RE: Tell me I'm wrong: BMW M5
Discussion
Read the article, haven't read the topic. But I wanted to say that, as someone with no particular views on the F10 iteration of the M5, that I enjoyed reading an article which was a little more critical than usual but not for the sake of being critical - just a different opinion than the usual gushing flow of superlatives. Keep up the good work.
Although I must admit whenever I see an F10 on the road, they do look huuuuge. Not in a sleek, elegant style in the way that an S-Class or original CLS is; more a rotund, swollen, who-ate-all-the-pies kinda look.
Although I must admit whenever I see an F10 on the road, they do look huuuuge. Not in a sleek, elegant style in the way that an S-Class or original CLS is; more a rotund, swollen, who-ate-all-the-pies kinda look.
60RK said:
Reading most of the above posts, I am wondering, how many of you have test driven the F10?
I have. Within 15 minutes I knew I had to have it.
At that stage I knew nothing of the 'piped in engine noise'
I did not notice it.
I have owned E39 M5, two E46 M3's, a E92 M3 and two E93 M3's.
The F10 is by far the fastest long range cruiser, I had it for a day and covered circa 200 miles in it.
I take delivery of mine on 1st March, next week, and cannot wait.
For all that are so negative, you will buy one of these several years down the road, it is a natural progression from the E39, E60 etc. I am guessing a lot of posts are from people who, dare I say it, could not afford one, indeed I cannot really but what the hell.
Classic motoring forum cliche there. I have. Within 15 minutes I knew I had to have it.
At that stage I knew nothing of the 'piped in engine noise'
I did not notice it.
I have owned E39 M5, two E46 M3's, a E92 M3 and two E93 M3's.
The F10 is by far the fastest long range cruiser, I had it for a day and covered circa 200 miles in it.
I take delivery of mine on 1st March, next week, and cannot wait.
For all that are so negative, you will buy one of these several years down the road, it is a natural progression from the E39, E60 etc. I am guessing a lot of posts are from people who, dare I say it, could not afford one, indeed I cannot really but what the hell.
Some of us are commenting on the fact that a car manufacturer has decided that piped in exhaust is a good idea. We disagree and are discussing it. If we were discussing the way it drives and being arm chair critics then fair enough.
I can't afford to buy one, but even if I could, I wouldn't, partly because I don't like the way it looks and I dont think it hides its bulk very well in its exterior design. Just my ipion of course.
I apologise for being harsh, but that article was absolute rubbish and so far off from being an objective review of the car.
The entire article just says the M5 is a large car and therefore it's too large! That's ridiculous, we know it's a large car that's the whole point! Anyone that considers buying and M5 is going to do so because of the size of the car. Nothing about the performance and dynamics was written about.
To me it seems that the entire article was a desperate attempt to find or create something wrong with the car.
I fail to understand why people that don't understand an M5 are sent out to review one.
The entire article just says the M5 is a large car and therefore it's too large! That's ridiculous, we know it's a large car that's the whole point! Anyone that considers buying and M5 is going to do so because of the size of the car. Nothing about the performance and dynamics was written about.
To me it seems that the entire article was a desperate attempt to find or create something wrong with the car.
I fail to understand why people that don't understand an M5 are sent out to review one.
sennastyl said:
I apologise for being harsh, but that article was absolute rubbish and so far off from being an objective review of the car.
The entire article just says the M5 is a large car and therefore it's too large! That's ridiculous, we know it's a large car that's the whole point! Anyone that considers buying and M5 is going to do so because of the size of the car. Nothing about the performance and dynamics was written about.
To me it seems that the entire article was a desperate attempt to find or create something wrong with the car.
I fail to understand why people that don't understand an M5 are sent out to review one.
That is kind of the point of our 'tell me I'm wrong' articles - to tell us we're wrong! We never for a moment suggest hey're going to be objective The entire article just says the M5 is a large car and therefore it's too large! That's ridiculous, we know it's a large car that's the whole point! Anyone that considers buying and M5 is going to do so because of the size of the car. Nothing about the performance and dynamics was written about.
To me it seems that the entire article was a desperate attempt to find or create something wrong with the car.
I fail to understand why people that don't understand an M5 are sent out to review one.
.If you want to read a more balanced review, have a look at our original first drive of the M5 or, for more full-fat praise, try Mr Chris Harris's video of the M5 and GT-R...
E38Ross said:
Robsti said:
Chris Stott said:
Robsti said:
BMWs are really growing in size!
Saw a new 3 today and it looked HUGE.
Hmmm... I went to look at one last weekend and thought it was still pokey inside.Saw a new 3 today and it looked HUGE.
The new 5er is massive though!
what's your point?
Well this article certainly seems to draw a lot of strong responses :-o
Not a car I'd care for but that doesn't matter as I certainly cannot afford one. Do not like the idea of simulated engine noise at all, and would hope it could be turned off, but it does point to the fact that BMW realise the turbo engine loses some characterful sound and wanted to make up for it. Still a bad idea (principle) though.
Must say that the first pic on the page threw me at first - I thought it was showing an M5 that had crashed into a bank! The design of the bodywork and the lighting of that photo made it appear to me that the corner of the car was all bent up and smashed in. Then I realised that's just how they designed it. Yuk.
Not a car I'd care for but that doesn't matter as I certainly cannot afford one. Do not like the idea of simulated engine noise at all, and would hope it could be turned off, but it does point to the fact that BMW realise the turbo engine loses some characterful sound and wanted to make up for it. Still a bad idea (principle) though.
Must say that the first pic on the page threw me at first - I thought it was showing an M5 that had crashed into a bank! The design of the bodywork and the lighting of that photo made it appear to me that the corner of the car was all bent up and smashed in. Then I realised that's just how they designed it. Yuk.
Autocar compare the M5 to the D5 Alpina this week and recognise the M5's dynamics and speed, but give "victory" (whatever that means!) to the D5 stating:
Autocar said:
When the trade off is 18mpg versus 39mpg if our test averages are anything to go by... how much more performance do you really need? Especially when the D5 feels more than fast enough in isolation or, indeed, compared with most other cars that have four seats and a decent boot.
And that's before we come back to the M5's ride comfort issues, or its shorter 236 mile-shorter touring range, its less special feeling interior, its oddly unresolved steering and, most glaring of all in this instance its price. Add this lot up, stack them in a pile and there's oh one logical conclusion to draw I'm afraid - that the D5 wins, and wins easily. The head rules the heart in this case and, in the process a little piece of your heart gets broken
And that's before we come back to the M5's ride comfort issues, or its shorter 236 mile-shorter touring range, its less special feeling interior, its oddly unresolved steering and, most glaring of all in this instance its price. Add this lot up, stack them in a pile and there's oh one logical conclusion to draw I'm afraid - that the D5 wins, and wins easily. The head rules the heart in this case and, in the process a little piece of your heart gets broken
Kong said:
If that was the case then nobody would ever buy an M5, or an AMG or RS6 etc but they do.. The 4 door saloon with supercar performance appeals to many people.
If you can afford one then why not? It's the same logic why the UK buys the most convertibles in Europe even though we get 10 days sunshine a year, the optimism that one day you will get to use it!
I see what you mean, but my concern is that the M5 is not "special enough" when doing the mundane things. Other cars like the E63 ( or the Quattroporte for example ) with its warbling engine, make even a trip to the recycling centre interesting. I am not sure the M5 can pull off the same trick.If you can afford one then why not? It's the same logic why the UK buys the most convertibles in Europe even though we get 10 days sunshine a year, the optimism that one day you will get to use it!
The current M5 may not be as pure as earlier M cars, but a 991 is no 993, etc.
Plus how many times have you put your foot down, only to be told off by the wife!
The criticism raised in the article seems a little OTT, as the M5 F10 is not that much larger than the standard car, but as mentioned before, for a load lugger and long distance/motor way use with some serious grunt, I would have one - if they made an M5 F11.... if only
http://www.unnen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/BM...
Plus how many times have you put your foot down, only to be told off by the wife!
The criticism raised in the article seems a little OTT, as the M5 F10 is not that much larger than the standard car, but as mentioned before, for a load lugger and long distance/motor way use with some serious grunt, I would have one - if they made an M5 F11.... if only
http://www.unnen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/BM...
Edited by Amizade on Wednesday 22 February 13:29
0a said:
Autocar compare the M5 to the D5 Alpina this week and recognise the M5's dynamics and speed, but give "victory" (whatever that means!) to the D5 stating:
Just read that article, the D5 does look good. Autocar said:
When the trade off is 18mpg versus 39mpg if our test averages are anything to go by... how much more performance do you really need? Especially when the D5 feels more than fast enough in isolation or, indeed, compared with most other cars that have four seats and a decent boot.
And that's before we come back to the M5's ride comfort issues, or its shorter 236 mile-shorter touring range, its less special feeling interior, its oddly unresolved steering and, most glaring of all in this instance its price. Add this lot up, stack them in a pile and there's oh one logical conclusion to draw I'm afraid - that the D5 wins, and wins easily. The head rules the heart in this case and, in the process a little piece of your heart gets broken
And that's before we come back to the M5's ride comfort issues, or its shorter 236 mile-shorter touring range, its less special feeling interior, its oddly unresolved steering and, most glaring of all in this instance its price. Add this lot up, stack them in a pile and there's oh one logical conclusion to draw I'm afraid - that the D5 wins, and wins easily. The head rules the heart in this case and, in the process a little piece of your heart gets broken
Interesting reading the thread - taking you off on a slight tangent, if you'll allow !
Sounds like the new M5 prefers the 'direct route' in climbing terms.
Going from here:
View to Capel Curig
to here:
View to Snowdon
avoiding the Train of course ....straight to the summit by the shortest possible distance in the quickest possible time !
Forgetting to enjoy the view en route per chance ?
Enjoy the journey
Oakman
Sounds like the new M5 prefers the 'direct route' in climbing terms.
Going from here:
View to Capel Curig
to here:
View to Snowdon
avoiding the Train of course ....straight to the summit by the shortest possible distance in the quickest possible time !
Forgetting to enjoy the view en route per chance ?
Enjoy the journey
Oakman
kambites said:
bakerstreet said:
I love the sound of a decent engine, but I couldn't care less if the manufacturer engineered the sound or not.
It's certainly good news for manufacturers if lots of people are like this, because it means there is no real disadvantage to fitting a well-isolated inline-4 and then using the speakers to make it sound like a V8. thewheelman said:
kambites said:
bakerstreet said:
I love the sound of a decent engine, but I couldn't care less if the manufacturer engineered the sound or not.
It's certainly good news for manufacturers if lots of people are like this, because it means there is no real disadvantage to fitting a well-isolated inline-4 and then using the speakers to make it sound like a V8. otolith said:
thewheelman said:
kambites said:
bakerstreet said:
I love the sound of a decent engine, but I couldn't care less if the manufacturer engineered the sound or not.
It's certainly good news for manufacturers if lots of people are like this, because it means there is no real disadvantage to fitting a well-isolated inline-4 and then using the speakers to make it sound like a V8. 
£85k for an F10 M5?
I'd spend £15k tops on a last of the line, low milage E39 M5 and spend the change on something else.
As fast as you'll ever need on UK roads, better looking and no silly fake soundtrack. Oh and it'll cost less to run over 5 years than the F10 will lose in depreciation in one year.
I'd spend £15k tops on a last of the line, low milage E39 M5 and spend the change on something else.
As fast as you'll ever need on UK roads, better looking and no silly fake soundtrack. Oh and it'll cost less to run over 5 years than the F10 will lose in depreciation in one year.
Devil2575 said:
£85k for an F10 M5?
I'd spend £15k tops on a last of the line, low milage E39 M5 and spend the change on something else.
As fast as you'll ever need on UK roads, better looking and no silly fake soundtrack. Oh and it'll cost less to run over 5 years than the F10 will lose in depreciation in one year.
i wondered how long it would be until the old vs new pricing came up I'd spend £15k tops on a last of the line, low milage E39 M5 and spend the change on something else.
As fast as you'll ever need on UK roads, better looking and no silly fake soundtrack. Oh and it'll cost less to run over 5 years than the F10 will lose in depreciation in one year.
what are BMW supposed to do, put it up for sale for £15k because you can get a tidy 10 year old M5 for the same price.
E38Ross said:
Devil2575 said:
£85k for an F10 M5?
I'd spend £15k tops on a last of the line, low milage E39 M5 and spend the change on something else.
As fast as you'll ever need on UK roads, better looking and no silly fake soundtrack. Oh and it'll cost less to run over 5 years than the F10 will lose in depreciation in one year.
i wondered how long it would be until the old vs new pricing came up I'd spend £15k tops on a last of the line, low milage E39 M5 and spend the change on something else.
As fast as you'll ever need on UK roads, better looking and no silly fake soundtrack. Oh and it'll cost less to run over 5 years than the F10 will lose in depreciation in one year.
what are BMW supposed to do, put it up for sale for £15k because you can get a tidy 10 year old M5 for the same price.
I simply think the E39 looks like a nicer car. I'm sure the F10 is technologically far superior and will probabaly outgun the E39 in every situation. But it just doesn't appeal in the same way the E39 does.
I also don't get the power war that's going on with cars these days. I remember when 130 bhp in a family hatch made it hot and 200+ bhp in any car made it properly fast.
Maybe i'm just stuck in the past but i don't care.
To be honest, i'd take a decent E28 M5 over all of them. From the days before cars had so much power that they need electronics to control it all.
bakerstreet said:
Steady on! A lot of the modern supercars play with their exhaust sound using valves, filters and materials. Some even have an exhaust button!
Car manufactures realised that people love a decent exhaust note.
So why not give it one then? Even if they did use exhaust valves, you could keep them shut for the noise tests to get the car into production, then give the owners a button on the keyfob to lock them open so you can actually hear the car. Car manufactures realised that people love a decent exhaust note.
I understand something like a Jag XJL wanting to hide it's noise as much as possible, but an ///M car? It should shout from the treetops about what it is. Being turbocharged doesn't mean that the M5 now has to sound crap, just that probably won't ever sound as good as the M5 that went before it, but making it quiet and piping synthetic engine and exhaust noise into the cabin seems an extremely half-hearted way of doing things.
Riggers said:
That is kind of the point of our 'tell me I'm wrong' articles - to tell us we're wrong! We never for a moment suggest hey're going to be objective .
If you want to read a more balanced review, have a look at our original first drive of the M5 or, for more full-fat praise, try Mr Chris Harris's video of the M5 and GT-R...
Riggers? What are you talking about? Why does Harris have a more balanced view than Dan's article? J.If you want to read a more balanced review, have a look at our original first drive of the M5 or, for more full-fat praise, try Mr Chris Harris's video of the M5 and GT-R...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff