RE: Next BMW M3 confirmed as all-wheel drive...

[Ares]

J4CKO said:

Ares said:

J4CKO said:

I think us blokes are the problem, we get all competitive and want more, bigger, better faster.

The M5 has always been a fast car, but along with the others its got absolutely ridiculous, 600 odd bhp and does 100 mph in 6.8 seconds which is all very impressive and I wouldn't say no, but what on earth is the point ? its got so silly but now the manufacturers are locked in a power battle so they wont back down and us blokes still want more.

When a new car comes out, like the Supra for example, apparently at 4 sec to 60 and 9 ish to 100 it isnt fast enough, fast enough for what ? leaving the earths atmosphere ?

A bit Swiss Toni, but Its probably a good thing that us chaps dont get to spec our own "bedroom weaponry" as I suspect we would mostly choose something several feet long, with the diameter or a drainpipe given half a chance, Thats kind of the equivalent if you draw a parallel between that and using the potential of an M5 on the road, complete overkill for the job in hand.

If two 30 cm wide sticky rubber things with 2 tonnes of weight pressing down onto them cant provide enough grip, then you probably have a bit too much power


Its like we all craved power and straight line performance, so we kept demanding more and sort of overshot what was required by some margin.

They also play to markets outside of the UK though where roads and speed is a level (or 2) above....plus the technology they invest in the top models filters down.

The M5 has always been a luxury saloon with supercar performance. It is arguably just occupying the same space.

Yes, true, what are the markets other than the Autobahn though ? i.e. a dwindling percentage of the German Motorway network.

Its the same space, and dont get me wrong I would have one but as the years march on more and more performance is being added, and I love it but increasingly wonder what the point is.

Suppose there doesnt need to be a point.

A large part of the rest of Europe, having driven around France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Austria as well as Holland and Germany last year, we are a nation of nannies in comparison.

Fast roads in Southern Europe are fast....!

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

I think it was me that brought up weight - I'm not that bothered by power oversteer, I just like a car to be balanced through the bends and responsive in handling. Having owned and driven plenty of FWD, 4WD and RWD cars, I have a strong preference for RWD.

According to weights I've found online, xDrive adds 80kg to 95kg to the car, which is a passenger and a boot full of luggage, so yes, it does make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, that weight is up front, making the car nose heavy. As I said earlier, if they stopped chasing numbers and made the M3 'just' 400bhp it would need less of this heavy engineering on board and smaller wheels and tyres, so would almost certainly drive better.


320i vs 320i xDrive adds 80kg
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...


330i vs 330i xDrive adds 95kg:
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.

In what world does a tank of fuel weigh 95kg?! The F90 M5 has a 76L tank, which at 0.750kg per litre is 57kg.

https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2...

OK, based on the premise of 1l of water weighing 1kg, 80l isn't far off 76l.

But well done for missing the point

And that is still IF the M3 gains 80kg by having the M5's AWD system.

[RobM77]

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

I think it was me that brought up weight - I'm not that bothered by power oversteer, I just like a car to be balanced through the bends and responsive in handling. Having owned and driven plenty of FWD, 4WD and RWD cars, I have a strong preference for RWD.

According to weights I've found online, xDrive adds 80kg to 95kg to the car, which is a passenger and a boot full of luggage, so yes, it does make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, that weight is up front, making the car nose heavy. As I said earlier, if they stopped chasing numbers and made the M3 'just' 400bhp it would need less of this heavy engineering on board and smaller wheels and tyres, so would almost certainly drive better.


320i vs 320i xDrive adds 80kg
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...


330i vs 330i xDrive adds 95kg:
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.

In what world does a tank of fuel weigh 95kg?! The F90 M5 has a 76L tank, which at 0.750kg per litre is 57kg.

https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2...

OK, based on the premise of 1l of water weighing 1kg, 80l isn't far off 76l.

But well done for missing the point

And that is still IF the M3 gains 80kg by having the M5's AWD system.

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

[Terminator X]

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Did you miss the few posts all confirming that M cars are 50/50 weight distribution?

TX.

[Ares]

Terminator X said:

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Did you miss the few posts all confirming that M cars are 50/50 weight distribution?

TX.

Too busy having a rant about something he hasn't driven being not as good as something else he probably hasn't driven. Despite people who have driven the M5 (that he hasn't driven) being better than it's previous generation, and lighter than it's previous generation despite the 'heavy' AWD system.

But to someone who an M car is all about bragging rights, the argument is lost.

The M5 is a car no-one 'needs', it is about want. It was, and always has been, a luxury saloon that can perform like a supercar.

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

If we brought your level of idiocy and Corbyn rivalling nonsensical arguments to the Brexit discussions, we'd be even worse. At least politicians can read.....

[Court_S]

Ares said:

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.
As for balanced, it still has 50/50 weight distribution, and having driven it back-to-back with the F10, and on road and track, it is more balance, more sure-footed and communicative in it's handling and certainly more responsive.

I'm perhaps doping you a disservice, but I suspect you haven't driven the new M5. As are most that blindly criticise it's AWD move. Much as with the E63, these really isn't a complain to be levied. The minimal weight gain is irrelevant in a car weighing approaching 2-tonnes, and the upsides significantly outweigh it.

As for the lighter/400bhp...they are rumoured to be launching it as a pure model, but we all know it won't sell as well, as the M3 has never been about being a lightweight sports car.

Of those that actually buy the cars aren't interested in the weight / interaction of a manual box etc.

Lets face it, a lot of M cars are now sold because they're the fastest / poshest car in that model range rather than because of the handling etc. Each new iteration has to be faster than the predecessor and 0-62 remains the benchmark for that so more and more power / torque seems to be the answer.

The last M3/4 gained a reputation for being a bit spikey (I've not drive one, so am purely going on reviews / internet forums) which will no doubt have impacted on sales. The AWD may help them appeal to wider audience, especially now AWD performance cars are more common.

[HighwayStar]

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

I think it was me that brought up weight - I'm not that bothered by power oversteer, I just like a car to be balanced through the bends and responsive in handling. Having owned and driven plenty of FWD, 4WD and RWD cars, I have a strong preference for RWD.

According to weights I've found online, xDrive adds 80kg to 95kg to the car, which is a passenger and a boot full of luggage, so yes, it does make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, that weight is up front, making the car nose heavy. As I said earlier, if they stopped chasing numbers and made the M3 'just' 400bhp it would need less of this heavy engineering on board and smaller wheels and tyres, so would almost certainly drive better.


320i vs 320i xDrive adds 80kg
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...


330i vs 330i xDrive adds 95kg:
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.

In what world does a tank of fuel weigh 95kg?! The F90 M5 has a 76L tank, which at 0.750kg per litre is 57kg.

https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2...

OK, based on the premise of 1l of water weighing 1kg, 80l isn't far off 76l.

But well done for missing the point

And that is still IF the M3 gains 80kg by having the M5's AWD system.

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Well BMW have kept everyone happy...
They will offer a RWD Pure M3 with a manual and less power than X-Drive models, 480bhp... they must've read your mind. You can breath easy now

https://g20.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

[RobM77]

Ares said:

Terminator X said:

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Did you miss the few posts all confirming that M cars are 50/50 weight distribution?

TX.

Too busy having a rant about something he hasn't driven being not as good as something else he probably hasn't driven. Despite people who have driven the M5 (that he hasn't driven) being better than it's previous generation, and lighter than it's previous generation despite the 'heavy' AWD system.

But to someone who an M car is all about bragging rights, the argument is lost.

The M5 is a car no-one 'needs', it is about want. It was, and always has been, a luxury saloon that can perform like a supercar.

All I am commenting on is the weight of the car, its power and its 4WD system, all of which I think are a bit too much. I think that's a justifiable criticism of both the M5 and many current performance cars. It's a wonderful car, the M5, I'm not taking away from that, but I think those are fair criticisms.

Talking of fair, do you think it's fair for you to claim 76L of petrol weighs 95kg?
Is it fair for you to back that bizarre claim up by stating that you meant a full tank of water, not petrol (!), and even then it'd be 76kg
Is it fair for you to state, without any evidence at all, that the M5 xDrive system weighs less than that in the 320i and 330i? You haven't posted any links or even deduced that claim intelligently, you've just pulled it out of thin air.

Don't be ridiculous Ares. And after making the above daft claims, you're calling me an idiot:

Ares said:

If we brought your level of idiocy and Corbyn rivalling nonsensical arguments to the Brexit discussions, we'd be even worse. At least politicians can read.....

You couldn't make it up!

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 29th October 16:50

[RobM77]

HighwayStar said:

Well BMW have kept everyone happy...
They will offer a RWD Pure M3 with a manual and less power than X-Drive models, 480bhp... they must've read your mind. You can breath easy now

https://g20.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

Brilliant news! Thanks for posting

[RobM77]

Terminator X said:

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Did you miss the few posts all confirming that M cars are 50/50 weight distribution?

TX.

Nope, I'm aware of that and my statement is compatible with that. The 4WD system will increase nose weight, there's no escaping that, but if the M5 really is 50:50 then there must be extra weight at the back, perhaps an LSD for example. So it would still be 50:50, just with a higher polar moment than a 2WD 50:50 BMW.

[jamoor]

HighwayStar said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

I think it was me that brought up weight - I'm not that bothered by power oversteer, I just like a car to be balanced through the bends and responsive in handling. Having owned and driven plenty of FWD, 4WD and RWD cars, I have a strong preference for RWD.

According to weights I've found online, xDrive adds 80kg to 95kg to the car, which is a passenger and a boot full of luggage, so yes, it does make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, that weight is up front, making the car nose heavy. As I said earlier, if they stopped chasing numbers and made the M3 'just' 400bhp it would need less of this heavy engineering on board and smaller wheels and tyres, so would almost certainly drive better.


320i vs 320i xDrive adds 80kg
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...


330i vs 330i xDrive adds 95kg:
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.

In what world does a tank of fuel weigh 95kg?! The F90 M5 has a 76L tank, which at 0.750kg per litre is 57kg.

https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2...

OK, based on the premise of 1l of water weighing 1kg, 80l isn't far off 76l.

But well done for missing the point

And that is still IF the M3 gains 80kg by having the M5's AWD system.

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Well BMW have kept everyone happy...
They will offer a RWD Pure M3 with a manual and less power than X-Drive models, 480bhp... they must've read your mind. You can breath easy now

https://g20.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

I wonder what the advantages of the 4wd M3 vs The Tesla Model 3 Performance will be.

[anonymous-user]

jamoor said:

HighwayStar said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

I think it was me that brought up weight - I'm not that bothered by power oversteer, I just like a car to be balanced through the bends and responsive in handling. Having owned and driven plenty of FWD, 4WD and RWD cars, I have a strong preference for RWD.

According to weights I've found online, xDrive adds 80kg to 95kg to the car, which is a passenger and a boot full of luggage, so yes, it does make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, that weight is up front, making the car nose heavy. As I said earlier, if they stopped chasing numbers and made the M3 'just' 400bhp it would need less of this heavy engineering on board and smaller wheels and tyres, so would almost certainly drive better.


320i vs 320i xDrive adds 80kg
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...


330i vs 330i xDrive adds 95kg:
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.

In what world does a tank of fuel weigh 95kg?! The F90 M5 has a 76L tank, which at 0.750kg per litre is 57kg.

https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2...

OK, based on the premise of 1l of water weighing 1kg, 80l isn't far off 76l.

But well done for missing the point

And that is still IF the M3 gains 80kg by having the M5's AWD system.

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Well BMW have kept everyone happy...
They will offer a RWD Pure M3 with a manual and less power than X-Drive models, 480bhp... they must've read your mind. You can breath easy now

https://g20.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

I wonder what the advantages of the 4wd M3 vs The Tesla Model 3 Performance will be.

nothing, as in the real world, both of those cars are so fast as to be irresponsible if you tried to use them, let alone "race them"........

[HighwayStar]

jamoor said:

HighwayStar said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

RobM77 said:

I think it was me that brought up weight - I'm not that bothered by power oversteer, I just like a car to be balanced through the bends and responsive in handling. Having owned and driven plenty of FWD, 4WD and RWD cars, I have a strong preference for RWD.

According to weights I've found online, xDrive adds 80kg to 95kg to the car, which is a passenger and a boot full of luggage, so yes, it does make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, that weight is up front, making the car nose heavy. As I said earlier, if they stopped chasing numbers and made the M3 'just' 400bhp it would need less of this heavy engineering on board and smaller wheels and tyres, so would almost certainly drive better.


320i vs 320i xDrive adds 80kg
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...


330i vs 330i xDrive adds 95kg:
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...
https://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car...

Doesn't mean the M5 is as bad, or the M3 with the same system...but that it still only the difference between a full tank of fuel.

In what world does a tank of fuel weigh 95kg?! The F90 M5 has a 76L tank, which at 0.750kg per litre is 57kg.

https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2...

OK, based on the premise of 1l of water weighing 1kg, 80l isn't far off 76l.

But well done for missing the point

And that is still IF the M3 gains 80kg by having the M5's AWD system.

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Well BMW have kept everyone happy...
They will offer a RWD Pure M3 with a manual and less power than X-Drive models, 480bhp... they must've read your mind. You can breath easy now

https://g20.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t...

I wonder what the advantages of the 4wd M3 vs The Tesla Model 3 Performance will be.

I’d say on paper, bare numbers the Model 3 would have clear advantages but in the reality... unless you’re about the numbers the M3 would offer more character, more soul.

[Top pup]

RobM77 said:

Terminator X said:

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Did you miss the few posts all confirming that M cars are 50/50 weight distribution?

TX.

Nope, I'm aware of that and my statement is compatible with that. The 4WD system will increase nose weight, there's no escaping that, but if the M5 really is 50:50 then there must be extra weight at the back, perhaps an LSD for example. So it would still be 50:50, just with a higher polar moment than a 2WD 50:50 BMW.

Sportauto weighed an F90 M5 and got 55/45, I think all of the M2/M3/M4 tests I have seen all have a fairly forward weight bias.

[jamoor]

HighwayStar said:

I’d say on paper, bare numbers the Model 3 would have clear advantages but in the reality... unless you’re about the numbers the M3 would offer more character, more soul.

I wonder how many people will be willing to forego the character and soul when a 200 mile journey costs £6 v £50. And no Dodgy BMW engine problems to boot.

[anonymous-user]

jamoor said:

I wonder how many people will be willing to forego the character and soul when a 200 mile journey costs £6 v £50. And no Dodgy BMW engine problems to boot.

Which dodgy engine problems are those?

[HighwayStar]

jamoor said:

HighwayStar said:

I’d say on paper, bare numbers the Model 3 would have clear advantages but in the reality... unless you’re about the numbers the M3 would offer more character, more soul.

I wonder how many people will be willing to forego the character and soul when a 200 mile journey costs £6 v £50. And no Dodgy BMW engine problems to boot.

My first though was ok, just tell us what your agenda is but then I looked at your profile...
Occupation, climate changer!! With 2 x M cars, a GT86 and no EV!!!??
You know why people forego Tesla’s for petrol power. Tesla have been around for a while now and still AMG, M & RS are being bought. The on paper performance of a Tesla, and impressive in isolation, doesn’t translate to in something that some interested in the driving experience wants.

[RobM77]

Top pup said:

RobM77 said:

Terminator X said:

RobM77 said:

Ah, I see, so if you brim the tank of your M5 with water, throw in 10kg of lead shot and 9kg of myrrh, a full tank does indeed weigh 95kg! I get it; how silly of me. Brexit logic

Given that the 320i gains 80kg and the 330i gains 95kg, what logical process are you following to suppose the M system weighs less than 80kg? That doesn't make any sense.

The point, which I haven't missed because I made it in the first place, is that a 4WD system is heavy and most of that extra weight is lumped over the nose. BMW's obsession with making their next M car more powerful than the last has resulted in more and more weight, coupled with poorer and poorer dynamics. Does anyone need an M5 with over 600bhp? Dial the power back to 400-500 and you suddenly don't need huge fat heavy wheels and tyres with a heavy 4WD system. Plus, the rest of us don't have to tolerate a narrow boot because the shell's designed for steamroller rear wheels (the F10, for example, has a boot about a foot narrower than a 3 series because of this). It's all good, apart from the loss of bragging rights at the golf club, assuming you can get there powered by water, lead shot and myrrh.

Did you miss the few posts all confirming that M cars are 50/50 weight distribution?

TX.

Nope, I'm aware of that and my statement is compatible with that. The 4WD system will increase nose weight, there's no escaping that, but if the M5 really is 50:50 then there must be extra weight at the back, perhaps an LSD for example. So it would still be 50:50, just with a higher polar moment than a 2WD 50:50 BMW.

Sportauto weighed an F90 M5 and got 55/45, I think all of the M2/M3/M4 tests I have seen all have a fairly forward weight bias.

To be honest, I've long been suspicious of BMW's 50:50 claims. They claim in their adverts that "all our cars have a perfect 50:50 weight distribution", but how can a 2.0 4 cyl have the same weight distribution as a 3.0 6 cyl diesel, when pretty much everything else is the same? What we do know for a fact is that xDrive adds considerable weight across the whole range, and that weight's at the front. However, that should be countered by saying that I'm sure all their cars are fairly close to 50:50 - much of the benefit of RWD, at road speeds at least, is the favourable weight distribution.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 30th October 08:29

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

All I am commenting on is the weight of the car, its power and its 4WD system, all of which I think are a bit too much. I think that's a justifiable criticism of both the M5 and many current performance cars. It's a wonderful car, the M5, I'm not taking away from that, but I think those are fair criticisms.

Talking of fair, do you think it's fair for you to claim 76L of petrol weighs 95kg? I didn't, I said 80 (there's that reading thing). Can you see how 76 and 80 are similar? I can get my 10yr old explanation if you like

Is it fair for you to back that bizarre claim up by stating that you meant a full tank of water, not petrol (!), and even then it'd be 76kg Again, I didn't, there's that reading thing again), I just did a back of a fag packet calculation to make a throwaway comment about the relevant of a potential of a 4% weight increase using the weight of water. I could have said 'carrying a passenger'.

Is it fair for you to state, without any evidence at all, that the M5 xDrive system weighs less than that in the 320i and 330i? You haven't posted any links or even deduced that claim intelligently, you've just pulled it out of thin air. do you have any evidence that it doesn't? I just said it is more than possible that it does. M-systems are usually a higher spec/lower weight than standard components, and the fact that the AWD M5 is lighter than the RWD M5 is surely a good sign?

Don't be ridiculous Ares. And after making the above daft claims, you're calling me an idiot:

Ares said:

If we brought your level of idiocy and Corbyn rivalling nonsensical arguments to the Brexit discussions, we'd be even worse. At least politicians can read.....

You couldn't make it up!

Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 29th October 16:50

I'll let you read again