Model S Performance vs BMW M5

[Discoducky]

The Norway store needs to put this post in their window; Best first post ever!

This thread is funny... Here in Norway things are a bit different. M5 is a unthinkable expensive car to buy...

Model S is actually cheap to buy... With its starting price of $57k there is no other car with comparable horse power even near that price... Compared to a similar size sedan, starting prices is about $30k less for the Model S.

Starting price on a BMW 5 series with 184hk, manual transmission, cheap upholstery and no options at all is $84k plus registration.

I compare a Model S with a BMW M5 and $100k does not even pay off the taxes on a M5 in Norway... If I would want to buy a M5 I would have to pay $160k just in taxes... And that is before options, so to compare, I would get the Model S for free and pay $60k less in taxes.

Starting price on a BMW M5 is NOK 1 825 200,- thats almost $300 000,-

So a M5 is 3x Model S Signature Performance with all options. And thats before the real fun begins.

Fuel prices:
Gasoline NOK 15 pr. liter ($9,30 pr. Gallon)
85kwh NOK 50 ($8,20 full tank)

Tollroads:
Driving a small car (less than 3,5 tons) between 2 major cities is horrible expensive. Round NOK 1000 each way ($164).
Since all roads are tollroads... You have to pay. Here they make new roads and toll up all the old ones so that you have to pay the toll no matter what road you use...

Driving to work for me is 2 tolls. Total NOK 56 ($9.17)

Model S is electric and all toll roads, bridges and ferries are free to use for electric cars.

Bus/Taxi lanes:
We have bus/taxi lanes that all electric cars can drive in. Saves me 45minutes in the rush traffic.

Road Tax:
ICE car $472/year
Model S $65/year

Parking:
Parking is free (exept commercial actors)
Charging your electric car where the parking space has a charging spot is free.
Most charging stations are free
There is a network of charging stations all over the country.

Taxes:
No taxes when you buy it, no VAT either.
Emission free = no emission taxes.

If you drive it to work, you get double the amount pr KM in tax reduction. And if your company bought it for you, the income tax is 50% less than the tax on a ICE car.

In other words... Here in Norway you have to be stupid NOT to buy one And the neighbors will say (WY DID HE GET IT BEFORE ME!!!).

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

I just edited the intro-post to this thread to reflect current data about Model S Performance vs 2013 BMW M5. When I first started the thread we only had a Car and Driver review of M5 and nothing for Model S. Now we have more M5 reviews and a couple of track tests for MSP.

From the beginning this thread was written under the assumption that M5 was substantially faster 0-60 thanks to its launch control, because the only data we had was a Tesla reported 4.4 0-60 and a Car and Driver reported 3.7 for M5. I also made the case that MSP was likely quicker in rolling acceleration, and presented the little data we had (i.e. C&D's measured 4.6 5-60) along with an understanding of how electric drivetrains have an advantage to make that case.

But it turns out that MSP is basically just as fast as M5 even when launching. The Car and Driver methodology uses a bastardized calculation to approximate a 12" rollout, as most major car mags do. Since every American manufacturer self reports using a 12" rollout it seemed fair to compare the 4.4 against the 3.7 and just fall back on the fact that MSP likely performs better when rolling.

However, it turns out that Tesla reported a true 0-60 time and Edmunds tests show that MSP does 0-60 in 4.3 vs 4.1 for 2013 M5 with DCT. Furthermore, Edmunds tested M5 with a manual transmission and got a 4.3 0-60. So there isn't a huge difference between the initial acceleration of M5 and MSP even when utilizing launch control. This is even more of an issue when you consider that the M5 reported measurement is adjusted for temperature and altitude to reflect ideal conditions at sea level.

In real life, when you are not at sea level or at the ideal temperature, M5 does not go as fast as advertised. MSP's number does not get this adjustment (because it doesn't breath air) and will not have nearly the variation in performance that an air breathing ICE does. This makes it look equal to, or slightly slower than M5 with its published numbers, but in a head to head race MSP will have an advantage because its all about who reaches the finish line first, not weather adjusted tuning times.

And it still looks extremely likely that MSP is a much quicker car when you start to accelerate while rolling. MotorTrend actually wrote that MSP is likely the quickest sedan in the world when you factor in rolling acceleration.

The more I think about it, the more impressive it is. Model S is one of the best performance sedans in the world. Period, full stop.

It also is nearly as efficient as cars like the Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf, while having decent range and the ability to perform roadtrips. Oh, and it's cheaper than the 2013 BMW M5, and will cost tens of thousands less to operate over the life of the car.

It really is revolutionary.

 

[PV4EV]

In real life ...

... It really is revolutionary.

Amen to that

 

[chrisn]

@CapOpp: Speaking as someone who is only a few hours away from hopping on a flight to Munich to grab an F10 M5, I have to agree that, based on available data, the MSP and M5 seem roughly on par at any speed below "Go to Jail; Do not pass go" speeds. I still maintain, however, that while the MSP will always get the jump, ultimate victory will depend entirely on the length of the race (assuming M5 driver has car in performance mode prior to mashing go pedal). We know it takes the M5 less than 1/4 mile to catch up from the dig. Could be a toss up from 5mph roll to 1/4 mile, but any freeway encounter lasting more than 5-10 seconds will be tough for the MSP.

And, of course, as you get into "felony" territory, I think the M5 will widen its lead at an ever increasing pace.

In any case, it seems we're in the zone where the MSP has earned it position among the fastest production sedans ever.

 

[60TTuC]

M5 can not compete with MSP in rain and snow, due to MSP's superior traction ( better weight distribution and precision of electrical motor). It can not compete with MSP at height ( ICE lose performance in rarefied air). So basically it's on par or better than MSP only in perfect condition for M5. In real world driving MPS beats M5 hands down due to instant motor response and being always in right gear ( M5 it's always in wrong gear, when cruising, to deliver tested performance). Both cars are so powerfull that can deliver maximum performance only for short time before getting into felony or should we say, outside freeeways, suicide teritory. So in real world we'll see there performance only in short bursts and here MSP is superior. It must also be said that M5 delivers track performance only in sport mode which is way more uncomfortable than standarde mode.

 

[chrisn]

Be careful. FI cars, especially turbos, are less susceptible to power loss at altitude. The turbos will just spin a bit faster to pump in the same "post boost" amount of air into the cylinders. I suppose at some point they would not be able to spin fast enough, but in general you're fine. Compared to the old E60 (NA) car, your point is valid. Given the lower drag at altitude (and the M5s lower weight and higher power), it is not clear at all who would gain the edge at altitude-- although in theory the turbo lag for M5 would be worse because it will take a split second longer to get to full boost (but not when using launch control, since turbos are pre-loaded).

In terms of rain/snow stability, there are many many factors in that equation. I would wait for test results before announcing your conclusions on that front. I will note, however, that mass is not your friend when driving in very low traction environments.

 

[mnx]

Thanks for bringing some much needed balance to the thread chrisn!

Be careful. FI cars, especially turbos, are less susceptible to power loss at altitude. The turbos will just spin a bit faster to pump in the same "post boost" amount of air into the cylinders. I suppose at some point they would not be able to spin fast enough, but in general you're fine. Compared to the old E60 (NA) car, your point is valid. Given the lower drag at altitude (and the M5s lower weight and higher power), it is not clear at all who would gain the edge at altitude-- although in theory the turbo lag for M5 would be worse because it will take a split second longer to get to full boost (but not when using launch control, since turbos are pre-loaded).

In terms of rain/snow stability, there are many many factors in that equation. I would wait for test results before announcing your conclusions on that front. I will note, however, that mass is not your friend when driving in very low traction environments.

 

[Lloyd]

Be careful. FI cars, especially turbos, are less susceptible to power loss at altitude. The turbos will just spin a bit faster to pump in the same "post boost" amount of air into the cylinders. I suppose at some point they would not be able to spin fast enough, but in general you're fine. Compared to the old E60 (NA) car, your point is valid. Given the lower drag at altitude (and the M5s lower weight and higher power), it is not clear at all who would gain the edge at altitude-- although in theory the turbo lag for M5 would be worse because it will take a split second longer to get to full boost (but not when using launch control, since turbos are pre-loaded).

In terms of rain/snow stability, there are many many factors in that equation. I would wait for test results before announcing your conclusions on that front. I will note, however, that mass is not your friend when driving in very low traction environments.

Actually Turbos at high altitude spin faster to deliver the same mass of air to the engine. At extreme altitudes the problem becomes enough air and oil flow to properly cool the turbocharger. From aviation.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Be careful. FI cars, especially turbos, are less susceptible to power loss at altitude. The turbos will just spin a bit faster to pump in the same "post boost" amount of air into the cylinders. I suppose at some point they would not be able to spin fast enough, but in general you're fine. Compared to the old E60 (NA) car, your point is valid. Given the lower drag at altitude (and the M5s lower weight and higher power), it is not clear at all who would gain the edge at altitude-- although in theory the turbo lag for M5 would be worse because it will take a split second longer to get to full boost (but not when using launch control, since turbos are pre-loaded).

In terms of rain/snow stability, there are many many factors in that equation. I would wait for test results before announcing your conclusions on that front. I will note, however, that mass is not your friend when driving in very low traction environments.

The fact that a modern turbo makes it's own atmosphere is meaningless when comparing results from automobile magazines which apply a correction. MotorTrend accounts for a modern turbo by making half of their typical correction. It's still a modified number. Car and Driver and others also perform weather corrections, and in the case of Car and Driver at least they say nothing about adjusting their calculations because a car is a turbo. They report it as if its a naturally aspirated vehicle.

In theory, Car and Driver could get worse results because they are in Michigan (where it can be cold, which would adjust the car to look slower) but most automakers release the next model year during the summer when test adjustments will tend to be biased downwards and look better in print.

Testing, Testing -- The Motor Trend Way - Features - Motor Trend

Turbos now receive half the usual weather correction, as the turbo with blow-off valve naturally compensates for barometric pressure.

 

[chrisn]

MotorTrend accounts for a modern turbo by making half of their typical correction. It's still a modified number.

Point well taken. I think a "half" adjustment is too generous to the turbo cars. Another reason to conduct our own head to head testing ASAP. I'll let you all know if I spot any MSP's on the autobahn or Nurburgring next week. ;-) Otherwise check in with me in Late Oct.

 

[60TTuC]

Be careful. FI cars, especially turbos, are less susceptible to power loss at altitude. The turbos will just spin a bit faster to pump in the same "post boost" amount of air into the cylinders. I suppose at some point they would not be able to spin fast enough, but in general you're fine. Compared to the old E60 (NA) car, your point is valid. Given the lower drag at altitude (and the M5s lower weight and higher power), it is not clear at all who would gain the edge at altitude-- although in theory the turbo lag for M5 would be worse because it will take a split second longer to get to full boost (but not when using launch control, since turbos are pre-loaded).

In terms of rain/snow stability, there are many many factors in that equation. I would wait for test results before announcing your conclusions on that front. I will note, however, that mass is not your friend when driving in very low traction environments.

Turbos are less susceptible to height, but if I remember correctly, when F1 raced in Mexico City thay did have loss of performance ( a lot less than non turbos though).

There is no doubt that MSP has better traction in snow due to weight distribution.
About snow/rain stability: it's always better to have less mass, but that is also truth in dry. The question is how will M5's sport mode react in wet, because with out sport mode MPS is better performer.

 

[jerry33]

Actually Turbos at high altitude spin faster to deliver the same mass of air to the engine. At extreme altitudes the problem becomes enough air and oil flow to properly cool the turbocharger. From aviation.

If I'm driving an M5 at 7,000 M, I have more problems than cooling the turbocharger.:scared:

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

Point well taken. I think a "half" adjustment is too generous to the turbo cars. Another reason to conduct our own head to head testing ASAP. I'll let you all know if I spot any MSP's on the autobahn or Nurburgring next week. ;-) Otherwise check in with me in Late Oct.

Yes, when you get right down to it, thats the only way to settle it, and even then its never *REALLY* settled when cars are closely matched. Once you get down to a tenth of a second difference between cars it becomes almost an even money bet as to which will win anyways because you are well into the margin of error/natural variability factor.

Like I've said before, back in June when I first started comparing MSP to M5 I just assumed that M5 would dominate 0-60 and in drag races. I even posted the test methodologies for Edmunds and asserted that all of the major mags had similar robust testing methodologies. But over the past two months as I've drilled down into the testing methodologies of Car and Driver, MotorTrend and others I keep finding fudge factors that bias reported results downwards.

I've got a strong background in NHRA drag racing, and I fully understand all the adjustments that they do because they are originally from racing. But they really are meaningless in terms of 0-60 numbers and are workarounds that just aren't necessary when you have super accurate accelerometers. If there was any integrity to the system they would publish the raw data somewhere along with actual track conditions and a transparent presentation of their calculations.

Instead they obscure everything and when you look at the adjustments they are doing they almost always tend to bias results towards faster times. Magazines have an economic interest in convincing readers that they have the most skilled test drivers, and the way you do that is by reporting faster times than anyone else.

So after wading through the muck, and getting some similarly mucky results from MSP (though without weather massaging!) it all looks too close to call to me for anything under ~100mph and a 1/4 mile when comparing raw data. So I just fall back on my understanding of their drivetrains and feel confident in saying that MSP is "quicker" while M5 is "faster", and that anywhere other than a racetrack or an Autobahn "quicker" will generally win.

 

[DrTaras]

Worlds FASTEST Car... period?

I'd like to propose a new mark... a new standard for all other auto manufacturers to reach for and that the Tesla Model S currently owns (unless you can prove me otherwise)...
ZERO TO SIXTY (0-60 MPH) PER PERSON QUOTIENT (Z260-PPQ)! :love:

The Tesla Model S can seat 7 people...
Divide the 0-60 time of 4.4 (or 3.9 as seen in the recent Motor Trend Article: World Exclusive! Tesla Model S Test and Range Verification - Motor Trend) by the number of people it can potentially carry and you have the Z260-PPQ! Tesla Model S' Z260-PPQ is 0.62 (advertised) or 0.56 (per Motor Trend)!

Now you can come up with a better name, figure out how many decimal places it should go out to or you can complain that the cars won't get tested with all those passengers in them, but complain as you will, this does not change the fact that the Tesla Model S can transport more occupants to 60 from 0, faster than ANY OTHER car in the world! ... Discuss! :tongue:

 

[vfx]

I'd like to propose a new mark... a new standard for all other auto manufacturers to reach for and that the Tesla Model S currently owns (unless you can prove me otherwise)...
ZERO TO SIXTY (0-60 MPH) PER PERSON QUOTIENT (Z260-PPQ)! :love:

The Tesla Model S can seat 7 people...
Divide the 0-60 time of 4.4 (or 3.9 as seen in the recent Motor Trend Article: World Exclusive! Tesla Model S Test and Range Verification - Motor Trend) by the number of people it can potentially carry and you have the Z260-PPQ! Tesla Model S' Z260-PPQ is 0.62 (advertised) or 0.56 (per Motor Trend)!

Now you can come up with a better name, figure out how many decimal places it should go out to or you can complain that the cars won't get tested with all those passengers in them, but complain as you will, this does not change the fact that the Tesla Model S can transport more occupants to 60 from 0, faster than ANY OTHER car in the world! ... Discuss! :tongue:

Looks like this idea might be related to here:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ology-Measurements-and?highlight=measurements

 

[brianman]

The Tesla Model S can seat 7 people...

It seats "5+2" with an nod that the "+2" means "limited to small children". That's not really 7.

It might be fair to call it 6, with the 6th adult in the fetal position.

 

[jkirkebo]

I'd like to propose a new mark... a new standard for all other auto manufacturers to reach for and that the Tesla Model S currently owns (unless you can prove me otherwise)...
ZERO TO SIXTY (0-60 MPH) PER PERSON QUOTIENT (Z260-PPQ)! :love:

A bus would beat you...
Also the trains I drive at work would. 0-60 in like 30 seconds, but seats 600

 

[JRod0802]

The Tesla Model S can seat 7 people...
Divide the 0-60 time of 4.4 (or 3.9 as seen in the recent Motor Trend Article: World Exclusive! Tesla Model S Test and Range Verification - Motor Trend) by the number of people it can potentially carry and you have the Z260-PPQ! Tesla Model S' Z260-PPQ is 0.62 (advertised) or 0.56 (per Motor Trend)!

With one person in the car, the car weighs about 4,800 lbs and does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. With 7 people in the car, the car weighs about 5,700 lbs. At that weight it probably takes it a little longer to reach 60.

 

[DrTaras]

It seats "5+2" with an nod that the "+2" means "limited to small children". That's not really 7.
It might be fair to call it 6, with the 6th adult in the fetal position.

7 "people" not 7 "adults"
No soup for you! :biggrin:

- - - Updated - - -

A bus would beat you...
Also the trains I drive at work would. 0-60 in like 30 seconds, but seats 600

Passenger Cars or Vehicles can get a definition such as found here http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d14_9/vc34710.htm
But I like the way you think. Keep the brain storming coming.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like this idea might be related to here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ology-Measurements-and?highlight=measurements

Gracias

- - - Updated - - -

With one person in the car, the car weighs about 4,800 lbs and does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds. With 7 people in the car, the car weighs about 5,700 lbs. At that weight it probably takes it a little longer to reach 60.

I think I beat you with my self-analysis here:

or you can complain that the cars won't get tested with all those passengers in them

IF you feel we can go back to the hundreds of cars that have been tested on a site like this www.zeroto60times.com and get them to put additional passengers in them, that would be great in a PERFECT world. :wink:

 

[GeogMan]

Blurry_eyed or not, thanks for placing this discussion in its proper historic context. Yes, the M5 ruled in the last century. Now it's the 21st Century and the Model S rules. The real "contest" is no longer between the ICE and V8. It's between Tesla and the rest of rest of the world.