Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.
Discussion
Gandahar said:
jamieduff1981 said:
It's b
ks is what it is.
Even on long trips (which I actually do, with inlaws being 700 miles away) the length of driving between stops is governed by kids' bladders not fuel tank size.
That actually is an admission you are not driving that fast so don't need the 500bhp, if you think about it.ks is what it is.Even on long trips (which I actually do, with inlaws being 700 miles away) the length of driving between stops is governed by kids' bladders not fuel tank size.
And at 85-100mph you are going to be making more fuel stops in the petrol than the diesel. I can actually do 700 miles on one stop rather than 2-3
If you're driving anything more PH than a Micra day to day then there's a bit of a flaw in your logic.
jamieduff1981 said:
Really? Really really?
Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?
Yes. Not the person buying a 911 GT3, nor the person buying a Lambo or a Caterham. But the person buying a go-faster comfy saloon car, yes I think poor range is a put-off for many buyers. Not for everyone obviously but for me, for the car I want to use for long distance transport day-in-day-out, I don't want to be having to fill the wretched thing up every day. I get no pleasure at all from fuel stops, especially in the winter, and I don't like looking at a fuel gauge late at night and constantly working out whether I have to stop before I get home or will have to set off earlier next morning to accommodate a fuel stop on my 60 mile journey to work.Do you think anyone buying an M5 or an RS6 gives a single toss about average journey times factoring in fuel stops?
The solution need not be a four-pot diesel. It can be a huge fuel tank.As long as I can do 450-500 miles on a tank I am happy enough. All my cars will do that: the thirstiest is a 22-25 mpg 5 litre V8, the most economical is a 60+ mpg hybrid, and there are various points in between! But my very first car, in the late 1970s, struggled to do my regular 200 mile Yorkshire to London weekly commute without refuelling and it was seriously irritating. When I eventually got my hands on a car that would do the 400 mile round trip with fuel to spare it was like getting rid of a constant headache.
jamieduff1981 said:
Even on long trips (which I actually do, with inlaws being 700 miles away) the length of driving between stops is governed by kids' bladders not fuel tank size.
If you are doing 700 miles in a hit, yes you will be bladder-constrained. You are in a tiny, tiny, almost negligible minority.My most usual journeys on a weekly scale are between 160 and 200 miles. I go to the loo before I set off, then do the trip. No need to stop anywhere en route. I'm not interested in having to waste time on a fuel stop every one or two journeys rather than once every four journeys.
Lowtimer said:
Still think the apogee of that line was the 288GTO.
Couldn't agree more. The difference between F40 and F50, however, was aero. Ferrari went high tech in the intervening 8 years and the F50 was the beginning of the ugly Ferrari where form was dictated by function that still continues to this day. I much prefer the more naive days of the early years where function was a gurney flap and the occasional extra air duct.As someone who mucks about with aeroplanes a bit I have a lot of sympathy with proper aerodynamics and things being the shape they are for engineering reasons. But some designers manage to combine sound engineering features with aesthetic appeal more successfully. I do think the F50 is a fine machine, objectively better than the 288GTO, but it doesn't do anything for me emotionally, and none of the above is something you buy for rational transport.
Lowtimer said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Even on long trips (which I actually do, with inlaws being 700 miles away) the length of driving between stops is governed by kids' bladders not fuel tank size.
If you are doing 700 miles in a hit, yes you will be bladder-constrained. You are in a tiny, tiny, almost negligible minority.My most usual journeys on a weekly scale are between 160 and 200 miles. I go to the loo before I set off, then do the trip. No need to stop anywhere en route. I'm not interested in having to waste time on a fuel stop every one or two journeys rather than once every four journeys.
I tend to drive 60 miles per day, and fill up once a week whichever car I'm in.
My TVR will do 250 miles between fill ups. On a motorway long journey the XFR-S will do 400 miles, or 250 miles if pratting about and hanging on to low gears making V8 noises and exhaust crackles.
Range simply is not an issue.
Gandahar said:
I have to confess I "do not get" big petrol super-estates like the Audi RS6 with 550bhp. I can understand they are great engineering and flippin' fast but it seems to me for what they are used for they probably do not need all that power and require a lot more time filling up than a pretty fast diesel estate.
Trip to the seaside
You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !
Time filling up - negligible. F10 does 350 miles to a tank even when pushing on. When did you last drive >350 miles without stopping, with 3 kids in the back. If you set off for a long journey with a third of a tank of fuel then of course you're going to be stopping to refuel, no matter what you're driving. Granted, you're putting more fuel in the tank, and more frequently than a 'normal' car - but this doesn't generally inconvenience.Trip to the seaside
You are going to fast
Petrol fill up
Daughter in back feels sick due to acceleration
Petrol fill up
arrive at seaside.... oh, no 3 grains of sand in the car !
Going too fast - beauty of a super saloon is that it will hide the speed beautifully. I've had the wife talking to me with Radio 3 playing serenely in the background whilst well into 3 figures - something she'd go bananas about if she'd known.
Kids - keep asking if we can go in 'my' car, for some reason.
Petrol fill up - already covered - non issue.
3 Grains of sand on the carpet - you've got me there, I concede
but I promise I will try to just grin and bear it, when the inevitable happens. The 'family car' usability was a major factor in buying an M5.Edited by theboss on Wednesday 15th April 15:07
Lowtimer said:
jamieduff1981 said:
Range simply is not an issue.
For you. It is for me, and apparently for many other people.
For everyone who buys a 520d instead of an M5, it's perceived cost, both purchase and running that decides it.
"I was about to order an M5 but realised I'd spend an addition 12.7 minutes per week in filling stations and bought a diesel instead" said plenty on PH and down the pub, but the reality is that those people were never in the market for an M5 or similar and the decision was defacto because they couldn't afford it.
It's not true that it's a mongrel car. It's just a car. It's just as good at doing the family thing as the small engined version, but it has the ability to entertain a little bit on the way back from dropping the children off at their granny's for the day. Some people only have space for one car. They can give up completely or buy a car which meets the functional needs and delivers as much fun as it can whilst being family capable.
Others have more than one car. Maybe they just prefer fast cars to slow ones.
Too many here are thinking from the perspective of having insufficient money to really enjoy such a car so they're seeing a modest budget going entirely on a 2nd hand M5, or being split between a 2nd hand small sports car and a 2nd hand vanilla commuter car.
There's nothing wrong with that, but these cars make plenty sense to those who own them. If you don't want to "get" them then fine. They are pointless but so is anything with more wheels than seats and is capable of exceeding the national speed limit. This is Pistonheads and the vast majority of us have cars with a degree of superfluous ability which we drive just because we can.
jamieduff1981 said:
Which is fine - I'm not easily swayed myself.
All I'm saying is that it's far more respectable to just state "I don't like them" than fabricate ridiculous reasons.
again what is ridiculoius to you is not to others.All I'm saying is that it's far more respectable to just state "I don't like them" than fabricate ridiculous reasons.
Some live in a visceral world where perfromance stats and what those stats feel like on a open clear road are the be all and end all. Can't argue with that...
Others read those things but seethe reality of current road/traffic conditions, family needs and fuel requirements breaking it down and stopping the stats meaning anything... can't really argue with that either...
Horses for course s'all.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
theboss said:
If you set off for a long journey with a third of a tank of fuel then of course you're going to be stopping to refuel, no matter what you're driving.
I could go from London to Manchester with a third of a tank and still have about 50 miles to spare. Edited by theboss on Wednesday 15th April 17:46
jamieduff1981 said:
Let's not pretend that's the real reason or even a minor reason why *anybody* doesn't buy a halo model.
For everyone who buys a 520d instead of an M5, it's perceived cost, both purchase and running that decides it.
"I was about to order an M5 but realised I'd spend an addition 12.7 minutes per week in filling stations and bought a diesel instead" said plenty on PH and down the pub, but the reality is that those people were never in the market for an M5 or similar and the decision was defacto because they couldn't afford it.
It's not true that it's a mongrel car. It's just a car. It's just as good at doing the family thing as the small engined version, but it has the ability to entertain a little bit on the way back from dropping the children off at their granny's for the day. Some people only have space for one car. They can give up completely or buy a car which meets the functional needs and delivers as much fun as it can whilst being family capable.
Others have more than one car. Maybe they just prefer fast cars to slow ones.
Too many here are thinking from the perspective of having insufficient money to really enjoy such a car so they're seeing a modest budget going entirely on a 2nd hand M5, or being split between a 2nd hand small sports car and a 2nd hand vanilla commuter car.
There's nothing wrong with that, but these cars make plenty sense to those who own them. If you don't want to "get" them then fine. They are pointless but so is anything with more wheels than seats and is capable of exceeding the national speed limit. This is Pistonheads and the vast majority of us have cars with a degree of superfluous ability which we drive just because we can.
For everyone who buys a 520d instead of an M5, it's perceived cost, both purchase and running that decides it.
"I was about to order an M5 but realised I'd spend an addition 12.7 minutes per week in filling stations and bought a diesel instead" said plenty on PH and down the pub, but the reality is that those people were never in the market for an M5 or similar and the decision was defacto because they couldn't afford it.
It's not true that it's a mongrel car. It's just a car. It's just as good at doing the family thing as the small engined version, but it has the ability to entertain a little bit on the way back from dropping the children off at their granny's for the day. Some people only have space for one car. They can give up completely or buy a car which meets the functional needs and delivers as much fun as it can whilst being family capable.
Others have more than one car. Maybe they just prefer fast cars to slow ones.
Too many here are thinking from the perspective of having insufficient money to really enjoy such a car so they're seeing a modest budget going entirely on a 2nd hand M5, or being split between a 2nd hand small sports car and a 2nd hand vanilla commuter car.
There's nothing wrong with that, but these cars make plenty sense to those who own them. If you don't want to "get" them then fine. They are pointless but so is anything with more wheels than seats and is capable of exceeding the national speed limit. This is Pistonheads and the vast majority of us have cars with a degree of superfluous ability which we drive just because we can.
Get Em' 
cerb4.5lee said:
That really surprises me as you seem to be really into cars, so you would rather have a noisy unrefined diesel engine over a petrol V8 engine with around 560bhp? I appreciate what you are saying about the weight of a M5 as it is a serious barge but it still goes like the clappers for its weight.
A 535d isn't exactly featherweight either.
Devil 2575 said:A 535d isn't exactly featherweight either.
"Maybe the problem is that the F10 M5 isn't quite a drivers machine that it's predecessors were? It's almost 1900kg.
I'm also sure that it is staggeringly quick, even compared to a 535d but how much of this is relevant in the real world? I'm sure that a 535d is fast enough for most buyers, it gets much better mpg and will be cheaper to maintain and is still a cheaper car to buy. In fact an F10 525d is probably fast enough and a lot less to buy and run.
It's not like with the E39 where the quickest diesel version still took 8 seconds to get to 60, and would still only do low 30s on a run. These days a 525d has more power than the old 530d, is faster and gets better economy, 41 mpg based on honest John real mpg. If you wanted a quick E39 you needed to go for a 540i or an M5. Now you can get a diesel version of the 5 series which is quick but economical.
Given that the majority of cars like the 5 series are bought to chew up and down motorways i'm not supprised that the M5 is falling from favour with many buyers. I also wonder how much company car tax influeneces the buying choices of many 5 series owners."
Thanks, that sums up my thoughts exactly. I'm not saying necessarily that I wouldn't like driving the M5 better than the 535d but looking at the cold hard stats, it only has 8% more torque than the 535d and yet is 46% less economical, 52% more expensive and yes, it has a shed load more power but is only a second quicker to 60mph and the same top speed (limited). A 535d is as quick as an E34 M5. I appreciate in reality that the price difference may be smaller but a 535d MSport would have all the gadgets that I would want and I wouldn't be adding on thousands of pounds worth of options. If I were to buy a new 5-Series it would be for the comfort, practicality and long distance cruising ability and I think the 535d would do this just as well as the M5 for significantly less. As for noise and refinement, yes, 4-pot diesels are pretty horrid in this respect but in my experience, 6-pot diesels are pretty refined and isn't this engine widely regarded as one of the best?
The other problem I have with the latest M5 is the laws of diminishing returns. The F10 M5 is 30% heavier and 17% wider than the original. I appreciate that some of the extra weight is necessary due to safety legislation. The girth wouldn't be an issue on motorways/A-roads but on narrow B-roads, I think it would be a barrier to having fun. Yes, it has pretty much double the power and yet it is only 2 seconds quicker to 60mph and is it more fun, more special or a more pure driver's car? The older M5s sound glorious but this one has synthesised engine noise through the speakers FFS and adding a shed load of power to compensate for a 30% increase in weight just seems like lazy engineering to me. A LWB Jaguar XJ is a much bigger car (next class size up) and yet only weighs 45kg more!
Insurance aside, back in the day if you could afford to run a 325i, you could probably afford to run an E28/E34 M5, I'm not sure if the same would be true today comparing a new 325i to an F10 M5. There's also the not inconsiderable price. The classic M5s were priced between blue collar performance cars and junior supercars. Now for a similar price as an M5, you could get something much more focussed (and lighter) like a 911, Jaguar F-Type/XK, GTR or R8. I'm not saying that the M5 is not a good car but it's difficult to see why one would buy one over any of the above.
Edited by white_goodman on Wednesday 15th April 18:34
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff