Not really , because the torque in the 63 is still deep , so do the math , close 100 lb/ft of torque advantage in the 63 , and 1000 rpm M5 advantage , they are more likely even after 160 , because when i switched from 4th to 5th at aprox 140 + , the 63 held the m5 back to 160 very tightly ...

See the CL65 is a different story , lol that car sounded so deep , it was so fast at every point that i really couldnt tell crap from crap , all i know is that it depends on low revvs , it only revs 5500 rpm anyway ... btw the 55 and 63 are hell of alot more sportier than the 65 engine ....

Hmmm, interesting mathmatics.. I was thinking the M5 would be faster because it`s maximum torque is reached at a higher rpm range, it is a bit weaker than the E63 through in the powerbands so I guess the higher rpms wouldn`t help if you producing less power.

5500rpm.. Thats pretty low midrange. Thats the thing with turbo or Kompressor engines. The power is reached too soon in the rpm range then dies off somewhat when the revs get going! If you ask me a turbo is something needed in a smaller engine where power is most needed in the lower revs. Larger engines like V8s and V12 really don`t need to be turbo charged
simply cause all that power is used to peal tires when taking off when that power can be used at a much higher rpm making the car even faster!

I dont think you get my point here GTA !! THE CL65 was so fast everywhere to 200 mph , so so so so fast !! That's why I tell you I cant tell crap from crap !!

Exactly

Gotcha!! not only is the engine quit large, it produces an enormous 738lb-ft (@ 2000-4000rpm) which is earth moving in automotive language! I have yet to see a power diagram on the 65 models so I`ll take your woud for it.

I swear , the whole block used to complain about the noise every morning i left to work ...lol