RE: BMW M5 (F90): Driven

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Tried a comp pack car ?

Definitely an improvement on the original f80.

Alfa the most engaging in this sector in my opinion as a previous owner but CP M3 by no means a bad car.

[anonymous-user]

What is it about new M car threads that brings out of the irrationally angry custodians of the ///M imagine?

Oh no, silly old BMW. In 20 years they've just about doubled the power, kept the MPG and weight similar, added shedloads of technology and switcheable 4wd and tons more space. According to some what they really should have done is created a 4 door Caterham.

Why people think a large saloon ought to be compromised so much to give track performance over autobahn destructivity leaves me confused.

[anonymous-user]

janesmith1950 said:

What is it about new M car threads that brings out of the irrationally angry custodians of the ///M imagine?

Oh no, silly old BMW. In 20 years they've just about doubled the power, kept the MPG and weight similar, added shedloads of technology and switcheable 4wd and tons more space. According to some what they really should have done is created a 4 door Caterham.

Why people think a large saloon ought to be compromised so much to give track performance over autobahn destructivity leaves me confused.

It’s standard PH fare these days with cut and paste knee jerk reactions from folk who quite frequently have little or no experience of the car in question or indeed any desire/need for the type of vehicle under discussion.

Three marques it seems absolutely guaranteed to bring out these reactions seem to be Audi, Land/Range Rover and BMW M cars.

For each expect plenty of snide comments founded at least as much in social stereotyping regarding owners as the actual engineering under discussion, an excess of hand wringing as to what are deemed unnecessary fripperies/gadgetry/gearboxes/engine aspiration, numerous references to what you *should* buy for the same money and not very subtle references as to how the poster is a PH driving God and so it’s not for him in an autistic “because Elise/Cayman” fashion.

Rinse and repeat .....

[kambites]

I've never understood why people expect these M products to be sports cars. They've always been big fat comfortable saloon cars with lots of power and high quality (but still largely comfort focused) suspension. Maybe the E-class is a better car these days, I've driven neither, but the BMW is still clearly very good at doing what it was designed to do.

[AreOut]

E65Ross said:

Black Prince..... You saying the 5/7 series or E/S class look the same..... Take a look at the E34 and the E32 models from bmw! Or the W124 and W140 from Mercedes and tell me it's much different in the good old days.

E38/E39/E36 were quite distinguishable though, the best era of BMW design

janesmith1950 said:

Oh no, silly old BMW. In 20 years they've just about doubled the power, kept the MPG and weight similar, added shedloads of technology and switcheable 4wd and tons more space. According to some what they really should have done is created a 4 door Caterham.

and made it basically same as merc/audi competitors, 4WD + slushbox, it only needs autopilot and sony playstation so you can have some fun playing Gran Turismo while the car drives itself (fake sound is already there)

[AndStilliRise]

Wow, what a car. M5 just keeps getting better and better.

[Ares]

Willy Nilly said:

Ares said:

lord trumpton said:

I love the looks and the romance of owning such a fast barge but in reality a car of this size and performance makes little sense in the UK

Why?

Traffic, driving to the limit point for a start. Even if you put the law aside for a moment, it's hard to give my car any stick at all, never mind one with 6 times more power. I've watched MotoGP where they show throttle position and the bikes are only at WOT for a few second per lap on a track where going fast is actively encouraged. Quite how you unleash 600 horses from a big car for anything more than a second or two is beyond me, but I'd be interested to learn from you.

I would have thought the 530D or 540i would be pretty fast cars on public roads and more than fast enough. I'm not for one second saying someone shouldn't be allowed to buy it, just wondering how you use the performance you paid for.

Your drive in the wrong parts of the country....and make to stupid assumption that you *need* to drive to the limit to use all available horse-power.

As stated, I have almost as much power, and maybe more Power-to-weight. I get to use all of it daily.

Motorbikes have ever higher PWR. I don't know of many bikers that don't get to use all of their power frequently.

A 520d is pretty fast and more than fast enough for public roads....It doesn't mean people don't want, and want to use more.

[Ares]

Selmer Mk6 said:

I owned M240i auto and yes the box is great, better than the DCT around town. However, when punching it in the DCT (in my F80) the ZF is no match. I can live with the around town ride. People are getting soft. Stamp and go, minimal driving skills required.

But take the ultimate tune/application of a ZF box and it will perform as well as an DCT, so well that you'd mistake it for one.

[Ares]

Willy Nilly said:

E65Ross said:

Willy Nilly said:

Traffic, driving to the limit point for a start. Even if you put the law aside for a moment, it's hard to give my car any stick at all, never mind one with 6 times more power. I've watched MotoGP where they show throttle position and the bikes are only at WOT for a few second per lap on a track where going fast is actively encouraged. Quite how you unleash 600 horses from a big car for anything more than a second or two is beyond me, but I'd be interested to learn from you.

I would have thought the 530D or 540i would be pretty fast cars on public roads and more than fast enough. I'm not for one second saying someone shouldn't be allowed to buy it, just wondering how you use the performance you paid for.

Wow, what a boring place PH has become. Do you find anything like, say, a 911 pointless because it's too fast as well?

So come on then, how do you use that amount of power on the road? I put it to you that there aren't many non racing drivers that could use it on a track. I have heard it said, from someone that currently has 3 911's that they really have too much power

Given you think a Honda Jazz is the perfect vehicle that satisfies your every automotive need, everything with more than 100bhp would cause you problems.

The rest of us are very, very different.

[Ares]

BlackPrince said:

Ares said:

Sounds like it hits the brief square on then....??

On the others whinges

Fake Noise. Contentious issue. In practice, you can't tell. The alternative is either always noisy and being undesirably anti-social, or being too quiet.
Too many gadgets? Such as...? What could/should they remove from std equipment?
Unattractive design? I think it's just right.

No those ARENT the only two alternatives! Are AMG cars "anti-social" or "too quiet?" Not at all, and its not unreasonable to expect any performance saloon to be the same. The difference in the M5 between having the engine sound piped in and the sound after you pull the fuse is albeit not huge but noticeable and irritating in the way the subtle but noticeable sound of a fly buzzing round a room can be.

Plenty would say AMGs are too anti-social. The biggest gripe Mrs Ares had when I looked at the C63s was that is was too noisy, inside and out.

And you are nitpicking. Having driven plenty of M cars with their exhaust sound coming through the speakers, it is indistinguishable and doesn't deter from ownership outside of pedantry.

[Ares]

Willy Nilly said:

E65Ross said:

Well I've driven the twin turbo M6 and a Jag F type R on numerous occasions and, on each of those occasions, full throttle was used several times.

I've also been a passenger in a McLaren 650S which also used full throttle at times.....so I'm not sure why people seem to think that full throttle is simply never possible in cars like these? McLaren 650S was in another league to the F type R yet full throttle was still used and I didn't die. The F type R won't be much slower than this in reality....

To answer your question "So come on then, how do you use that amount of power on the road?" my answer is really very simple. You just put your right foot on the accelerator pedal as far as it'll go. If you're not stupid, you won't die....you'll just go very fast indeed.

If it does 60 in 3.4 seconds, within 10 seconds you're going to be covering a lot of ground, where can you do that with such a big car? It's going to be a case of flat out for 10 seconds then back down to a speed where the ban won't be quite so long. The performance is just as illegal on a bike, but at least a bike is hardly wider than the riders shoulders, so even if the speed is illegal, there is a bit more space to do it for a few more seconds.

Anyway, 600hp would probably need 120+ litres an hour, so you're going to have range issues, unless BMW have put the fuel tank off a combine on it.

You realise a throttle isn't an on/off switch don't you....?

[Ares]

popeyewhite said:

Ares said:

popeyewhite said:

Ares said:

That was the M3. And both were built for homologation purposes to go racing.

No, the first true M5 - the M535, came before any 3 series version. And they were built because MB had the 190 2.3 16v, were racing it, and BMW "had nothing to respond with". BMW had no sports version of the 5 series at this time so decided to build one, hence the M535 in 1984. It's all on the M Division website.

The M5 was first launched in 1986 and created by dropping the M1 engine into the 5-series (535i) shell.
The E30 M3 was the same year.

BMW M Division consider the M535i to be the first M5. I have explained why they developed the car, and when. All this information is available on the BMW M Division website. Yet you know better

I was just taking about the first M5. I don't need a website, a considered opinion or a childish emoji to see what car was the first to wear the M5 badge, and be called the M5. In 1986.

The M535 is/was claimed, by BMW, to be the first M car. But not the first M5.

Yet you know better <insert emoji of your choice>


As for your assertion that the M535 was built in response to the 190 2.3 16v, the M535 was launched in 1979, the 190 2.3 16v in 1982.

[Ares]

popeyewhite said:

BlackPrince said:

Ares said:

Sounds like it hits the brief square on then....??

On the others whinges

Fake Noise. Contentious issue. In practice, you can't tell. The alternative is either always noisy and being undesirably anti-social, or being too quiet.
Too many gadgets? Such as...? What could/should they remove from std equipment?
Unattractive design? I think it's just right.

No those ARENT the only two alternatives! Are AMG cars "anti-social" or "too quiet?" Not at all, and its not unreasonable to expect any performance saloon to be the same. The difference in the M5 between having the engine sound piped in and the sound after you pull the fuse is albeit not huge but noticeable and irritating in the way the subtle but noticeable sound of a fly buzzing round a room can be.

I doubt the poster you're addressing has ever been in the alternatives.

Then your doubts are unfounded

[Ares]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The AMG C63s? I agree it is probably a better all round car,, and certainly sounds better IMO, but disagree that it is moire joyful or engaging.


And the mix up is stating your opinions as fact. As you've done above.

[Ares]

AreOut said:

janesmith1950 said:

Oh no, silly old BMW. In 20 years they've just about doubled the power, kept the MPG and weight similar, added shedloads of technology and switcheable 4wd and tons more space. According to some what they really should have done is created a 4 door Caterham.

and made it basically same as merc/audi competitors, 4WD + slushbox, it only needs autopilot and sony playstation so you can have some fun playing Gran Turismo while the car drives itself (fake sound is already there)

You've just proven her right with irrational bullst

[jamoor]

kambites said:

I've never understood why people expect these M products to be sports cars. They've always been big fat comfortable saloon cars with lots of power and high quality (but still largely comfort focused) suspension. Maybe the E-class is a better car these days, I've driven neither, but the BMW is still clearly very good at doing what it was designed to do.

High quality isn't quite true, rest is mind.

[Willy Nilly]

Ares said:

Given you think a Honda Jazz is the perfect vehicle that satisfies your every automotive need, everything with more than 100bhp would cause you problems.

The rest of us are very, very different.

My car does satisfy my automotive needs, which I why I bought it. I'm not saying that the new M5 shouldn't be bought, just questioning what use it is. The bigger petrol and diesels would shift a bit (probably as fast as previous M cars) and I suspect be nice to drive, so what use is a 600hp saloon car that can't be unleashed on the roads and would probably be too heavy for much fun on a track?

I have a PC41 CBR600F. It's engine is a derated 600RR engine. My then boss (who has many very fast cars) asked why I didn't get the RR as it was more powerfull. My response was because I don't do track days. Horses for courses.

[kambites]

jamoor said:

High quality isn't quite true, rest is mind.

Is it not? It certainly was of most previous M-cars, the engineering quality and calibration of the suspension components was leagues ahead of the "normal" 3- and 5-series.

[Ares]

Willy Nilly said:

Ares said:

Given you think a Honda Jazz is the perfect vehicle that satisfies your every automotive need, everything with more than 100bhp would cause you problems.

The rest of us are very, very different.

My car does satisfy my automotive needs, which I why I bought it. I'm not saying that the new M5 shouldn't be bought, just questioning what use it is. The bigger petrol and diesels would shift a bit (probably as fast as previous M cars) and I suspect be nice to drive, so what use is a 600hp saloon car that can't be unleashed on the roads and would probably be too heavy for much fun on a track?

I have a PC41 CBR600F. It's engine is a derated 600RR engine. My then boss (who has many very fast cars) asked why I didn't get the RR as it was more powerfull. My response was because I don't do track days. Horses for courses.

So why buy a 530d rather than a 520d? Or a 540d rather than a 530d?

Why did people buy a 600RR instead of a 1000RR? And infact, the fact was they didn't, hence why the 600RR has been discontinued but the 1000RR lives on.

Just because you can't use the power, doesn't mean other can't. To many, the 600RR doesn't have enough grunt (hence why it didn't sell!).

[jamoor]

kambites said:

Is it not? It certainly was of most previous M-cars, the engineering quality and calibration of the suspension components was leagues ahead of the "normal" 3- and 5-series.

True, but engines that have major rod bearing wear, reluctor rings, ABS sensors, throttle gears etc etc.