only go 0 - 60 about.01 second faster than their "regular models". So, once again, it comes down to personal taste since there is really no justification for paying nearly double for such incremental performance.
4th Apr 2007, 10:15
Audi and Mercedes are closing in?
Living the monster of '2003 Brabus S V12, 570 bhp' to the side, there are plenty of other Mercs better than the M5.
9th Apr 2007, 00:16
I am about to pick up a 99 M5 from Germany, I have had friends with this model and nothing, but praise.
Blistering speed with the handling to cope with it all, and unlike some other people posting, I do not live on a drag track, so other factors come into my decision.
There are web sites you can look at which will give advice and things to look out for at different ages of car, I found it helpful.
7th Sep 2007, 18:34
My 99 M5 runs perfectly with no engine problems as I am reading around, could be the odd case and most probably due to the way each owner treats the engine on those foot down blasts with cold engine.. I do identify some problems with the computer dashboard reading misfunction.
15th Nov 2010, 02:07
The M5 is an absolutely fantastic car. The e34 is probably my favorite, but the e39 is amazing as well.
The key with BMWs is preventative maintenance. The first 2 years for the e39 (99/00) had quite a few issues with the engines and the like, but by 01 they had most of them worked out, so I'd recommend going for an 01-03 car. These things are an absolute joy to drive. But rather spendy to fix when something does break. If you're looking for a good blend of reliability and relative low cost of maintenance, then go for an e34. Slightly slower, but the s38 engine is bulletproof.
24th Mar 2011, 21:50
Yeah but by the time them turbo cracker jack toys kick in, the M5 is gone, and Mercedes AMG are for people who don't know how to work a gearbox.
22nd Aug 2014, 04:54
Very obviously, yes, people care about these things. While we don't all get about at 160 mph all the time, the feel at 70 mph of a car that can pull 180 mph is a whole different thing to the feel in a car that's gasping at 120 mph.
We could ask, who cares which runner can win the 100 sprint at the Olympics? The fact is most do, even if they can't fully articulate or understand why they care so much. How did people in your country feel when one of your runners last took gold, by a mere fraction of a second, at the Olympics?
But for those to whom it matters not how different cars perform, I'd suggest a good 1.6 litre diesel hatch would be fine. No need to waste your money on cream if skim milk will do.