Comments

New Tesla Model S Stuns 2013 BMW M5 in 100mph – 160km/h Drag Race

|

Just like cars powered by conventional, internal combustion engines (ICE), electric vehicles or EVs have their pros and cons.

While most people wouldn't consider speed as a strong point of electric cars, truth is, under certain circumstances and depending, of course, on the setup and several other factors, EVs can better their ICE counterparts, one reason being that electric motors produce all of their torque instantly.

The people at Automobile magazine wanted to see what one of the fastest production EVs today, the Tesla Models S, could do against one of Germany's finest gasoline engine-powered sports saloons, the 2013 BMW M5, in a 0-100mph (160km/h) run on the drag strip.

The battery-operated Tesla Model S Signature Performance edition makes do with a rear-mounted electric motor rated for 416hp and 443 lb-ft (600Nm) of torque, while the BMW M5 is fitted with a twin-turbocharged 4.4-liter V8 engine delivering 560-horses and 500 lb-ft (677Nm) of torque

The magazine says the M5 used in the test carried a sticker price of $106,695 (after destination) and tipped the scales at 4,387 lbs (1,989kg), while the Model S was priced at $102,270 and weighed in at 4,640 lbs (2,105 kg).

Watch the run in the video that follows right past the break.

Story References: Auomobile via Autoblog.com


VIDEO


31 Comments:

Bob said... »October 10, 2012

the m5 keeps getting worse and worse each iteration :(

Jim Wile said... »October 10, 2012

Welcome to the brave new world of ETorque!

M.L. Lapid said... »October 10, 2012

^ Since which M5? Just curious...

Asdsda said... »October 10, 2012

Hah, Bmw got owned)))) USA USA USA

aaronbbrown said... »October 10, 2012

 Were just at the beginning of electric car dominance in the performance car market. The internal combustion engine will become obsolete for everything but the very highest top speed vehicles. And even they will lose their dominance in that area, once the ability to transmit electrical energy remotely becomes a reality. At that point electric motors will have a virtually unlimited supply of energy which can be transmitted to a moving vehicle, which will mean no more need for recharging, and perhaps even the necessity of a battery will go away at some point.  An onboard battery will only be included as a backup measure should transmission fail. This technology may be some way off but once it becomes a reality people will look at gas piston engines much the same way we look at steam engines now, simply a relic of the past.

Sparky said... »October 10, 2012

The world is (finally) changing.

Jurdo said... »October 10, 2012

That makes no sense. This is a bullshit review. Looking at the specs and then you know that the result isn't possible. Even if the Tesla got off the line quicker, the M5 has 140 more HP and has 60 more lb-ft of torque and it weighs less and would easily catch it. 

Bob said... »October 10, 2012

since the e39 model (1998-2003)

JCK said... »October 10, 2012

Why mention the 300 mile range of the Tesla when the M5 will not go that far on a single tank of gas?

Benz said... »October 10, 2012

I think that in the future all vehicles will get 0-100 mph under 1 sec and have electric engines size of iPhone 5 sim card.  http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/mbformulazero2.jpg http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/mbformulazero1.jpg http://www.yosax.com/car_pictures/mercedes-benz_formula_zero_top.jpg

Hugh Jorgan said... »October 10, 2012

Right....and it takes 5 minutes to fill it up again.  You put a lot of thought into your statement.

Spamism said... »October 10, 2012

I agree with you, but not with your arrogant beard.

Samuel H. said... »October 10, 2012

I takes the Tesla 30 min. to get about 150-180 miles of range for free using solar energy. The BMW, though it takes about 5 min. to gas up, costs $75. The Tesla is quicker, far more efficient, more spacious, more useful, and simply cooler. All in all, its a better car. Period.

The Tesla only needs to recharge when taking a trip, which is not very often. With the Tesla, you never have to go anywhere just to charge up your vehicle. Plug it in and go inside. When you come back to it in the morning, its full again. In reality it takes 30 sec. to charge up a Tesla, 10 sec. to plug in, and 20 sec. to remove and stow the cable.

Hugh Jorgan said... »October 10, 2012

62 MILES PER HOUR OF CHARGE. Bullshit does not baffle brains unless you're talking to an American.

Thomas Fisher said... »October 10, 2012

You obviously haven't looked at the specs.  The M5 with the DCT and using launch control is only 0.2 seconds faster 0-60 than the Model S (3.7 seconds vs 3.9).  With an imperfect launch (which is common) you are already are quite a bit slower than the Model S at speeds of less than ~80mph. 

With a perfect launch you are marginally faster (from launch), but the launch control on the M5 is a pain to operate and takes time from the moment someone says "go". 

Also, part of the problem with the "specs" you failed to look up is that the time measurements are from the moment the car starts moving.  That's a real problem because the Model S has direct drive and moves instantly when you stab the throttle without a need to operate a special launch sequence.

Most of the delay you see at launch on the bimmer is because the driver needs to press up on the paddle and then floor the car AFTER someone says go.  If you anticipate and push the paddle too soon it drops out and launch control fails.  The "specs" capture none of that delay.

If you correctly anticipate the go command and operate the launch sequence perfectly you are very, very slightly quicker than the Model S, and in the case of this test the bimmer managed to do just that 1 out of 3 times.

As to your "point" about the M5 having more torque (which is the only number that matters for this), it isn't a huge advantage, and it only reaches it's peak in a relatively narrow band compared to the Model S.  And it is generating zero torque while shifting gears (which it has to do several times).  On average it is putting less power to the wheels at these speeds which is why the Model S pulls away from the M5 until the M5 gets into a higher gear and can actually put out its maximum power.

Thomas Fisher said... »October 10, 2012

 You get 62 miles per hour of charge at home using the HPWC.  Using a SuperCharger it's 150 miles per half hour.

Jurdo said... »October 11, 2012

I love how you didn't even address the fact that the M5 has 140 more HP. You can try the test yourself and see what happens. And also in this video, the M5 didn't use launch control as you can see due to the immense amount of wheel spin. I'll give you the fact that the torque in the Tesla is available at all rev ranges but had the M5 used launch control, it would have been completely different.

Nice try though.

guest anyway said... »October 11, 2012

although Tesla is superb, there is also the sound factor.
sound of M5 deserves some applause imho.

Hugh Jorgan said... »October 11, 2012

If there is one near by......don't buy the stock.

The translation of Tesla is "anxiety".

Samuel H. said... »October 11, 2012

The BMW M5 is now has noise enhancement capabilities. That sound that you're hearing is in part piped through the speakers. In the car, it is necessary to have the sound system on. Otherwise, you will not hear that awesome sound. The sound factor of the Tesla is like that of a jet turbine spooling up; quite futuristic and awesome.

Future Tesla app for sound. Options: Corvette Z06, Ferrari f430, Porsche 911 Turbo, Tie-fighter, Millennium Falcon, Shelby Mustang, Harley Davidson. Volkswagen Bug, Audi R8, etc.

SB said... »October 11, 2012

yoo you don't know how to lunch an M power 

Brian said... »October 11, 2012

That 140 hp means nothing if you can put that all down to its advantage which, it cant do until it reaches a higher speed. High power electric motors will devour an ICE even with dual clutch transmissions nearly every time. 

Osito said... »October 12, 2012

wow

Stefan said... »October 12, 2012

I just want to ask this web page two questions. Why didn't you use launch control on M5? Why did Model S went first of the line? Thank you for your time. 

Adafaafaf said... »October 12, 2012

oh you poor child

Grijze Pilion said... »October 12, 2012

Tesla FTW! By the way, stop talking about the M5. The Tesla makes any sound you want.

Samuel H. said... »October 12, 2012

Tesla plans to blanket the entire US in the next few years, and they can because they are relatively inexpensive to manufacture and install. Because deliveries are slow, when the majority of Tesla owners receive their cars, there will be Superchargers available.

The fact remains that the BMW M5 lost 2 out of 3 times, and in the real world, responds too slowly to compete with the Tesla Model S Performance.

The translation of Tesla is "electric awesomeness".

Samuel H. said... »October 12, 2012

 Read Thomas Fisher's reply above.

Samuel H. said... »October 12, 2012

 Looks like it's powered by a rocket or a jet engine. (or a warp drive unit)

Lastren said... »October 12, 2012

This M5 had a 6 speed transmission it was not DCT so launch control is not possible. Additionally, DCT is at least a half second + faster than 6 speed.

One other thing to note and telsa fails to mention, is that the performance numbers require you to be at 100 percent charge...after A few runs we experienced much much slower times upwards of 2 seconds slower!!

Gill Stermstein said... »October 15, 2012

 When Motortrend tested it, their car still got a 0-60 in 4.6 sec. after the sixth run. That is clearly not the 2 sec. you claim.

Post a Comment