Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.

[luckystrike]

Rincewind209 said:

I love the look of convertibles but the wind just kills it for me.

Which ones have you been driving? My mk1 mx5 can just about handle motorway stints with the roof and windows down, and it's far from the last word in comfort and refinement. Anything vaguely modern with a good heater and a wind deflector would be more than manageable surely?

[Patrick Bateman]

I've read plenty of comments about the relative lack of torque in the e9x M3 but I've never heard the S65 referred to as 'uninspiring' anywhere.

And on the F10 535d/M5 comments, not sure how, what is effectively a 2 tonne limo that happens to have supercar pace, would be any less relaxing than a regular 5 series if you wanted it to be and certainly not slower from A to B, average Joe or otherwise. It's not like it has to get wound up to shift.

[Tuvra]

Hate to mention the obvious, but not powerful enough for me

OK on country roads but a tad embarrassing on dual carriageways or any kind of straight.

[Ali_T]

Porsches. Pretty much all of them bar the 944 and 928. They vary from utterly bland to downright ugly. Those I've tried have never inspired me much to drive either, and I find 911s pretty horrible with the constant front end bobbing. I don't even like the flat six sound. It sounds like a ropey power tool in need of lubrication.

Edited by Ali_T on Wednesday 15th April 11:15

[northwest monkey]

thiscocks said:

Can't actually believe there are people supposedly interested in cars that dislike the look of a Ferrari F40.

For me, the F40 is a bit like the "Emperor's New Clothes" - lots of people like the looks of it because they're supposed to & because "it's an F40". I'm sure it's an excellent drivers car, but pretty or beautiful it is not. I also find the F50 that followed it more interesting from a mechanical point of view.

I used to work for a chap that had an F50. It was a car you could sit there looking at & some of the work under "the bonnet" was incredible. I took him to collect the car once & there was an F40 having some work done at the same place. The difference in the quality and general fit/finish between the 2 cars was staggering.

[theboss]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm not much up on the different versions, as neither of them were mine, but the 535D was a 08 plate car and the M5 a 55 plate, from memory.

So E60 (previous gen) - that partly explains your comparison to some extent. I haven't driven either but from what I've read the diesel and the M5 are fairly polarised in terms of power delivery. The transmissions are very different too. I can imagine the M5 may seem a little highly strung as you have to wring it out to get the full experience. You'd also be stopping to refuel regularly. A masterpiece of an engine but I can imagine a little too compromised for some. Again this is based on my perception rather than experience.

The F10 on the other hand - if you like the way the diesel drives you'd simply laugh out loud at the M5 as it provides 500 lb ft torque from 1500-5750rpm. During my running in phase when shifting at 5k it was like driving a 535d on steroids - similar power delivery.

Essentially the F10 M5 is very good at the split personality thing - it can bumble around lazily and effortlessly with the best of the diesels (and then some) but when you want to have some fun its an entirely different animal.

Running costs will be heavier of course but do you know what - I'm stopped caring. I got 20mpg on a 100 mile run last night and I simply didn't think about it until now. Having had a number of 3.0 diesel BMWs I'd be amazed if a 535d had returned 35mpg driven in the same manner. That's not an insignificant difference of course but ultimately it isn't a massive overall cost difference in the context of either depreciating from new.

[Devil2575]

theboss said:

Devil2575 said:

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.

Do you actually think that a 535d is noisy and unrefined?

I've had and driven many variants of the x35d and think the drivetrain is exceptionally good - but relative to an M5 it is certainly unrefined. I wouldn't say noisy as its quieter.

I've never driven a 535d, but i've owned an E46 330i and driven an E46 330d. Sure one is slighly more noisy on start up and at low revs but I wouldn't describe either as unrefined or noisy. I'd put money on the 535d not being noisy or unrefined either. Relative to a Veyron a 911 Turbo isn't fast in a straight line, that doesn't make it slow.

[coppice]

F40 looks amazing unless you lie awake worrying about panel gaps and nvh (a term originally used re cheap Fords btw). It sounds average. The F50,looks utterly daft and sounds sublime . The 250SWB and 250 GTO look amazing and sound even better .

[Devil2575]

theboss said:

Running costs will be heavier of course but do you know what - I'm stopped caring. I got 20mpg on a 100 mile run last night and I simply didn't think about it until now. Having had a number of 3.0 diesel BMWs I'd be amazed if a 535d had returned 35mpg driven in the same manner. That's not an insignificant difference of course but ultimately it isn't a massive overall cost difference in the context of either depreciating from new.

Surely the M5 is a completely different prospect to the 535d in terms of both running costs and purchase price. The M5 is an £80k car whereas the 535d comes in at under £50k. I'd imagine that the mpg difference is insignificant compared to the 30k difference in list price.

[cerb4.5lee]

Devil2575 said:

theboss said:

Devil2575 said:

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.

Do you actually think that a 535d is noisy and unrefined?

I've had and driven many variants of the x35d and think the drivetrain is exceptionally good - but relative to an M5 it is certainly unrefined. I wouldn't say noisy as its quieter.

I've never driven a 535d, but i've owned an E46 330i and driven an E46 330d. Sure one is slighly more noisy on start up and at low revs but I wouldn't describe either as unrefined or noisy. I'd put money on the 535d not being noisy or unrefined either. Relative to a Veyron a 911 Turbo isn't fast in a straight line, that doesn't make it slow.

Yes you make a fair point, i think my view of a diesel engine is maybe a little too critical because its an engine that i just cant love and i just dont like the noise they make.

A petrol just always seems so much smoother and more refined to me and then i find a diesel unrefined in comparison but in reality the diesel is good for what it is.

[theboss]

Devil2575 said:

theboss said:

Running costs will be heavier of course but do you know what - I'm stopped caring. I got 20mpg on a 100 mile run last night and I simply didn't think about it until now. Having had a number of 3.0 diesel BMWs I'd be amazed if a 535d had returned 35mpg driven in the same manner. That's not an insignificant difference of course but ultimately it isn't a massive overall cost difference in the context of either depreciating from new.

Surely the M5 is a completely different prospect to the 535d in terms of both running costs and purchase price. The M5 is an £80k car whereas the 535d comes in at under £50k. I'd imagine that the mpg difference is insignificant compared to the 30k difference in list price.

This is a misconception based on list prices, because the M5 is much higher specced as standard and also much more heavily discounted. A feature comparable 535d would have merino leather, comfort seats, pro nav, sunroof, HUD, adaptive suspension, adaptive LEDs and no doubt a few other options. List price for this 535d would be over £60k though undoubtedly discounted to nearer £50k. My M5 with this spec was £66k. I could have had a standard spec one - still with most of the above options - for nearer £60k. If you're financing then the M5 is available at 0% so saving a good few thousand pounds on interest (or in PH-speak netting you a good few thousand pounds extra on the freed capital invested). The £30k difference in list is not a true reflection. Only a few months ago I would have simply presumed the same - it was only when I looked into the true figures I realised the M was relatively attainable.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

theboss said:

I got 20mpg on a 100 mile run last night

That's 5 gallons! My Seat Leon Ecomotive would use a gallon and a half. It might take me longer though. Unless you had to stop to refuel, in which case, on a 100 mile run, I'd beat you.

[RobM77]

cerb4.5lee said:

Devil2575 said:

theboss said:

Devil2575 said:

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.

Do you actually think that a 535d is noisy and unrefined?

I've had and driven many variants of the x35d and think the drivetrain is exceptionally good - but relative to an M5 it is certainly unrefined. I wouldn't say noisy as its quieter.

I've never driven a 535d, but i've owned an E46 330i and driven an E46 330d. Sure one is slighly more noisy on start up and at low revs but I wouldn't describe either as unrefined or noisy. I'd put money on the 535d not being noisy or unrefined either. Relative to a Veyron a 911 Turbo isn't fast in a straight line, that doesn't make it slow.

Yes you make a fair point, i think my view of a diesel engine is maybe a little too critical because its an engine that i just cant love and i just dont like the noise they make.

A petrol just always seems so much smoother and more refined to me and then i find a diesel unrefined in comparison but in reality the diesel is good for what it is.

I never really understood these comments about diesels until I remembered such comments whilst I was driving through our car park at work, which is the only time on my commute I get below 30-40mph for any significant time. At town speeds (i.e. crawling traffic in London suburbs), yes, you would know very much that it's diesel and the noise is annoying. Above 30mph though, and my commute's average speed over the last year is 58mph, you'd be hard pressed to tell if my 320d is diesel or petrol by sound alone; at 70mph on the motorway you certainly couldn't, in fact the 3 and 5 series are amongst the quietest cars in their class at a motorway cruise, certainly a few years ago they were the quietest as tested by Autocar.

[Devil2575]

theboss said:

This is a misconception based on list prices, because the M5 is much higher specced as standard and also much more heavily discounted. A feature comparable 535d would have merino leather, comfort seats, pro nav, sunroof, HUD, adaptive suspension, adaptive LEDs and no doubt a few other options. List price for this 535d would be over £60k though undoubtedly discounted to nearer £50k. My M5 with this spec was £66k. I could have had a standard spec one - still with most of the above options - for nearer £60k. If you're financing then the M5 is available at 0% so saving a good few thousand pounds on interest (or in PH-speak netting you a good few thousand pounds extra on the freed capital invested). The £30k difference in list is not a true reflection. Only a few months ago I would have simply presumed the same - it was only when I looked into the true figures I realised the M was relatively attainable.

Possibly says something about how well they are selling...

Given that a 535d has a quoted 0-60 of 5.3 and i'm sure a correspondingly quick 0-100 plus fairly impressive in gear accelleration and will still get 30+ mpg on a run I'm not supprised that BMW is discounting the M5.

[anonymous-user]

RobM77 said:

I never really understood these comments about diesels until I remembered such comments whilst I was driving through our car park at work, which is the only time on my commute I get below 30-40mph for any significant time. At town speeds (i.e. crawling traffic in London suburbs), yes, you would know very much that it's diesel and the noise is annoying. Above 30mph though, and my commute's average speed over the last year is 58mph, you'd be hard pressed to tell if my 320d is diesel or petrol by sound alone; at 70mph on the motorway you certainly couldn't, in fact the 3 and 5 series are amongst the quietest cars in their class at a motorway cruise, certainly a few years ago they were the quietest as tested by Autocar.

I wouldn't give up my straight 6 for any 4 pot diesel. The D5 was ok, but I really don't like the way a diesel engine builds power then falters just where you think it would start extending itself.

[RobM77]

The revered driver's car (or at least much talked about performance car) that I don't get is the Audi RS4. A few years ago I drove a 2007 model with 30k on the clock at the insistence of a friend because I was looking at M3s and similar. I had a pretty decent test drive on a variety of roads and I simply didn't, and still don't, see what the fuss is all about. The interior was lovely, and the styling nice and understated, but both are similar or near identical to lesser models of A4. The handling was safe and predictable, but with a very nose heavy understeer bias that lacked any sort of mid-corner adjustability; again, similar to what's on offer with lesser models, although slightly better I suppose, certainly nothing to put a smile on your face. The sound was subtley different from lesser models, and you could tell it was a V8, but to be honest it was so subtle I doubt people are paying out on 20-25mpg for that. That leaves the performance, which is the RS6's trump card with its stonking V10, but the RS4 disappointed me there too; no doubt drivetrain losses and the much talked about 'coking' suck its power, but it genuinely did not feel in any way fast in a straight line in any gear and at any speed. I realise that my backside's been de-sensitised by years of driving racing cars, but whilst that means I'm not too fussed about the differences between a 335i and a 325i, I can tell the difference and I understand what people enjoy about buying a faster car. The RS4 though felt rather limp wristed, although obviously the engine benefitted from its cubic capacity with a nice spread of torque, it didn't do anything that I thought was worthy of any note.

I'm not saying the RS4 is a bad car, it's just that I genuinely can't see what the fuss is about. If it cost £35k and did 40mpg I'd say it wasn't for me, but it would be a good solid buy for people not interested in driving but wanting a quality item. It's not though, and I don't really see what someone gets for their money compared to lesser models.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 15th April 11:10

[theboss]

Devil2575 said:

Possibly says something about how well they are selling...

Given that a 535d has a quoted 0-60 of 5.3 and i'm sure a correspondingly quick 0-100 plus fairly impressive in gear accelleration and will still get 30+ mpg on a run I'm not supprised that BMW is discounting the M5.

True but 535d's aren't exactly selling like hot cakes - the new registration stats for the last 4 years are very comparable to M5! Let's not forget that a vast majority of F10s have 4 cylinders. The 535d customer is almost as rare as the M5 customer.

Both are excellent cars and if I were doing that 100 mile run twice a day, 5 days a week, I'd have the diesel in a flash. What I find disagreeable is the drawing of a comparison between the two cars as if they M5 is just a marginally faster but much more costly version of the same thing. Yes its more expensive but there is a *night and day* difference in performance and driving enjoyment. I think the F10 M5 is a very underrated machine given the apparent disdain for them.

[RobM77]

yonex said:

RobM77 said:

I never really understood these comments about diesels until I remembered such comments whilst I was driving through our car park at work, which is the only time on my commute I get below 30-40mph for any significant time. At town speeds (i.e. crawling traffic in London suburbs), yes, you would know very much that it's diesel and the noise is annoying. Above 30mph though, and my commute's average speed over the last year is 58mph, you'd be hard pressed to tell if my 320d is diesel or petrol by sound alone; at 70mph on the motorway you certainly couldn't, in fact the 3 and 5 series are amongst the quietest cars in their class at a motorway cruise, certainly a few years ago they were the quietest as tested by Autocar.

I wouldn't give up my straight 6 for any 4 pot diesel. The D5 was ok, but I really don't like the way a diesel engine builds power then falters just where you think it would start extending itself.

Oh yes, even BMW's very revvy diesels (a world apart from Audi, for example) aren't anywhere near a decent petrol engine by that measure, especially a straight 6 (of which I've had 4). That's a totally different issue though, we were talking about refinement and noise, and those terms in the sort of driving that I do (90% motorway, 10% A and B roads at 0.5 to 0.9 leptons) I can genuinely say I've found no difference at all between diesel and petrol BMWs, other than in the width of tyres used and the noise they generate. This leads me to the conclusion I explained above that I can only assume those complaining of noise are town drivers who crawl in queues etc (where personally I wouldn't bother with anything more than a Yaris! What would be the point?).

[Gandahar]

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 !

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gandahar said:

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 !

When people talk about how fast their supercar is, the overlook completely the time taken refuelling the damn thing 3 or 4 times as often as an eco wheezebox.

If may be faster to 60, and 100, and top out at 155mph, but in real life it'll be on average slower, factoring in the extra fuelling time.