Unless you've owned both, you can't really comment on either.
I've owned both, now driving the M6. At 507bhp, while lacking the low end torque of a 911, it will still eviscerate a turbo 996 on open road; as well as many Ferrari's, Lambos, etc.
The 997 is a different story though.
I dunno, the 911 is a lot lighter than the lard barge M6/M5 (not e39), and has a better power-weight. I can't truly pass full judgement as I've never driven either car as yet, but I can say the 911 turbo is very fast and an M5/M6 are quick, but not 911 turbo quick.
Look up the full specs on the net for 996 turbo and M5/M6, and see the difference; the M cars have huge power and torque, but are very heavy.
To the poster of the review: Since when is even the latest M5 or M6 faster than a 996 Turbo? I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the phrase "turbo lag" in the same sentence as the word Porsche. The turbo will leave an M5 or M6 for dead in braking, acceleration, and cornering. Whoever or wherever you got your information from is lying to you, I'm sorry to say. Milliseconds are an eternity in racing, and the Turbo is at least 6 of them quicker than your Godly M series cars in the sprint.
Faster than Ferraris and Lamborghinis? What Ferraris and Lamborghinis? The 348 and the Countach? Well, yes then you're correct. Anything newer, and you better not be doing pink slips, because you'll go home in tears. 360 Modena, you're dead. 550, It'll be close. Diablo, you're toast. Murcielago, you're burnt toast. Gallardo... well you get the point.
I'm sorry but you had to be put in your place. I won't read false claims and not argue.
Guys, if you want power and handling, do up a Chev motor.
I have the corvette 6.0 litre motor fully worked inside and out as well as the whole car and I have ceramic brakes.
It will leave a Ferrari Enzo for dead. The Ferrari pulls 11.2sec in the 1/4 mile.
Mine pulls 9.8 sec on street tyres too.
Handling? Of course not as good but the braking, yes.
It is a very similar setup to the Ferrari, but mine are slightly larger I think (brakes)
If I was to purchase an expensive car I would definitely get the BMW M6, but with the new gear box that is coming out in 2009.
Is the 911 turbo in question from the mid-seventies? Or is it a newer one behind you at a red light on a one-lane road?
As the proud owner of a 996 Turbo X50, I have to say you are misguided. There is no way an M5 will beat this car in any situation. How do I know? I also own both the V8 M5 and later V10 as well. They are both incredibly fast cars, and I love them to pieces - the V8 is still may favourite of the two, as I like the traditional manual box, and 6 gears are more than enough (even though I crap myself every time I do a full bore start with horror thoughts of clutch costs!!).
The V10 is epic - launch control is ace, and it's a techno show piece. With time it also does look pretty good too.
But the 911 is a sports car, not a very fast saloon car. Mine is a tiptronic, but floor it from a standing start (so it kicks down to 1st gear rather than pulling away in 2nd like in normal driving), and after a millisecond for the turbos to spool, this thing goes into warp speed - I have done sub 4 seconds in this thing to 60. The M5 V10 I have had 4.4 seconds. The V8 5 seconds. As one of the comments says on here, tenths and hundredths count when you are pissing with the big dogs in the tall weeds - enjoy your car, but also be realistic.
By the way, I also have an E38 740 Sport - this car beats the lot in terms of driving enjoyment, so it's not all about 0-60 times...
I've driven an M5 (V8), owned an E46 M3, and currently own a 996TT X50. Unless this guy has dropped $40k+ on forced induction and tuned his M5 to within an inch of grenading...
It will be a cold day in hell when a 996TT under WOT will eat an M5's dust. You can't even compare them.
I've also driven an F430, Maserati Coupe, the E92 M3, etc.
NONE would present a challenge for the 996 turbo, except for the F430, but that car is all horsepower, no torque. Even then, the turbo is noticeably quicker.
Anyone who has driven the above cars (particularly 996TT vs M5) will concur.
I couldn't agree with you more mate, well stated. However I went in a E60 M5, and gosh, what a machine! I just hung on for dear life! That car doesn't just go, it darts!
Well done BMW!
Came here to get some background on the E60 M5 I'm considering, so thanks for the great review. The M5 is an awesome machine, and as a 996 Turbo owner I'm not calling you a liar, but would say that either the other driver was a newbie (e.g. didn't kick a Tiptronic down fast enough for feral mode to engage), or maybe one of the boost pipes was leaking.
That said, the 996T eats almost anything off the line with its AWD, but wind resistance becomes more important than weight as speeds increase, so the performances will be pretty close between 120 kph and 250kph, after which the Porsche will run past 300, while the M5 hits the 250/255 governor.
My daily driver is an e38 750iL, so I share the appreciation for the e38s too - finding it real hard to shortlist a replacement.
Here in Europe, most who buy an M5 will chip the car to increase horsepower, but also to remove the limiter. Research it on the net, and you'll see plenty of videos of M5s doing 330 kmh on the autobahn! The 'only' Porsche that can match that is the GT or GT2. Other 911s may get to 300 kmh first, but will soon see the tail lights of an M5 ;)
Sorry but you are completely wrong. M5 V10 is epic, but it's a big fat fast saloon. I love mine, but my X50 (Turbo S) is miles faster and corners flat. And to say most European owners will chip their cars is simply not true. I would never consider modifying my M5, it's complicated enough (I recently paid over 3000 euros for a new clutch and DMF). From the tone of your message, I doubt you have ever driven a 911TT.
As a comparison I would say:
Acceleration - 911TT all the way.
Comfort - M5 any day.
Gizmos - M5.
Road presence - 911TT.
Cornering - 911TT by a country mile.
Noise - M5.
Longevity - 911TT by miles.
Depreciation - M5 by miles and miles and miles (the 911TT is now appreciating in S/X50 guise).
Running costs - equal.
Looks - 911TT.
Attention from public - 911TT.
I don't understand the term bottle. What does that mean?
Bottle in this context means courage. It's an informal British expression.
See this BBC page for more background: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/uptodate/2010/11/101123_kyeutd_bottle_bottler_page.shtml
In America it means a shot of Nitrous from the trunk. Or booze!
Add another comment
Note: A Comments RSS Feed is available. New comments appear in the Members Area before the main site
Copyright 1997 - 2014 CSDO Media Limited Advertise on this site