wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2015 04:58:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Wasn't the M5 easier to run too fast?


Both the Porsche and the M5 were too tempting to run too fast. That's
why I wouldn't have a license today if I still had either of them.

The M5 was fast (500 hp) but lacked the "feel" of the Porsche and was
far too complicated and computer dependent for it's own (and the
owner's) good.

For sports/performance cars of this type I am not a big fan of
automatic, sequential transmissions. The M5 would shift automatically or
you could control shifting manually using the stick or the paddles.
Still wasn't the same as the Porsche with a conventional 6 speed and
clutch. As far as pure acceleration the Porsche was faster.

The biggest difference was in normal, around town driving. The M5 felt
like a stiffly sprung BMW 535 but at 30-40 mph the Porsche still felt
like a sports car.



I was lucky to have the Corvette before we really had a speed limit.
The cops were pretty rare on the beltway before the double nickel made
speeding a profit center. I have made many laps of the Beltway at well
over 100. The vette topped out around 140 with a stopwatch in measured
miles although the speedometer said 160 or so. You could see the gas
gauge move at that speed.

I had a 64 coupe. I bought it for SCCA racing. Was a fun car. Mine would
top out at about 155. But that was mostly a choice of gearing. Laguna Seca
in those days, I topped out at about 130. Course is changed now, so do not
know what top speed would be. Raced against 289 Cobras, B Production, and
could go through a turn at same speed, but Cobra acceleration was much
greater coming out of the turn. 1000 pounds less weight, on a 1950
suspension. I think of buying a 1962 for a toy once in a while. Always
thought that was one of the nicer looking cars. But a lot rougher riding
than the new ones.