RE: Tell me I'm wrong: BMW M5

[Andy M]

http://www.fastestlaps.com/cars/bmw_m5_f10.html

[goldblum]

Andy M said:

http://www.fastestlaps.com/cars/bmw_m5_f10.html

Pity they don't offer the E63's times for comparison.

Videos seem to confirm the 2014 MB 4 is quicker to 90/100 then the M5/6 takes over. I'd be interested to know the true bhp figures for the engine that can haul that huge car to 100 in 7.8 (fastestlaps) seconds.

[Zod]

goldblum said:

Zod said:

goldblum said:

Zod said:

goldblum said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...

Specs for M6 say slower on paper than the AMG, obviously. I reckon that M6 must have easily in excess of 600bhp. The AMG 4 matic is quicker though. M6 (in the clip, anyway) 0-100 = 8.2, E63 4matic = 8.00.

On paper is not the same as on the ground, as the video shows.

Do you mean the M6's 0-100 isn't reliable?

Indeed, in that it appears to be faster than quoted.

Er,OK. Do you have any information on the actual 0-100 of the M6 provided from a source you deem trustworthy?

The Harris video. No figures. Just watch it. THe E63 isn't 4-Matic, but it also isn't anywhere near the M6.

[Grandfondo]

Zod said:

goldblum said:

Zod said:

goldblum said:

Zod said:

goldblum said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...

Specs for M6 say slower on paper than the AMG, obviously. I reckon that M6 must have easily in excess of 600bhp. The AMG 4 matic is quicker though. M6 (in the clip, anyway) 0-100 = 8.2, E63 4matic = 8.00.

On paper is not the same as on the ground, as the video shows.

Do you mean the M6's 0-100 isn't reliable?

Indeed, in that it appears to be faster than quoted.

Er,OK. Do you have any information on the actual 0-100 of the M6 provided from a source you deem trustworthy?

The Harris video. No figures. Just watch it. THe E63 isn't 4-Matic, but it also isn't anywhere near the M6.

Love the M6GC much more than M5!

[RoverP6B]

Andy M said:

Like Mercedes putting 6.3 litre engine badges on the SLS, E63, C63 even though the engine is a 6.2? Is that deception?

It's annoying but easily ignored. Not so fake engine noise.

Re acceleration - drag-racing is an imprecise science when you're using a poor surface such as Bruntingthorpe, which was built over fifty years ago for Avro Vulcans and Handley Page Victors. There has also been a lot of suggestion that the M5/M6 engine develops significantly more power than the book figures - I've heard that some have been dyno'd at closer to 610bhp...

[E65Ross]

Zod said:

NomduJour said:

Zod said:

Whilst I find the whole engine noise thing bizarre and vaguely quixotic, there is a common misunderstanding here: it is the sound of the actual engine that is piped into the cabin, not something artificial.

It absolutely is not. It is completely fake, computer-generated.

OK research tells me that it is the sound of an M5 engine at the same rev level as the engine's current rev level. That's like me sitting at my desk with an array of recordings of myself saying everything I could conceivable ever need to say on the phone and pressing a button to play the recording rather than say it myself. If the reproduction was perfect, you might never know the difference, but what's the point?

Edited by Zod on Thursday 30th January 10:56

Zod is correct here.

And honestly, you simply CANNOT tell the noise is coming through the speakers, not even slightly. It's a shame the actual noise is disappointing. I'd rather they piped some fake but nice engine noise in there instead.

If that's the reason people don't like the car (for having the noise played through the speakers) then that's up to them. They're missing out on one of the greatest all round cars ever made.

[NomduJour]

E65Ross said:

Zod is correct here

If you're suggesting the Muzak is actually the recorded noise of an M5 engine, that is categorically incorrect. As above, it's computer generated as BMW confirm:

"The ASD system complements the sound of the interior space of the passenger compartment through electronically generated engine sounds".

[-Z-]

NomduJour said:

If you're suggesting the Muzak is actually the recorded noise of an M5 engine, that is categorically incorrect. As above, it's computer generated as BMW confirm:

"The ASD system complements the sound of the interior space of the passenger compartment through electronically generated engine sounds".

What does "electronically generated" mean though? It could still mean a recording.

The McLaren 12c has a diaphragm near the cabin at the end of a long pipe. Diaphragm/speaker it's all the same is it not, I mean literally in this case.

In fact as the BMW solution probably weighs less than the McLaren one, does that make it a less cheesy method?

[Palmball]

-Z- said:

It's not a traditional V8 sound but it has a quality all of its own, which actually makes it more unique compared to the ubiquitous AMG sound. It's a very 'technical' sound

Did I accidentally log on as you and write this? Because this is exactly, almost word for word, how I describe the sound of it!

RoverP6B said:

There has also been a lot of suggestion that the M5/M6 engine develops significantly more power than the book figures - I've heard that some have been dyno'd at closer to 610bhp...

Really? Well damn those nasty people at BMW....they've gone and given you more than you pay for. Damn them



There's nothing wrong with the sound at all. OK, it may not be quite as exciting as an AMG or some of the Jag's but, having owned both of those before, I don't get in my M6 and think 'oooh, this sounds sh!te'. Like I said, it's not the best, but it's not bad and it has plenty (unbelievable amounts) of other redeeming qualities which I'm currently happy to give up a degree of sound quality for. One example...an AMG might sound better but every time you try and and change gear manually and it doesn't accept the command, believe me that's far more frustrating!

Theres clearly a lot of lovers and haters in this thread, the latter from people who appear to have little or no prolonged first hand experience of how good these cars are to live with on a daily basis.

[Wills2]

At last some sense.

[NomduJour]

-Z- said:

What does "electronically generated" mean though? It could still mean a recording.

The McLaren 12c has a diaphragm near the cabin at the end of a long pipe. Diaphragm/speaker it's all the same is it not, I mean literally in this case.

In fact as the BMW solution probably weighs less than the McLaren one, does that make it a less cheesy method?

It's a computer-generated noise intended to give an approximation of what BMW think the car should sound like. You can go into the diagnostics and get it to make fake diesel sounds if you want to.

Although it's still pretty crappy, there's a big difference between piping real car sounds inside so you can hear more of them (like Porsche, Ford etc. do) and having to listen to completely fake brum-brum noises.

Where do you stand on these (maybe they'll be on the LCI):

[-Z-]

NomduJour said:

Where do you stand on these (maybe they'll be on the LCI):

Duuuuh its got real turbos, it came with this instead:





Active sound or not, all I know is that its a lot louder than a 350z, my previous car. It sounds better, and can actually entertain in tunnels, which the 350z was hopeless at. Also more burbly with the windows down generally than the M3 V8.

In any case its only a £350 custom exhaust away from true greatness. Not really that bad when you look at it like that.

[RoverP6B]

-Z- said:

What does "electronically generated" mean though? It could still mean a recording. The McLaren 12c has a diaphragm near the cabin at the end of a long pipe. Diaphragm/speaker it's all the same is it not, I mean literally in this case. In fact as the BMW solution probably weighs less than the McLaren one, does that make it a less cheesy method?

The McLaren system simply enables you to hear a bit more of the real engine - not a synthesised approximation thereof.

As for custom exhausts, I'm not usually a fan. For me, a really good engine sound comes from the intake, not the exhaust. Even an Alfa Romeo Busso V6 can be turned into a raucous, uncouth thug with the addition of an overly noisy exhaust. A big carbon intake airbox (a la M3 CSL) would be the first thing on my shopping list, if it would fit.

[julian64]

I can't believe this is even a discussion with two sides on a forum like this.

[RoverP6B]

julian64 said:

I can't believe this is even a discussion with two sides on a forum like this.

Which side do you think we should all be on?

[goldblum]

Personally I'd rather listen to the noise of the car I'm sat in. Can't imagine why anybody would be happy listening to a different engine. Would it stop me buying an M5? - Not on its own.

[AreOut]

it wouldn't stop me from driving one but would from owning, the same way I'd do a great looking girl with the voice of Bruce Buffer but couldn't stand living with her

[Kawasicki]

RoverP6B said:

Which side do you think we should all be on?

Maybe, and I'm going out on a 50/50 limb here, the side without fake engine sounds?

[E65Ross]

It's a shame the noise thing is so off putting to those who say it would put them off owning one (if on the very slim chance they may actually be in the market for that type of car) because everything else about the car is so, so good at what it's designed to do.

No car is perfect. Every car has a compromise. And for what this car is built for it's really, really good and to not own one simply because of the noise is a pity. You'd be missing out on a fantastic car.

[RoverP6B]

It's not just the noise. It's the forced induction, the excessive power, excessive weight, excessive tyre width, the bloody dual-clutch gearbox... 150-200bhp less (depending on its real-world power output), minus the turbochargers and a 500kg diet would make it a vastly better car. AND WHY WON'T THEY BUILD A TOURING?!?!?!?!!!!!