2006 M45: 0 to 60 m.p.h. in 5.6 seconds YAY!!!!

[NJFXlover]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.

[RandyWatson]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.


The 545 is just as swift. The E500 is only a tick behind. Its barely faster than the current GS 430.
Being .1 second faster means nothing at all. Period. If you go to the track or sigh, street race, its all about the launch at that point.

Mind you the M45 has basically 35 more hp than a E500 or GS 430 and 10 more than a 545. So it should be faster. Right?

[222Max]

So where does this clock-speed come from? Who tested it?

A few things should be mentioned in this case. The BMW 545 achieves that speed through a manual transmission whereas the Infiniti gets that timing out of an auto. Unfortunately the M will not be available with a stick (only initially one hopes) but if it scoots to 60 in 5.6 with the auto imagine what it will do with the stir-stick.

The E is also fast and comes with a manual but the asking price for both the Germans is at or over 50 Gs. That's just a base car. By the time you Lux up you're staring at 55-60,000 Benjamins (Ouch!) for cars that may not have the reliability of the Japanese (the M and the GS). And while you don't necessarily get the prestige of the Bimmer you also don't get the controversial styling.

In the case of the M, Infiniti is banking on the same set of factors which have made the G35 a contender against the Europeans... handsome styling, excellent performance (often matching or surpassing the German competiors), superior reliability, and (potentially) class-leading resale value, all at a price which undercuts rivals. Taken all together that makes the M a VERY compelling ride.

[jrock65]

Apparently it's the Feb C&D. The impressive thing is 5.7s 5-60 mph street start, which is VERY good, and is akin to real world situations.

0 to 60 mph figures are always achieved with brake torquing.

Who brake torque's their $50k sedans in the real world?

Note that C&D tested the Bimmer (manual) being .1 seconds faster 0-60, but .3 seconds slower 5-60 on the street.

http://caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=8011&page_numb er=2

[Machination]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.



Take what? Um, 5.6 seconds is slower than the 545 auto's 5.3 in R&T and 5.4 in M/T.

Nice to see enthusiasm about Infiniti's new sedan, but it's all new, it still has to prove itself against its German rivals.

[Steve_L]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.



Take what? Um, 5.6 seconds is slower than the 545 auto's 5.3 in R&T and 5.4 in M/T.

Nice to see enthusiasm about Infiniti's new sedan, but it's all new, it still has to prove itself against its German rivals.



Different driver and different driving condition comparisons aren't as interesting as comparisons made by the same mag whereby there's a chance it was the same driver and same conditions.

[GroovinGTR]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.



Take what? Um, 5.6 seconds is slower than the 545 auto's 5.3 in R&T and 5.4 in M/T.

Nice to see enthusiasm about Infiniti's new sedan, but it's all new, it still has to prove itself against its German rivals.


There is NO way that a 545i auto did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. BMW's estimate is 5.8 and their auto estimates are usually spot on (their manual estimates are normally conservative.) If the auto did it in 5.3, the stick would do it around 5, thus encrouching on M5 territory.

[Machination]

There is NO way that a 545i auto did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. BMW's estimate is 5.8 and their auto estimates are usually spot on (their manual estimates are normally conservative.) If the auto did it in 5.3, the stick would do it around 5, thus encrouching on M5 territory.



So I guess R&T's equipment was a little off or maybe they ran them downhill when they managed 5.3 for both the 545 auto and the mechanically identical auto 645ci. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif

http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1234&page_numb er=3&preview=

BMW obviously nailed the gearing with both cars because the auto seems to run faster than the stick:
Manual 545-5.6 (C&D)
Manual 645 convertible-5.6 (C&D, M/T)
Auto 545-5.3, 5.4 (R&T, M/T)
Auto 645-5.3 (R&T, C&D)

[GroovinGTR]

There is NO way that a 545i auto did 0-60 in 5.3 seconds. BMW's estimate is 5.8 and their auto estimates are usually spot on (their manual estimates are normally conservative.) If the auto did it in 5.3, the stick would do it around 5, thus encrouching on M5 territory.



So I guess R&T's equipment was a little off or maybe they ran them downhill when they managed 5.3 for both the 545 auto and the mechanically identical auto 645ci. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif

http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=1234&page_numb er=3&preview=

BMW obviously nailed the gearing with both cars because the auto seems to run faster than the stick:
Manual 545-5.6 (C&D)
Manual 645 convertible-5.6 (C&D, M/T)
Auto 545-5.3, 5.4 (R&T, M/T)
Auto 645-5.3 (R&T, C&D)




Well I guess R&T engineers know better than BMW officials http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif R&T has gotten some ridiculous numbers in the past - I think they are the ones who got the 3.5 Altima manual doing 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.

[Machination]

Well I guess R&T engineers know better than BMW officials http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif



BMW is notoriously conservative with their 0-60 estimates. I guess they learned from a certain competitor that was laughed at when no magazine could get their new flagship to reproduce a 5.9 second run.

[GroovinGTR]

Well I guess R&T engineers know better than BMW officials http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif



BMW is notoriously conservative with their 0-60 estimates. I guess they learned from a certain competitor that was laughed at when no magazine could get their new flagship to reproduce a 5.9 second run.


BMW is notoriously conservative with their HP ratings, they have never really been all that conservative with 0-60 times.

[Machination]

Whatever. Just like R&T never got 5.3 huh. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif

[9000RPM]

I know from M3 experience that SMG is faster than the Manual versions so it wouldn't suprise me r/t and c&d got better time with SMG. Maybe BMW's 5.8 auto figure is for their 6 speed auto?

[biker]

It's funny to see people comment on issues of a car which 90+% of potential buyer don't give a rats a$$ about.

[222Max]

[quoteThe E is also fast and comes with a manual but the asking price for both the Germans is at or over 50 Gs. That's just a base car. By the time you Lux up you're staring at 55-60,000 Benjamins (Ouch!) for cars that may not have the reliability of the Japanese (the M and the GS). And while you don't necessarily get the prestige of the Bimmer you also don't get the controversial styling.

In the case of the M, Infiniti is banking on the same set of factors which have made the G35 a contender against the Europeans... handsome styling, excellent performance (often matching or surpassing the German competiors), superior reliability, and (potentially) class-leading resale value, all at a price which undercuts rivals. Taken all together that makes the M a VERY compelling ride.


[/QUOTE]

That's why I think these are the points which will factor in the M's success. It has some very, very tough competitors but so did the G. There are so many things about the M in which it is still too early to tell. 5.6 seconds to 60 is impressive no matter which world you live in but it's more about the total package. The beauty of the G is its overall balance as a sports sedan. We'll have to see if the M carries this forward for Infinti.

Autoweek's review ended this way

"To be sure, the new Infiniti M cars will make a much stronger impression than the M45 they replace. And in the meantime, the bar has been raised. In a market littered with 400-hp, even 500-hp sport-luxury sedans with a DVD player in every cupholder, this M must draw attention to its strength, the overall balance of the package. Can it? We wager they sell more than a few thousand copies of this."

[jrock65]

I'm pretty sure the R&T 5.3s was the manual.

[DrewSRX]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.



Where is this information coming from? Source?

[GroovinGTR]

I know from M3 experience that SMG is faster than the Manual versions so it wouldn't suprise me r/t and c&d got better time with SMG. Maybe BMW's 5.8 auto figure is for their 6 speed auto?

I had no idea we were talking about the SMG. Whoever the simpleton was who was quoting figures left that out. Yes the SMG is faster than a manual, so a 5.4 time for the SMG would be reasonable. Still R&T always seems to get the fastest numbers of any mag. We'll have to wait and see what numbers they get with the M45!

[gt_performah]

It's funny to see people comment on issues of a car which 90+% of potential buyer don't give a rats a$$ about.



I have to agree with you. I would very much like to see Infiniti out due BMW in any and every aspect but will potential buyers purchase a M45 over 5 series because it is 1 second faster or .8 seconds faster???? I really do not think so. I am happy about the numbers but this M will have to do much more to establish itself.

[Deadpool]

Take that MB E500 and BMW 545. Infiniti rocks. This to me is great news.



Where is this information coming from? Source?



This from another thread.


New issue of Car and Driver tested the new M45. They liked its smoothness, torquey, fast and refined ride. They disliked the ATM dashboard and limited space for center rear passenger. Verdict - a car that grows on you day by day.

Performance
0-60 of 5.6 seconds.
Qtr mile 14.2 at 101.
Top speed limited at 155.

The M45 out accelerated the Lincoln LS, Acura RL, and MB E320.
It also showed the best braking of the group, taking 165 feet to stop from 70-0.
2nd best roadholding at .86 G.
Worst fuel economy at 17 mpg city.
Highway rated at 23mpg.

"We drove the V-6 vmodel at the car's intro and found it to be a sweet piece. Then we drove the V-8 and all we can say now is : If you've got it, flaunt it."

[NJFXlover]

Sorry, I've been away, but the source that the information from was Car & Driver. And the reason I said take that, is because on MB's website they state the E500's 0 to 60 time as 5.9 seconds, so the M45 is quicker than the E500. And BMW's website states the 545's time as 5.8 seconds, for the automatic, but even the stick and the SMG are stated to be 5.7 seconds. Anyway enough about the other cars.

I would like to know something else. How in the world did Infiniti get the 2006 M45 to be faster than the current M45? I mean, the current one has about a 200 pound less curb weight, and the power is pretty much the same, the 2006 has 5 less horse power and 7 more lb-ft of torque. So how come the 2006 is so much quicker? Oh yeah, the current M45 does the 0 to 60 sprint in 6.1 seconds. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[222Max]

Gearing. The same thing that kept the 2002 Q45 from consistently getting the 5.9 0-60s claimed by Infiniti. Also the transmission in the new M may be slicker and more responsive than the one in the old M.

[Burginiti]

This is a very interesting thread...

As a soon to be 545i (auto) here are a few of the things I've been able to gather up.

My understanding is BMW tries to publish times any driver can achieve regardless of skill level. Oddly enough though I've noticed (as other posters have as well) the steptronic 545s have been logging in better times for the mags. That auto is a 6 speed and I'm sure that's one reason they're fairly quick but really, I'm a little puzzled myself why the manual times have been slower.

I'm no gearhead but most of the gearheads I know feel BMW's published HP specs are usually a boldface lie. I'm curious as to what some of the more mechanically inclined around here feel about that. I'm too mechanically inept to be taken seriously for an opinion there but I do find it curious that a 220HP 530i put up basically the same numbers as the 300HP Acura RL. I guess BMW is using Clydesdales and Acura had Shetland Ponies. Guys on the BMW boards seem to think it has to do with gearing more than anything else. I've no clue.

Bottom line, that new M45 is just plain QUICK! Anyone buying one should be very proud of their new steed. Faster or slower than a 545i? I'm guessing they're probably close enough to make it a driver's race. Regardless of what you buy, there's always gonna be something quicker. Doesn't make your car any less quick. At any given time that M45's gonna be one of the quickest cars on the road! You could possibly drive all the way to work and not see a faster car. If you're considering one, seems to me a very smart choice and hopefully a great lux sedan. Beautiful car. IMO, Infiniti got that one right.

[CoCo_PuFf]

IMHO three things make the 530 as fast as the RL.

1. Torque delivery: the RL has to be revved the 530 not so much

2. weight: the 530 is almost 500LBS lighter than the RL

3. gearing: RL is a snooze mobile BMW likes performance....plus an extra gear doesn't hurt http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[SMac]

As for the 530i and RL, could be any number of things. Larger flywheel diameter, lower flywheel inertia, more efficient transmission transfer, lower driveshaft interia, more efficient rear diff transfer, lower drive axle intertia, more efficient wheel bearings, lower wheel/tire interia, smaller tire outer diameter, better tires, lower brake rotor interia, less drag by the brake pads when no brake applied, shorter gearing (more torque multiplication, but less speed at redline).

Also, the RL is *15%* heavier than the 530i. And it only puts out 260 torque vs. the 215 from the 530i, but that 260 doesn't show up until 2500rpm later compared to the 215 on the 530i. And the RL has to drive a front drivetrain. And has a front-heavy weight distribution.

As for gearing, RL first gear is 2.697*4.600=12.4, while for the 530i auto, 4.17*3.46=14.4. Multiply those times the torques, you get 3096 for the 530i and 3224 for the RL. The RL power torque advantage is almost negated by gearing, and even more negated by the 15% heavier mass, and even more negated by the additional internal resistance of AWD (ie, even less of that 260 will make it to the road compared to the 215 of the RWD 530i).

A very simplified view of things, but I think it's valid enough for explaining why the RL is not a performance powerhouse compared to the 530i or what the M35 will do.