RE: Tell me I'm wrong: BMW M5
Discussion
E65Ross said:
You are aware the F10 will out-handle the E9,right? The E39 was hardly a lightweight either at 1826kgs.
I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
This is a really good point - people forget how heavy the E39 was which actually makes the F10's weight entirely reasonable. It would likely destroy an E39 in a crash as a result of an immensely stronger chassis, it has a bigger engine with turbos and a vast array of additional (and heavy) technology....and for all this it weighs just a few KG's more. And yes, I know that advances in technology means it should have been lighter despite all that, but I think as we're starting to see with the new F80 M3/4, that's coming very soon!I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
I know it won't appeal to everyone but, in typical internet fashion, I'd suggest that the majority of negative comments will be from experts who haven't even driven or heard one
ETA - I've owned both in last few months (well, not an F10, but an F13) and whilst the e39 was very (very!) good, especially considering it's age, it's a clearly from a different era. The advances on the F-series cars are not all positive, but on the whole they are a success and in some cases, mind-blowing.
Edited by Palmball on Sunday 26th January 16:26
RoverP6B said:
The F10 isn't fit to lick its exhaust tips. It's trying to be a 7-series-come-Nissan-GTR and ends up being a jack of all trades and master of none but going fast in a straight line.
E39 M5 Ring time: 8:16E39 M5 BHP: 400 BHP
0-60: 4.8 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
F10 M5 ring time: 7.55
F10 M5 BHP: 560 bhp
0-60: 3.6 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
Hush up now.
Oh and by the way, when the E39 M5 was launched it weighed 1,826 KG, so don't think of it as some kind of superfeather light welterweight type of car.
Amirhussain said:
E39 M5 Ring time: 8:16
E39 M5 BHP: 400 BHP
0-60: 4.8 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
F10 M5 ring time: 7.55
F10 M5 BHP: 560 bhp
0-60: 3.6 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
So, around 5% faster yet.....bigger, more luxurious, more refined, safer and with a lot more technology. Yep, the haters have got it right....it's crap. E39 M5 BHP: 400 BHP
0-60: 4.8 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
F10 M5 ring time: 7.55
F10 M5 BHP: 560 bhp
0-60: 3.6 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
Amirhussain said:
RoverP6B said:
The F10 isn't fit to lick its exhaust tips. It's trying to be a 7-series-come-Nissan-GTR and ends up being a jack of all trades and master of none but going fast in a straight line.
E39 M5 Ring time: 8:16E39 M5 BHP: 400 BHP
0-60: 4.8 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
F10 M5 ring time: 7.55
F10 M5 BHP: 560 bhp
0-60: 3.6 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
Hush up now.
Oh and by the way, when the E39 M5 was launched it weighed 1,826 KG, so don't think of it as some kind of superfeather light welterweight type of car.
To be pedantic, the manual calls it 1795kg, that's with a full tank and a driver.
Whilst an F10 is better in outright performance that doesn't mean to say someone has to like it. In the same way that someone might prefer an e28 despite not being as good in any scientifically measurable sense. More doesn't always mean better to people.
Patrick Bateman said:
He wasn't arguing it wasn't faster.
To be pedantic, the manual calls it 1795kg, that's with a full tank and a driver.
Whilst an F10 is better in outright performance that doesn't mean to say someone has to like it. In the same way that someone might prefer an e28 despite not being as good in any scientifically measurable sense. More doesn't always mean better to people.
He was arguing that it's not fit to lick its exhaust pipes and it's trying to be a 7 series and something to beat a performance car. As if that's a totally different ethos to the E39 M5 To be pedantic, the manual calls it 1795kg, that's with a full tank and a driver.
Whilst an F10 is better in outright performance that doesn't mean to say someone has to like it. In the same way that someone might prefer an e28 despite not being as good in any scientifically measurable sense. More doesn't always mean better to people.
Patrick Bateman said:
Amirhussain said:
RoverP6B said:
The F10 isn't fit to lick its exhaust tips. It's trying to be a 7-series-come-Nissan-GTR and ends up being a jack of all trades and master of none but going fast in a straight line.
E39 M5 Ring time: 8:16E39 M5 BHP: 400 BHP
0-60: 4.8 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
F10 M5 ring time: 7.55
F10 M5 BHP: 560 bhp
0-60: 3.6 seconds
Top speed: 155 mph (limited)
Hush up now.
Oh and by the way, when the E39 M5 was launched it weighed 1,826 KG, so don't think of it as some kind of superfeather light welterweight type of car.
To be pedantic, the manual calls it 1795kg, that's with a full tank and a driver.
Whilst an F10 is better in outright performance that doesn't mean to say someone has to like it. In the same way that someone might prefer an e28 despite not being as good in any scientifically measurable sense. More doesn't always mean better to people.
I think those stats prove him very very wrong. Its the E39 which isn't fit to lick the F10's exhausts tips
Amirhussain said:
My post was more aimed at the crap 'The F10 isn't fit to lick its exhaust tips'
I think those stats prove him very very wrong. Its the E39 which isn't fit to lick the F10's exhausts tips
In him saying that, I seriously doubt he was saying that an F10 wasn't faster, everybody knows it is.I think those stats prove him very very wrong. Its the E39 which isn't fit to lick the F10's exhausts tips
E65Ross said:
You are aware the F10 will out-handle the E9,right? The E39 was hardly a lightweight either at 1826kgs.
I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
It may go round a race-track faster, but what makes a great sports saloon is so much more than that. As I said, the E39 was not a lightweight, but the M5 is what, another 150kg on top? Arguably taking the E39 and trying to shave 150kg OFF its kerb weight would have been a good place to start. A dual-clutch gearbox adds a fair bit (I've heard claimed estimates of 50kg but cannot verify) compared to a manual. The F10 shell is also that much bigger. If it was more the size of the E39, with a manual 'box and a load of lightweight panels, manual rather than electric seat adjustment etc, I reckon a sub 1700kg kerb weight would have been realistically achievable. The E39 also had rather less rubber on it, less grip, which I thought PHers were agreed is A Good Thing? GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip and Harris seemed to think that swapping 255s for 125 space-saver spares on a C63 AMG was an improvement (though I'd have said that really is reductio ad absurdam! - 225s would have been more like it).I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
Palmball said:
It would likely destroy an E39 in a crash as a result of an immensely stronger chassis, it has a bigger engine with turbos and a vast array of additional (and heavy) technology
Smaller engine actually (E39's engine is 600CC bigger). The E39 was already a safe car, and you're less likely to crash it as you can see out of it that much more easily than the pillbox F10...RoverP6B said:
It may go round a race-track faster, but what makes a great sports saloon is so much more than that. As I said, the E39 was not a lightweight, but the M5 is what, another 150kg on top? Arguably taking the E39 and trying to shave 150kg OFF its kerb weight would have been a good place to start. A dual-clutch gearbox adds a fair bit (I've heard claimed estimates of 50kg but cannot verify) compared to a manual. The F10 shell is also that much bigger. If it was more the size of the E39, with a manual 'box and a load of lightweight panels, manual rather than electric seat adjustment etc, I reckon a sub 1700kg kerb weight would have been realistically achievable. The E39 also had rather less rubber on it, less grip, which I thought PHers were agreed is A Good Thing? GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip and Harris seemed to think that swapping 255s for 125 space-saver spares on a C63 AMG was an improvement (though I'd have said that really is reductio ad absurdam! - 225s would have been more like it).
I'd say manual seats and the like isn't going to happen but I agree with you more here than your views on the M3. At least they've focussed on making the new M3/M4 lighter, even if it's not drastic. You'd have thought they'd try not to add another 100-150kg on top of an already heavy package with the F10.RoverP6B said:
E65Ross said:
You are aware the F10 will out-handle the E9,right? The E39 was hardly a lightweight either at 1826kgs.
I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
It may go round a race-track faster, but what makes a great sports saloon is so much more than that. As I said, the E39 was not a lightweight, but the M5 is what, another 150kg on top? Arguably taking the E39 and trying to shave 150kg OFF its kerb weight would have been a good place to start. A dual-clutch gearbox adds a fair bit (I've heard claimed estimates of 50kg but cannot verify) compared to a manual. The F10 shell is also that much bigger. If it was more the size of the E39, with a manual 'box and a load of lightweight panels, manual rather than electric seat adjustment etc, I reckon a sub 1700kg kerb weight would have been realistically achievable. The E39 also had rather less rubber on it, less grip, which I thought PHers were agreed is A Good Thing? GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip and Harris seemed to think that swapping 255s for 125 space-saver spares on a C63 AMG was an improvement (though I'd have said that really is reductio ad absurdam! - 225s would have been more like it).I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
RoverP6B said:
Smaller engine actually (E39's engine is 600CC bigger). The E39 was already a safe car, and you're less likely to crash it as you can see out of it that much more easily than the pillbox F10...
Doh! 
Of course it is...when I wrote that I had in my mind it was a 4 not 5 litre and deserve to be banned for speaking such s
te! 
Yes, the E39 was no doubt deemed very safe in the mid-90's (when the design was conceived) but it'd probably be torn apart by a Focus these days. I'm sure I remember seeing on one of the motoring shows a Renault Clio crash into a mid-90's big Volvo estate (940?) and the Volvo, despite probably being a leading safety contender in it's day, simply disintegrated. The point is, some of the added weight on new cars is doing something useful and we're only just now on the cusp of seeing manufacturers being able to maintain these advances whilst turning that weight dial back.
RoverP6B said:
E65Ross said:
You are aware the F10 will out-handle the E9,right? The E39 was hardly a lightweight either at 1826kgs.
I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
It may go round a race-track faster, but what makes a great sports saloon is so much more than that. As I said, the E39 was not a lightweight, but the M5 is what, another 150kg on top? Arguably taking the E39 and trying to shave 150kg OFF its kerb weight would have been a good place to start. A dual-clutch gearbox adds a fair bit (I've heard claimed estimates of 50kg but cannot verify) compared to a manual. The F10 shell is also that much bigger. If it was more the size of the E39, with a manual 'box and a load of lightweight panels, manual rather than electric seat adjustment etc, I reckon a sub 1700kg kerb weight would have been realistically achievable. The E39 also had rather less rubber on it, less grip, which I thought PHers were agreed is A Good Thing? GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip and Harris seemed to think that swapping 255s for 125 space-saver spares on a C63 AMG was an improvement (though I'd have said that really is reductio ad absurdam! - 225s would have been more like it).I wonder whether people moaned it was too heavy when it came out?
Why would BMW offer a manual box when the DCT is quicker, its supposed to be one of the best on the market. When car mags/reviewers do lap times, the quickest cars do play a big part in influencing the peoples choices, if BMW offered the manual and when it was lapped, was considerably slower than its rivals, it would get critisised big time.
Yes I know its offered with a manual box in the USA.
Also BMW offer the M135i with a manual box, be interesting to see how many people have bought the 8 speed auto and how many the manual.
Also use, lightweight panels, basically Carbon Fiber, that would just add to the cost, and then people are going to be whinging even more at depreciation.
'GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip',
This is the same GT86 which some PH'ers was busting their nut over when it was revealed that it was going to be a 2 litre NA engine with 200 bhp, saying 'its nice to see a car that doesn't have to rely on big BHP', 'so nice to have a NA car', but quickly changed their minds and started saying 'it needs to be turbocharged', 'it needs more BHP'.
Amirhussain said:
If BMW made the shiit your saying such as 'manual rather than electric seat adjustments', everyone knows for fact they would get slated big time, it would be seen as a big brand being tight, and something you would expect to see in a £15k Fiesta, not a £50k plus M car.
Why would BMW offer a manual box when the DCT is quicker, its supposed to be one of the best on the market. When car mags/reviewers do lap times, the quickest cars do play a big part in influencing the peoples choices, if BMW offered the manual and when it was lapped, was considerably slower than its rivals, it would get critisised big time.
Yes I know its offered with a manual box in the USA.
Also BMW offer the M135i with a manual box, be interesting to see how many people have bought the 8 speed auto and how many the manual.
Also use, lightweight panels, basically Carbon Fiber, that would just add to the cost, and then people are going to be whinging even more at depreciation.
'GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip',
This is the same GT86 which some PH'ers was busting their nut over when it was revealed that it was going to be a 2 litre NA engine with 200 bhp, saying 'its nice to see a car that doesn't have to rely on big BHP', 'so nice to have a NA car', but quickly changed their minds and started saying 'it needs to be turbocharged', 'it needs more BHP'.
He does have a point though. Plenty of journalists have said, despite the car being excellent, it's still too heavy and big. If the next M5 is 100kg heavier you're over the 2 tonne mark. The buck has to stop somewhere, they've obviously realised this with the new M3 and M4.Why would BMW offer a manual box when the DCT is quicker, its supposed to be one of the best on the market. When car mags/reviewers do lap times, the quickest cars do play a big part in influencing the peoples choices, if BMW offered the manual and when it was lapped, was considerably slower than its rivals, it would get critisised big time.
Yes I know its offered with a manual box in the USA.
Also BMW offer the M135i with a manual box, be interesting to see how many people have bought the 8 speed auto and how many the manual.
Also use, lightweight panels, basically Carbon Fiber, that would just add to the cost, and then people are going to be whinging even more at depreciation.
'GT86/BRZ has been well received mostly because it has so little grip',
This is the same GT86 which some PH'ers was busting their nut over when it was revealed that it was going to be a 2 litre NA engine with 200 bhp, saying 'its nice to see a car that doesn't have to rely on big BHP', 'so nice to have a NA car', but quickly changed their minds and started saying 'it needs to be turbocharged', 'it needs more BHP'.
I'm sorry, but this whole idea that we need to pursue ever-faster lap-times and acceleration figures is just BS. The E39 M5 was already mostly traction-limited in 0-62mph times - adding 150kg and 150bhp isn't going to make that better - the only way of improving traction is more weight over the rear (upsets the balance), AWD (more weight and complexity) or much wider tyres (which means higher rolling resistance and less chassis adjustability). A DCT may make you quicker in a drag race, but I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with anyone who considered that a high priority in a big saloon. It'll add weight to the car and make it slower through corners.
Lightweight panels do not have the be expensive. Carbon is getting cheaper, GRP has always been cheap and now we're seeing bio-fibre, hemp and suchlike, coming on the market - and it doesn't get much cheaper or more eco-sustainable than that.
Lightweight panels do not have the be expensive. Carbon is getting cheaper, GRP has always been cheap and now we're seeing bio-fibre, hemp and suchlike, coming on the market - and it doesn't get much cheaper or more eco-sustainable than that.
RoverP6B said:
I'm sorry, but this whole idea that we need to pursue ever-faster lap-times and acceleration figures is just BS. The E39 M5 was already mostly traction-limited in 0-62mph times - adding 150kg and 150bhp isn't going to make that better - the only way of improving traction is more weight over the rear (upsets the balance), AWD (more weight and complexity) or much wider tyres (which means higher rolling resistance and less chassis adjustability). A DCT may make you quicker in a drag race, but I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with anyone who considered that a high priority in a big saloon. It'll add weight to the car and make it slower through corners.
Lightweight panels do not have the be expensive. Carbon is getting cheaper, GRP has always been cheap and now we're seeing bio-fibre, hemp and suchlike, coming on the market - and it doesn't get much cheaper or more eco-sustainable than that.
'A DCT may make you quicker in a drag race, but I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with anyone who considered that a high priority in a big saloon. It'll add weight to the car and make it slower through corners.'Lightweight panels do not have the be expensive. Carbon is getting cheaper, GRP has always been cheap and now we're seeing bio-fibre, hemp and suchlike, coming on the market - and it doesn't get much cheaper or more eco-sustainable than that.
Is that why the F10 M5 with the DCT gearbox is TWENTY ONE seconds quicker than the E39 M5 with a MANUAL gearbox around the ring?
Amirhussain said:
RoverP6B said:
I'm sorry, but this whole idea that we need to pursue ever-faster lap-times and acceleration figures is just BS. The E39 M5 was already mostly traction-limited in 0-62mph times - adding 150kg and 150bhp isn't going to make that better - the only way of improving traction is more weight over the rear (upsets the balance), AWD (more weight and complexity) or much wider tyres (which means higher rolling resistance and less chassis adjustability). A DCT may make you quicker in a drag race, but I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with anyone who considered that a high priority in a big saloon. It'll add weight to the car and make it slower through corners.
Lightweight panels do not have the be expensive. Carbon is getting cheaper, GRP has always been cheap and now we're seeing bio-fibre, hemp and suchlike, coming on the market - and it doesn't get much cheaper or more eco-sustainable than that.
'A DCT may make you quicker in a drag race, but I'm sure Freud would have had a field day with anyone who considered that a high priority in a big saloon. It'll add weight to the car and make it slower through corners.'Lightweight panels do not have the be expensive. Carbon is getting cheaper, GRP has always been cheap and now we're seeing bio-fibre, hemp and suchlike, coming on the market - and it doesn't get much cheaper or more eco-sustainable than that.
Is that why the F10 M5 with the DCT gearbox is TWENTY ONE seconds quicker than the E39 M5 with a MANUAL gearbox around the ring?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff