#The Flash 797 Review | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mylatesttrending-blog · 6 years ago

Text

2020 BMW M5 Competition First Drive Review | It's a mad mad mad mad sedan

MONTICELLO, New York –– The M5 Competition needs a better name. The “Hammer” has been done. C’mon, Dodge has its colorful Hellcats and Demons. Yes, BMW is a sober German luxury brand, but appending “Competition” to the name and decklid of the standard M5 is too subtle for a midsize sedan that can nip a 647-hp Ford GT supercar to 60 mph (BMW says it’ll do the deed in 3.1 seconds, but Car and Driver timed a regular M5 at 2.8 seconds, so it’s almost assured that it’ll beat the GT’s 3 second time. – Ed.), and its claimed 10.9-second quarter-mile is just 0.1 seconds behind the Ford, or the 797-hp Dodge Challenger Hellcat Redeye. That’s madness, or in German, Der Wahnsinn. (Hey, maybe that’s the name!) The M5 Competition’s 617 horsepower (17 more than the M5) and 553 pound-feet of torque is equally Wahnsinn, as I discover during laps at my local stomping grounds, the Monticello Motor Club in New York’s Catskills. To the untrained eye, this M5 might be any other 5 Series, that longtime upholder of the luxury sedan status quo. Trained eyes will spot that Competition badging – optional on front fenders, in case you’d prefer to stay stealthy – with higher-volume air intakes and gloss black applied to the kidney grille, mirror caps, fender gills, rear Gurney lip and apron diffuser. There are also 20-inch lightweight forged alloys and four black-tipped exhaust outlets. After multiple stairsteps in power and price from your basic 530i – from $54,395 and a 248-hp turbo four, to $110,995 and a 4.4-liter, twin-turbo V8 – the M5 Competition helps advance the (somewhat pointless) arms race in sport sedans, provoking both the 603-hp Mercedes-AMG E 63 S, and the 605-hp Audi RS7 Performance.

The last time I drove the standard M5, I was staging an Escape from New York when a wheel was mangled by an evil pothole on Manhattan’s West Side Highway. Day trip, spoiled. This time, I was determined to make it to Monticello in one piece, because this baby is even stiffer: Springs and hydraulic dampers are 10 percent firmer than the regular M5’s, the rear anti-roll bar is stiffened, and it’s 0.28 inches lower. For better wheel guidance at the rear, the toe link’s rubber mounts are exchanged for ball joints. BMW says the tauter core can be felt even in the car’s Comfort mode, and the morning’s jouncy run on the ancient, hand-cut Belgian blocks of my Brooklyn street seems to confirm it. The M5 makes its entrance through Monticello’s artistically wrought metal gates, flashing an equally classy paint called Donington Grey Metallic. I sign the clipboard sheet proffered by the guard, peering through the BMW’s generous windshield at the rain-dampened 4.1-mile circuit. I’ve enjoyed the adjustable embrace of the BMW’s sport seats, clad in handsome saddle-colored “Aragon” Merino hides. Here, evidence of the M division’s handiwork is subtle, including red-and-blue striped M seatbelts. Round digital gauges flash concentric rings of animation as you approach the 7,000 RPM redline. This more driver-centric M5 sports digital gauges that are an homage to classic, analog BMW dials, which I prefer to the wraparound displays of the “Live Cockpit Professional” that makes its 5 Series debut on the 2020 M5 35 Years Edition. I ease into the paddock and clubhouse garage, where track-suited club members are futzing with roll-caged, race-prepped exotics. One or two seem to cast side-eye at the BMW and its pilot, perhaps wondering why anyone would take this 4,370-pound, all-wheel-drive barge onto the track. Some will soon pay for their insolence, when the BMW applies its unfair horsepower advantage to leave peashooter Porsches in its 617-hp wake. Like the M5, the Competition’s other secret weapon is an M-tuned AWD system and active rear differential, which together banish old-school wheelspin, seemingly no matter how hard you try to break things loose.

The track is still drying when I’m first waved out of the pits, with scary-looking lagoons lurking in places. For all its fierceness and technology, the BMW feels a bit squishy and vague at first, especially in the wet. But AWD is the new secret sauce of any new M5. For max performance in any situation, just set-and-forget the 4WD Sport mode, which sends more torque rearward and applies a freer algorithm to stability systems. After years of testing M cars, I’ve made peace with their somewhat fussy controls that here include individual settings for the steering, suspension, exhaust and eight-speed, dual-clutch transmission. Twiddling has become easier since BMW added two ruby-colored steering wheel switches – labeled M1 and M2 – to store a pair of your preferred combinations of settings. For the suspension, I select the Sport mode that BMW perfected for Nürburgring’s pockmarked Nordschleife circuit. The company recommends Sport Plus for creamier, Grand Prix-style surfaces. Compared to the M5, the Competition also gets a firmer link to the aluminum-and-carbon structure through engine mounts with increased spring rates, which BMW says creates faster engine response and sharper corner turn-in. Um, if you say so. Increased camber for the front axle does help this big barge absorb lateral forces through its Pirelli P Zero PZ4 tires. That’s a good thing in tight sections like the esses that zig uphill just after MMC’s longest straight. As for that mildly kinked, mile-long gauntlet – which I’ve long used as a no-excuses benchmark for accelerative might – the M5’s bombastic power rockets it to around 159 mph, only about 11 or 12 mph less than my apogee in supercars like the McLaren 675LT or Ferrari 488. So yeah, it’s fast. Peak torque is served anywhere between 1,800 and 5,800 rpm, a 200-rpm wider band than the M5. The BMW’s gold-caliper, carbon ceramic brakes, an $8,500 option, help keep fade at bay, even at these Autobahn speeds – though they do begin to smell (but not smoke) after seven or eight consecutive laps.

Chris Duplessis, the former pro rally champion and all-purpose nutjob who’s MMC’s track director, has coincidentally been driving an M5 as a safety car. I let Duplessis take one of his usual half-sideways excursions around the circuit, and he concurs: The Competition perhaps feels a skosh tauter than the basic M5, and turns with more alertness, but it would take a back-to-back drive to tease out tangible differences. Aside from this Competition’s stony ride on poor pavement, and the Sturm und Drang as it boomed over freeway expansion strips, my only everyday gripe was a climate system that was stingy about dialing up the fan speed, even when I set the A/C to extremely low temperatures. Some drivers have groused that the standard M5 sounds too demure, and the Competition does amp up the soundtrack through its twin-pipe, flap-controlled exhaust. Hit the console’s exhaust switch, and the BMW speaks softly without dropping its big stick. Press it again, and this M5 sounds like a pissed-off bear that’s been woken from hibernation, including belching exhaust backfires. This M5 still doesn’t match the psychotic bellow of the Mercedes-AMG E 63, but it’s plenty aggressive for all but the most attention-seeking owner. So is the BMW fun on track? Yes, in a mildly silly, tiger-shark-out-of-water fashion. But it’s twice as fun on the street, where the M5 Competition underscores its Autobahn-style ferocity and magisterial handling. Mopar fans may howl, but in most street situations, the M5 Competition will easily smoke even a Dodge Challenger Hellcat from a stoplight – minus the smoke. Where even skilled drivers can struggle to launch the rear-driven Hellcat without the tires lighting up like Cheech and Chong, the BMW sends every molecule of rubber and scrap of torque to the pavement.

So, what’s it gonna cost? At $110,995, the Competition is an extra $7,300 over the base M5. Options, including the pricey carbon-ceramic stoppers, boosted my test car’s freight to a heady $132,095. Departing Monticello, I briefly switch into the car’s notorious, tire-abusing 2WD mode, the one that seems designed to stem the kvetching of BMW fans over the brand’s Good Old Days. For a minute or three, it is fun to drive the BMW like it’s a Dodge, only with exponentially more agility and control, exiting corners with smoke flaring from those poor Pirellis. The only dumb part is that you have to switch off stability control entirely to send all 617 horses to the back – with only modestly wide 285/35 R20 tires – which will at least make one appreciate the stability control's safety net even more. But catapulted along Cold Spring Road near the track, a ribbony dream that twists through tall stands of pine and spruce, the M5 Competition is just an embarrassment of riches: Drive it harder, then harder still. The BMW’s sick thrust and limitless confidence finally sucks the air from my lungs. Der Wahnsinn, indeed. Sedan madness, German-style. Read the full article

#bmw #car #carnews #cars #news #racing #racingcar #sports #sportscar

1 note · View note

khatarinelove-blog · 5 years ago

Text

The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase

The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase - moon tattoo phase | Encouraged for you to my own website, in this particular occasion I'll teach you concerning keyword. And from now on, this can be a primary impression:

Solenca Black and White Crescent to Full Moon Phases Nature Temporary Tattoo - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase How about graphic above? is actually that will remarkable???. if you're more dedicated and so, I'l m show you some graphic once more underneath: So, if you want to obtain all these wonderful shots about (The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase), just click save button to download the pictures for your computer. They're prepared for download, if you like and wish to have it, just click save badge in the page, and it will be directly downloaded to your home computer.} Lastly if you like to have new and the recent picture related to (The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase), please follow us on google plus or bookmark this page, we try our best to present you daily up grade with all new and fresh graphics. Hope you love keeping right here. For some updates and latest information about (The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase) pics, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on book mark section, We try to present you up grade periodically with fresh and new photos, enjoy your browsing, and find the ideal for you. Here you are at our website, articleabove (The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase) published . Today we are pleased to declare that we have found an incrediblyinteresting topicto be reviewed, namely (The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase) Many people attempting to find information about(The Reasons Why We Love Moon Tattoo Phase | moon tattoo phase) and of course one of these is you, is not it?

Image result for minimalist moon phase tattoo | tatts | Moon ... - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

Moon Phases Temporary Tattoo (Set of 10) - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

10 Best Moon Phase Tattoo Ideas & Minimalist Crescent Moon ... - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

moon phase tattoos | Tumblr - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

10 Moon Phases Tattoo Designs For Men - Illuminated Ideas - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

Goddess Moon Flash Tattoos - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

Moon Phase Tattoo - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase

10 Exclusive Moon Phases Tattoo You Need To See ⋆ TattooZZa - moon tattoo phase | moon tattoo phase Read the full article

#moonphasetattoodesign #moonphasetattooideas #moonphasestattooarm #moonphasestattooback #moonphasestattoocollarbone #moonphasestattoomeaning #moonphasestattoominimalist #moonphasestattoosmall #moonphasestattoospine #moontattoophases

0 notes

robertkstone · 6 years ago

Text

No Comparison: Dodge Challenger Hellcat Redeye vs. Ferrari 812 Superfast

There’s an old joke: You ask, “What’s the difference between an elephant and an ant?” The mark answers, “I don’t know, what’s the difference?” You reply, “Come on, you don’t know the difference between an elephant and an ant?”

News flash: The Ferrari 812 Superfast is a much better automobile than the Dodge Challenger Hellcat Redeye. It just is. I’m mentioning this because Ferrari—like Rolls-Royce and, to a lesser extent, Lamborghini—has this infuriating prohibition against comparison tests. This forbiddance is particularly annoying because modern Ferraris are so good. This 812, the 488, both flavors of Lusso, the new Portofino—I’ve driven them all, and all are wonderful. Nine times out of 10, the prancing horse would mule-kick the competition in the teeth, and that 10th time would be close. So, to reiterate, this ain’t a comparison test, but if it were, the Ferrari stomps the Redeye like an elephant squishes an ant. Chiaro? Prego.

What are you reading then? We car freaks are either living in or just about to enter the end times as far as internal combustion engines are concerned. The automotive world is going electric, and you can’t stop progress. You can, however, toss two fourth-quarter Hail Marys to illustrate just how good our kids ain’t gonna have it.

The Superfast produces 789 horsepower, and Dodge’s super-torquey (707 lb-ft) über Hellcat generates 797 ponies. With the exception of ultra exotics like the 1,479-hp Bugatti Chiron (price tag: starts at $3 million), these two bellowing monsters are the most powerful street cars available for purchase. Both machines are a celebration of what we’ll miss most when they’re gone: big, loud, screaming, thumping, grin-inducing, pupil-dilating, chest-compressing, mother-loving, gasoline-burning engines.

Want to see more awesome content like the video above? Don’t miss a thing; sign up right here.

The question then becomes, what’s it like to drive two cars that possess (within rounding errors) 800 horsepower? More fun than you’re imagining, I promise.

Since the initial Hellcat Challenger with 707 hp and 650 lb-ft of torque was released, the reviews have read essentially like this: “Great gobs of power, Batman, but what the Hellcat needs is better steering, handling, grip, and brakes. Oh—and it could lose some weight.”

To Dodge’s eternal credit, its answer to that near-unanimous, near-ubiquitous criticism: Add more power! (I love that.) Even if nothing good happens in terms of instrumented testing. The Redeye’s 0–60 time actually increases when compared to the Widebody Hellcat Challenger, and although its quarter-mile time drops by a tenth, that’s not something I’d brag about or spend money on. The figure-eight time also shaves a tenth. Braking is greatly improved—104 feet from 60 mph versus 112—so there’s that. Did I mention the Redeye is 32 pounds heavier than the 4,489-pound Widebody Hellcat?

The increase in trap speed is worth analyzing, as it’s an improvement of nearly 3 mph. That means we know that the ever-so-slightly detuned Demon engine under the wide-nostril hood is making the power but the Redeye is even more traction limited (see the 0–60 time) than its little bro. So although stoplight racing might not be the Redeye’s raison d’être, roll-on racing—say, 50 to 150 mph—leaves almost nothing to be desired. Trust me.

I say “almost” because, well, I drove the 812 Superfast. Ferrari lists the top speed as 211 mph, which is pretty fast. But in a world filled with Koenigseggs and the aforementioned Chiron, I wouldn’t call 211 mph “superfast.” I would call the Superfast super quick (which is super-veloce in Italian, but that’s a Lamborghini descriptor and hence verboten).

The sprint to 60 mph takes just 2.8 seconds. Kids raised on Instagram IV drips will scream about how the Tesla Model S 100D Ludicrous+ is quicker (2.3 seconds), as is the Porsche 911 Turbo S (2.5 seconds) and McLaren 720S (2.5 seconds). It’s all a video game at the end of the day. What’s crazy about the 812 is that this bright yellow GT is naturally aspirated, rear-wheel drive, and heavy (3,845 pounds). Look at the only other similarly powered rear-driver I can think of—the 755-horsepower Corvette ZR1. On sticky R-compound tires, the lighter Chevy needs 3.0 seconds to hit 60 mph, and the Corvette out-torques the Ferrari by 185 lb-ft.

Then comes the quarter mile. The 812 Superfast smashes it in 10.4 seconds at 138.6 mph. Bye-bye, Tesla (10.5 seconds at 125.0 mph)! See you later, Porsche (10.6 at 129.6)! The lightweight, twin-turbo 720S is quicker (10.1 seconds at 141.5), but the carbon-tubbed Brit weighs 678 pounds less than the fizzing Italian. The 720S is also the quickest non-million-dollar hybrid hypercar we’ve ever tested, and it’s (probably) underrated by 100 hp. To reiterate how superveloce the 812 Superfast is, the somewhat lighter (3,650 pounds), similarly powerful ZR1 runs the quarter in 10.8 seconds at 133.1 mph.

The Ferrari aces the figure eight in 23.3 seconds, a full second quicker than the Hellcat Redeye. With this metric, the 812 is a half second behind the ZR1 (22.7 seconds), but the Ferrari is on street tires. Pirelli Corsas would probably drop it very close to the magical 22-second barrier, where merely excellent-handling cars are separated from the best there is. Braking from 60 mph is 99 feet, and anything under 100 feet is world class—doubly so on street tires.

OK, so how are these two to drive? What are they like? How do they feel? I entered into these vehicles with a romanticized vision of grand touring: “Dearest Gertrude, I fear that the fear we fear the most has come to pass: Our stores of caviar are depleted. I must venture forth from Paris to Odessa (where else?) to procure more. Keep the bubbles warm and bubbly chilled. Ta!” (Side note: Modern-day Euros would just jet to the Black Sea on Ryanair for 5 euros a leg.)

As such, I assumed that the car to cross the Continent in would be the 812 Superfast. Nope! One thing that surprised me about the duo is that the Dodge is a far superior grand tourer—a more willing, comfortable, and compelling travel partner. Kowalski never had it so good. The Superfast is much less comfortable. And louder. The stereo isn’t as good. The seats are harder and don’t recline. And on and on and on. Still, I can’t remember a super sled that can hit crazy speeds (“Can we just say, ‘No more than 150 mph,’ your honor?”) as quickly and easily. That V-12 just rips.

And the car itself … allow my Head 2 Head co-host Jethro Bovingdon to explain: “Mind a bit blown. Turns like a mid-engine car, slides like an E60 M5, accelerates like a McLaren F1, noise and engine response from the gods.” I concur as he continues: “Utterly astounding that Ferrari’s front-engine ‘GT’ is this sharp and capable. I find it slightly depressing that spending all that money is genuinely worth it (because I can’t afford the interior carbon-fiber trim, let alone the car), but it’s uplifting that Ferrari pushes and pushes to develop something this wild and yet usable.”

View more Head 2 Head episodes RIGHT HERE.

IFTTT

#IFTTT #PerformanceJunk WP Feed 3

0 notes

auburnfamilynews · 6 years ago

Link

After four games that included a top non-conference foe, a cup cake win, and a 1-1 record in the SEC, Auburn’s quarterback entered week five with a 64-for-98 line, good for a 65% completion percentage, three touchdowns and an interception. That’s far from what is expected from an Auburn QB under Gus Malzahn.

Wait. That isn’t Jarrett Stidham’s numbers. That’s Sean White’s line from 2016.

Stidham’s numbers: 63-for-123, a 52% completion percentage, for 718 yards, three TDs on two picks.

That’s right, folks. Even after a game against the team that won the national championship and saw Gus Malzahn use six different QBs, Sean White’s number out-perform Auburn’s potential first round quarterback this season.

To be fair to Stidham, his numbers last season are eerily similar in terms of production with 846 yards, three scores and two interceptions. And Stidham was throwing the ball with a 70% completion percentage. Now, it’s unfair to point the finger solely at Stidham.

There are several key similarities and differences between the 2016 squad and this year’s unit.

First, the offensive line in 2016 started the season with Xavier Dampeer, which turned out to a short-lived experiment. Starting against a ground-and-pound, total beat down of Arkansas where Austin Golson moved back to center, Auburn went on a fantastic run that ended against UGA and Bama. Auburn’s keys to success that year, before White was injured, was an offense that was predicated on efficient play-action passing and a grinding run game with Kam Pettway and Kerryon Johnson.

Going into this year’s Arkansas week, Gus shuffled the offensive line, changing centers from Kaleb Kim to Nick Brahms, who missed much of the year due to injury. It did not produce the same results as the last time Arkansas came to town. The defense and special teams won the game for Auburn, and there is no debating that.

In some ways, it is shocking how poorly the offense looked against Arkansas, one of the worst defensive teams in the country. A week after Malzahn went for a 4th-and-one in the first quarter and was stuffed, a game where three points wins the game, Auburn decided to kick it against Arkansas from the one yard line, three plays after the Auburn defense spotted the ball at the one. Later on, he went for it on the eight and was stuffed, yet again. Neither of those two plays against Arkansas impacted the game like the one against LSU, but it emphasizes the struggles the Auburn offensive line is having against everyone.

The 225 offensive yards that Auburn put up against Arkansas were the fewest yards in a win since Gus Malzahn came to Auburn. The 225 yards is the seventh-worst output in the Gus Malzahn-era offense. That’s not as nearly as shocking as this: three of the seven worst performances have come with Jarrett Stidham as Auburn’s quarterback. Auburn’s offense had 116 total yards against Clemson, 259 against UGA in the SEC Championship, and now 225 against Arkansas.

But it isn’t always fair to compare statistics between years.

Last year’s squad isn’t this year’s squad, for certain. Auburn’s offensive line may have been slightly shuffled last year, but the veteran presence was there, just not quite in the right positions. This season, there are not nearly as many combined starts along the offensive line as the past unit, not to mention getting the right pieces in place.

Malzahn wasn’t done any favors by the loss of lost of Jalen Harris and Nate Craig-Myers to transfer. Craig-Myers was called Auburn’s best blocking receiver and Harris was an integral piece of the puzzle. As with so many years under Malzahn, it typically isn’t big changes that bring success, but the small things. Could those losses been the difference between the 34-3 win versus the expectation that Auburn was going to put up 50 points?

Media members close to the program, such as beat reporter Brandon Marcello, said on a local radio station that Auburn simply isn’t recruiting the offensive line as well as had been done in the past and fans are just now beginning to see the effects.

The lack of talent should explain why the Tigers were able to rush for just a 2.5 yard average against a team as poor against the run as Arkansas. While Kam Martin and Jatarvious Whitlow only had a combined 21 carries, Auburn was unable to move the chains enough to give them enough carries to break out. Simply put, Auburn’s offensive line was awful and the two running backs just couldn’t do anything.

Of course, there has to be a discussion about the difference in Auburn’s skill positions last season and this season.

That starts and ends with the conversation on Kerryon Johnson. KJ became the first Detroit Lions player in 70-something games to rush for over 100 yards in a contest. While Kam Pettway was a non-factor on last year’s team, he is still a more physical runner than anything that Auburn has on the roster.

Whitlow is going to be a good back for Auburn and Martin has ability to be a major factor elsewhere. In addition, freshman Shaun Shivers has shown flashes. But none of this matters without the O-Line’s ability to make it to the second level. Auburn has rushed for 797 yard through four games … a far cry from the numbers fans expect.

A lot of fans (and beat reporters, for that matter) are also beginning to wonder if Malzahn will quit being so stubborn with the run and start to lean on his first round talent at quarterback. It’s nice to believe that success begins and ends with a powerful down-hill, play action pass offense, but the man that says that obviously forgets the job he did with Chris Todd and the Auburn offense in 2009. Through four games, Todd had thrown for 1,012 yards, 11 TDs, and just one INT. There isn’t a sole on the planet that believes Todd is a better QB than Jarrett Stidham.

Why doesn’t Malzahn lean on Stidham and the passing game when the running game has obvious problems?

Some of it is certainly the offensive line issues. Stidham is frequently being flushed out of the pocket, which is one of the reasons he scored a rushing touchdown against Arkansas. Some of it could be the lack of offensive weapons on the perimeter. As I wrote last week, Auburn’s best receivers, by far, have been true freshmen Seth Williams and Anthony Schwartz. Ryan Davis may have far more catches, but he also has some bad drops and hasn’t done nearly as much as Schwartz, who sits atop the stats.

Some of it has been play calling. After hitting some great timing routes against Washington, Auburn hasn’t attempted any more “short game” passes, despite offensive coordinator Chip Lindsey’s promise to work on it. That’s likely because defenses are hurrying Stidham without blitzing. Per Cole Cubelic, LSU blitzed just once last week but managed to get Stidham time and time again.

Could it be that Malzahn doesn’t lean on Stidham because Stidham just isn’t as good as advertised? Even Cam Newton didn’t have the hype that Jarrett Stidham had when he came to Auburn. Stidham set records for passing yards last season, so it really isn’t up for debate that Stidham is a good QB. Is he great? Maybe not. Could it also be that the play calling just isn’t what a player like Stidham needs to succeed? Maybe that’s why the offense is stuck in the mud.

The post Upon Further Review: Offense, Who Needs It? appeared first on The Kingdom of Heaven Is at Hand! .

from Track 'Em Tigers, Auburn's oldest and most read independent blog http://trackemtigers.com/upon-further-review-offense-who-needs-it/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=upon-further-review-offense-who-needs-it

#IFTTT #Blogger #auburn #auburn fast #wareagle #AuburnFamilyNews #war eagle #sec #football news #aubu

0 notes