RE: BMW's M diesels: the official details
Discussion
ADM06 said:
A pair of expensive motors that for no apparent reason needed to be slightly better on fuel and their respective price increase a little bit.
I don't think Audi do a decent petrol Q7, but the 5.0SC Range Rover needs you to plan routes that take you past petrol stations every 250 or so miles. When you have that factor limiting your cars range of usefulness then the TDV8 makes a huge amount of sense if you want to use it rather than brag about having a silly quick petrol 4x4.
While I'm not the greatest fan of diesel performance cars, in the context of a wafty house on stilts that can take you to Verbier all year round then they make sense.
Oh and there are lots of inboard petrol lumps made available, more seen in boats designed for speed over short distances rather than long range cruising though.
jagfan2 said:
Nice idea, but it doesn't run down the right, its down the left on all xdrives! Check out the video, but do know this as been under a few. The X1 uses basically the same system and is rhd too, so that means its possible, just not worth the money to do the work for a low volume model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEvLGIg2rCs&fea...
http://www.awdwiki.com/images/bmw-5-series-xdrive....
I stand corrected. I assumed it was the same layout as the Benz 4-matic system which runs down the right hand side. But there must be something big and prohibitively expensive to re-engineer for RHD for BMW to not do it. I'm thinking exhaust manifolds and turbo gubbins which are on the right hand side of the engine. A straight 6 with 3 turbos will take up a lot of space and be hard to re-package. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEvLGIg2rCs&fea...
http://www.awdwiki.com/images/bmw-5-series-xdrive....
Edited by jagfan2 on Thursday 26th January 20:45
Incidentally Mercedes don't offer any of their saloon cars in RHD form with the 4-matic AWD system. It's available on every model in LHD form from c-class up to s-class but no one seems to mind that? What's the difference? A lack of market respect? I doubt it!
I presume that Mercedes came to the same conclusion that there simply isn't a big enough market for it. If someone wants awd in the UK they get an SUV which is easier to do a RHD version of because they have more space inside them giving more options to re-engineer them accordingly.
With the likes of Audi, VW, Volvo, Vauxhall etc offering AWD in RHD form, the fundamental difference is that they're conceived as FWD cars, and the RWD bit is added on. Not the other way round like BMWs and Mercs. Consequently they have fundamentally different drive-train layouts and positioning which makes the RHD/LHD change far simpler.
ADM06 said:
Vladimir said:
Tell the owner of this he should man up and go for a pair of petrol engines...
Then tell this car owner he really should work a little harder so he can afford a petrol car...
And finally finish by racing this peasant off the lights:
The first example is just daft. Do they make marine petrol engines beside outboard motors? Then tell this car owner he really should work a little harder so he can afford a petrol car...
And finally finish by racing this peasant off the lights:
The second two are brilliant though. A pair of expensive motors that for no apparent reason needed to be slightly better on fuel and their respective price increase a little bit.
Does nobody else see a diesel as no more than a necessary evil the average man may have to put up with because it's £1.40 a litre?
My point is that a diesel is just their to save you money. Buying a £60k car isn't action of somebody in financial difficulty so why the fancy oil burner when a V8 sounds better?
ArosaMike said:
Don't really understand these. What's to get so excited about? Have BMW not been doing exactly this for years with the M Sport kit and twin turbo 535d? It's clearly got about as much in common with an M5 as a 318d has with an M3. To me, this just seems like a massive marketing push to make people remember that you can order cars with an M-Sport kit! I can't really say it's that big a loss that they're not coming to the UK. Yes, it'll pull like a train, but I highly doubt it's going to be a drivers car, and it certainly won't hold a candle to a 'proper' M car.
If it had genuinely been an M5 with an oil burner, then yes, it would have been worth a look, but it's clearly not! It's BMW's new tri turbo diesel 6 in a body kitted 5 series most likely riding on rock solid suspension to give the impression of sportyness! I'd rather wait 6 months or so until the engine can be ordered in an SE on the correct suspension (that doesn't rearange your internal organs), have it chipped to the same power and then anjoy the versatility of a decent, powerful oil burning workhorse! An incredibly cynical marketing whilwind from BMW IMHO.
did you read the article?If it had genuinely been an M5 with an oil burner, then yes, it would have been worth a look, but it's clearly not! It's BMW's new tri turbo diesel 6 in a body kitted 5 series most likely riding on rock solid suspension to give the impression of sportyness! I'd rather wait 6 months or so until the engine can be ordered in an SE on the correct suspension (that doesn't rearange your internal organs), have it chipped to the same power and then anjoy the versatility of a decent, powerful oil burning workhorse! An incredibly cynical marketing whilwind from BMW IMHO.
E38Ross said:
did you read the article?
Yes. It say's it's got 'bespoke chassis settings, steering ratios and even some chassis bits and bobs taken from full-on M models'. Not exactly what you would call the full M treatment is it?! It'll have a 'more sporty' feel undoubtably, but it certainly doesn't appear to have a bespoke body structure and genuine M5 suspension does it? How is what is effectively 'a different damper tune, steering ratio and most likely the suspension bushes from an M5' any different from the 'M Sport suspension' you get on a 520d M Sport?!Fundamentally I ask you this?
a) Does it look more like an M5 or a 5 series with a body kit?
b) Will it handle more like an M5 or an M Sport chassied 5 series?
I think the answer to both is the latter. As an M Sport 5 series, it's ok. It's not an M car though! It doesn't even have an LSD!
How can BMW say that putting '546lb ft of torque through the rear wheels only would be too much for the drivetrain' when they're happy to put roughly 15lb ft less of torque through the rear wheels of an M5? I would've thought that both drivetrains would be strengthened to the same sort of standard?
Can't say I'm a fan of this 'performance diesel' lark anyway. Driven hard they'll deliver very poor mpg.
Can't say I'm a fan of this 'performance diesel' lark anyway. Driven hard they'll deliver very poor mpg.
MrRA said:
How can BMW say that putting '546lb ft of torque through the rear wheels only would be too much for the drivetrain' when they're happy to put roughly 15lb ft less of torque through the rear wheels of an M5? I would've thought that both drivetrains would be strengthened to the same sort of standard?
M5 is more than just an engine shoehorning exercise however.M5 has 8% / 44 lb ft less torque, across a larger rev range, resulting in 47% / 179PS more.
M5 has a seven speed DCT gearbox, 550d an eight speed torque converter autobox.
M5 has an active LSD that can be locked anywhere between 0-100% as required. 550d does not.
M5 has a strengthened rear subframe that is bolted to the bodyshell directly, 550d seems to have a standard F10 one, still with rubber bushes, albeit stiffer ones than in standard models.
M5 has EDC as standard which helps manage weight transfer under power/braking to a finer degree than standard springs and dampers. An implementation of this is optional for the 550d.
M5 has a flat underside for improved aerodynamics, I'm not sure if 550d does or not, but don't recall reading that yesterday in the press release.
M5 has its engine and gearbox mounted 20mm lower than other F10s to both lower CofG to improve handling and also to aid the greater cooling requirements.
It seems the 550d is a halfway step between normal F10s and the full M treatment, as per the original E12 M535i that borrowed an engine not otherwise available in the 5 Series line-up from the contemporary Six and Seven Series, with chassis and driveline modifications to suit, this was repeated with the E28 alongside the full-house M5 that used a Motorsport department built engine, rather than a non-M one.
E30 and E34 Sports all gained mechanical as well as cosmetic enhancements to justify their Sport nomenclature, as did early E36 328i Sports. It was with the advent of the E39 and E46 Sport models that the Sport label began to mean little more than a trim level and has done since. This car and sub-brand is meant to sit in the middle of the largely cosmetic M Sport trim level and the total mechanical overhaul of the standalone flagship M model.
As such, it does make sense to me.
however you drive an M550d it's always going to be more economical than an M5 driven the same way. The question is if it saves you £10 a week on fuel if you are that guy, are you going to give a f
k. I say no, unless some people now think that diesels offer greater driving please, which is balls in equal amounts
k. I say no, unless some people now think that diesels offer greater driving please, which is balls in equal amountsBlown2CV said:
however you drive an M550d it's always going to be more economical than an M5 driven the same way. The question is if it saves you £10 a week on fuel if you are that guy, are you going to give a fk. I say no, unless some people now think that diesels offer greater driving please, which is balls in equal amounts
A lot of people do not want the full fat M5 experience but do want more waft for their €€€ k. I say no, unless some people now think that diesels offer greater driving please, which is balls in equal amountsMrRA said:
How can BMW say that putting '546lb ft of torque through the rear wheels only would be too much for the drivetrain' when they're happy to put roughly 15lb ft less of torque through the rear wheels of an M5? I would've thought that both drivetrains would be strengthened to the same sort of standard?
Can't say I'm a fan of this 'performance diesel' lark anyway. Driven hard they'll deliver very poor mpg.
It's a bit of a misleading comment anyway, because 546 lb ft at the wheels is nack all, basically. Can't say I'm a fan of this 'performance diesel' lark anyway. Driven hard they'll deliver very poor mpg.
Most cars will put out figures in excess of this, in first gear at the wheels.
I understand what they're saying, and that's the level of torque available will make traction difficult at low and medium speeds in a 2wd car.
ArosaMike said:
E38Ross said:
did you read the article?
Yes. It say's it's got 'bespoke chassis settings, steering ratios and even some chassis bits and bobs taken from full-on M models'. Not exactly what you would call the full M treatment is it?! It'll have a 'more sporty' feel undoubtably, but it certainly doesn't appear to have a bespoke body structure and genuine M5 suspension does it? How is what is effectively 'a different damper tune, steering ratio and most likely the suspension bushes from an M5' any different from the 'M Sport suspension' you get on a 520d M Sport?!Fundamentally I ask you this?
a) Does it look more like an M5 or a 5 series with a body kit?
b) Will it handle more like an M5 or an M Sport chassied 5 series?
I think the answer to both is the latter. As an M Sport 5 series, it's ok. It's not an M car though! It doesn't even have an LSD!
Super Slo Mo said:
MrRA said:
How can BMW say that putting '546lb ft of torque through the rear wheels only would be too much for the drivetrain' when they're happy to put roughly 15lb ft less of torque through the rear wheels of an M5? I would've thought that both drivetrains would be strengthened to the same sort of standard?
Can't say I'm a fan of this 'performance diesel' lark anyway. Driven hard they'll deliver very poor mpg.
It's a bit of a misleading comment anyway, because 546 lb ft at the wheels is nack all, basically. Can't say I'm a fan of this 'performance diesel' lark anyway. Driven hard they'll deliver very poor mpg.
Most cars will put out figures in excess of this, in first gear at the wheels.
I understand what they're saying, and that's the level of torque available will make traction difficult at low and medium speeds in a 2wd car.
E38Ross said:
Super Slo Mo said:
It's a bit of a misleading comment anyway, because 546 lb ft at the wheels is nack all, basically.
Most cars will put out figures in excess of this, in first gear at the wheels.
I understand what they're saying, and that's the level of torque available will make traction difficult at low and medium speeds in a 2wd car.
the 760li puts out more torque than the both of them (just) and that's rwd.....Most cars will put out figures in excess of this, in first gear at the wheels.
I understand what they're saying, and that's the level of torque available will make traction difficult at low and medium speeds in a 2wd car.
They're talking crank outputs, not wheels, we all know what gearboxes and final drives do to crank outputs in terms of wheel outputs - don't we?
Zwolf said:
M5 is more than just an engine shoehorning exercise however.
M5 has 8% / 44 lb ft less torque, across a larger rev range, resulting in 47% / 179PS more.
M5 has a seven speed DCT gearbox, 550d an eight speed torque converter autobox.
M5 has an active LSD that can be locked anywhere between 0-100% as required. 550d does not.
M5 has a strengthened rear subframe that is bolted to the bodyshell directly, 550d seems to have a standard F10 one, still with rubber bushes, albeit stiffer ones than in standard models.
M5 has EDC as standard which helps manage weight transfer under power/braking to a finer degree than standard springs and dampers. An implementation of this is optional for the 550d.
M5 has a flat underside for improved aerodynamics, I'm not sure if 550d does or not, but don't recall reading that yesterday in the press release.
M5 has its engine and gearbox mounted 20mm lower than other F10s to both lower CofG to improve handling and also to aid the greater cooling requirements.
It seems the 550d is a halfway step between normal F10s and the full M treatment, as per the original E12 M535i that borrowed an engine not otherwise available in the 5 Series line-up from the contemporary Six and Seven Series, with chassis and driveline modifications to suit, this was repeated with the E28 alongside the full-house M5 that used a Motorsport department built engine, rather than a non-M one.
E30 and E34 Sports all gained mechanical as well as cosmetic enhancements to justify their Sport nomenclature, as did early E36 328i Sports. It was with the advent of the E39 and E46 Sport models that the Sport label began to mean little more than a trim level and has done since. This car and sub-brand is meant to sit in the middle of the largely cosmetic M Sport trim level and the total mechanical overhaul of the standalone flagship M model.
As such, it does make sense to me.
This is the best post in the thread.M5 has 8% / 44 lb ft less torque, across a larger rev range, resulting in 47% / 179PS more.
M5 has a seven speed DCT gearbox, 550d an eight speed torque converter autobox.
M5 has an active LSD that can be locked anywhere between 0-100% as required. 550d does not.
M5 has a strengthened rear subframe that is bolted to the bodyshell directly, 550d seems to have a standard F10 one, still with rubber bushes, albeit stiffer ones than in standard models.
M5 has EDC as standard which helps manage weight transfer under power/braking to a finer degree than standard springs and dampers. An implementation of this is optional for the 550d.
M5 has a flat underside for improved aerodynamics, I'm not sure if 550d does or not, but don't recall reading that yesterday in the press release.
M5 has its engine and gearbox mounted 20mm lower than other F10s to both lower CofG to improve handling and also to aid the greater cooling requirements.
It seems the 550d is a halfway step between normal F10s and the full M treatment, as per the original E12 M535i that borrowed an engine not otherwise available in the 5 Series line-up from the contemporary Six and Seven Series, with chassis and driveline modifications to suit, this was repeated with the E28 alongside the full-house M5 that used a Motorsport department built engine, rather than a non-M one.
E30 and E34 Sports all gained mechanical as well as cosmetic enhancements to justify their Sport nomenclature, as did early E36 328i Sports. It was with the advent of the E39 and E46 Sport models that the Sport label began to mean little more than a trim level and has done since. This car and sub-brand is meant to sit in the middle of the largely cosmetic M Sport trim level and the total mechanical overhaul of the standalone flagship M model.
As such, it does make sense to me.
Zwolf said:
As does the RR Ghost with its further fettled version of that car's lump and driveline.
They're talking crank outputs, not wheels, we all know what gearboxes and final drives do to crank outputs in terms of wheel outputs - don't we?
You would hope so, but conversations with people on here in the not too distant past would suggest otherwise.They're talking crank outputs, not wheels, we all know what gearboxes and final drives do to crank outputs in terms of wheel outputs - don't we?
Zwolf said:
Cheib said:
^^^^^^ Very good post Dennis
Having said that it's a shame when the cars are originally engineered they can't think about things like this...
When do you think product planning and market demand assessments and feasibility studies happen - before anything is committed to manufacture or part way through/afterwards?Having said that it's a shame when the cars are originally engineered they can't think about things like this...
Agreed, excellent post Dennis, some very salient points, well made.
ks....it's just not economically viable. It's probably easier for Audi because the standard cars are FWD....don't know why I just think it might be. Also Audi's corporate parts/platform sharing bin gives them bigger margins than BMW in the first place. The other majore RHD markets are Australia and Japan....I think we can guess the deamnd for 4WD in Oz is bugger all....no idea about Japan, they obviously make a lot including 4WD performance cars but whether 4WD sits well with a premium brand in Japan I don't know. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff