F90 M5 first performance test numbers
Discussion
Steve Rance said:
From experience of racing cars with close to 800bhp in a chassis weighing less than 1000kg, i can tell you that the novelty of power for the sake of it passes quickly. Soon it feels slow. The real fun is in the braking and handling. From a pure driving pleasure perspective, I think that BMW are moving further away from what originally made them a great manufacrurer
Agreed.This is why the two BMW's I get the most pleasure of out driving are the E30 M3 and the E46 M3 CSL. Thats's coming from someone who has driven (and owned some but not all) every single M car bar this new M5, many times.
Fome me its about how the car 'feels' and a big lump that can go warp speed I find I get bored of very quickly.
Steve Rance said:
Wills2 said:
As it's their first awd M car I think we should reserve judgement it's switchable to RWD
I get what you are saying. But if you switch off the 4wd you wont be able to deploy the power - which maybe makes the whole thing a bit of a nonsense. Isnt BMW just turning into Audi? The lure for me to BMW was thier trade mark well balanced rear wheel drive chassis coupled with a good engine. Traditionally, that added up to a nice involving and rewarding drive. Having driven most of the current M offering its obvious that the primary emphasis has switched to that of soley deploying power. The best M car that I drove tellingly was the least powerful but by far the most rewarding.
From experience of racing cars with close to 800bhp in a chassis weighing less than 1000kg, i can tell you that the novelty of power for the sake of it passes quickly. Soon it feels slow. The real fun is in the braking and handling. From a pure driving pleasure perspective, I think that BMW are moving further away from what originally made them a great manufacrurer
Not sure we can point to deployment strategies and then dismiss the option of RWD as that option shows it's not all about the efficient deployment of power in terms of the character of the car.
In terms of balance no reason to suggest that it won't be balanced or a good drive for what it is a near 2 tonne autobahn stormer.
Yep understand you're a racing driver but for the majority of ham fisted drivers like myself the opportunity to have a bit of blast up/down the slip road when no one is looking never really gets old.
Steve Rance said:
I get what you are saying. But if you switch off the 4wd you wont be able to deploy the power - which maybe makes the whole thing a bit of a nonsense. Isnt BMW just turning into Audi?
The lure for me to BMW was thier trade mark well balanced rear wheel drive chassis coupled with a good engine. Traditionally, that added up to a nice involving and rewarding drive. Having driven most of the current M offering its obvious that the primary emphasis has switched to that of soley deploying power. The best M car that I drove tellingly was the least powerful but by far the most rewarding.
From experience of racing cars with close to 800bhp in a chassis weighing less than 1000kg, i can tell you that the novelty of power for the sake of it passes quickly. Soon it feels slow. The real fun is in the braking and handling. From a pure driving pleasure perspective, I think that BMW are moving further away from what originally made them a great manufacrurer
I think you're missing the point and clearly having experience of 'racing cars' doesn't assist you in understanding what an M5 is supposed to be Steve. It's a medium/large saloon car for gods sake, it's never going to weigh sub 1,000kg, most sports cars can't manage that. The lure for me to BMW was thier trade mark well balanced rear wheel drive chassis coupled with a good engine. Traditionally, that added up to a nice involving and rewarding drive. Having driven most of the current M offering its obvious that the primary emphasis has switched to that of soley deploying power. The best M car that I drove tellingly was the least powerful but by far the most rewarding.
From experience of racing cars with close to 800bhp in a chassis weighing less than 1000kg, i can tell you that the novelty of power for the sake of it passes quickly. Soon it feels slow. The real fun is in the braking and handling. From a pure driving pleasure perspective, I think that BMW are moving further away from what originally made them a great manufacrurer
That said, whilst heavy it's a very well balanced car, very fast and actually does get quite a bit of power down if you can drive it properly. I certainly have no trouble with mine, and it definitely doesn't feel slow...
ds666 said:
But it's not trying to be a Caterham / hothatch /e46/pickup truck/bus /whatever .
I don't understand why some people bemoan the fact that it isn't ?
Agreed, M5 has always been about luxury/performance coupled with decent/good handling and rock solid stability at high speed, I've no idea why people compare it to an e30 m3 or CSL......It's daft.I don't understand why some people bemoan the fact that it isn't ?
Edited by ds666 on Thursday 22 February 20:53
Wills2 said:
ds666 said:
But it's not trying to be a Caterham / hothatch /e46/pickup truck/bus /whatever .
I don't understand why some people bemoan the fact that it isn't ?
Agreed, M5 has always been about luxury/performance coupled with decent/good handling and rock solid stability at high speed, I've no idea why people compare it to an e30 m3 or CSL......It's daft.I don't understand why some people bemoan the fact that it isn't ?
Edited by ds666 on Thursday 22 February 20:53
Will be interesting to se what “ring” time the G30 M5 achieves. Anyone got what the F10 M5 30 Jarah achieved for a baseline. I’d wager it’s under 8 mins by some margin.
Wills2 said:
I don't think they've gone the full Audi just yet, they'll need to locate the engine in the front bumper for that to happen.
Not sure we can point to deployment strategies and then dismiss the option of RWD as that option shows it's not all about the efficient deployment of power in terms of the character of the car.
In terms of balance no reason to suggest that it won't be balanced or a good drive for what it is a near 2 tonne autobahn stormer.
Yep understand you're a racing driver but for the majority of ham fisted drivers like myself the opportunity to have a bit of blast up/down the slip road when no one is looking never really gets old.
Edited to add:
Obviously if a driver is soley interested in going very fast in a straight line with engagement as a low priority, this is absolutely fine. But if a driver is looking for a decent element of intereaction with his or her car - and surely that's what M cars were all about - Then I think that it's a shame
I'm not sure that I made my points well. My first point was that the main emphasis of the majority of the M range now is the deployment of power. The chasis and - more importantly - the electronic systems that to a large extent effect it's control - are largely engineered to deploy power. It is a disproportionate factor in the balance of the overall machine. Ie; the cars have more power than the chassis can cope with without it being managed. Once the primary purpose of a chassis becomes the deployment of BHP and not to provide interaction and feedback to a driver, the fundamental balance of the car is changed and it becomes something designed to thrill by just going fast. My second point was that the thrill of going fast in a straight line alone wears off quickly when compared to the thrill of feeling part of a machine. Engaging with it if you will. Hence my comment about experiencing 800bhp in a 900kg car. Not sure we can point to deployment strategies and then dismiss the option of RWD as that option shows it's not all about the efficient deployment of power in terms of the character of the car.
In terms of balance no reason to suggest that it won't be balanced or a good drive for what it is a near 2 tonne autobahn stormer.
Yep understand you're a racing driver but for the majority of ham fisted drivers like myself the opportunity to have a bit of blast up/down the slip road when no one is looking never really gets old.
Edited to add:
Obviously if a driver is soley interested in going very fast in a straight line with engagement as a low priority, this is absolutely fine. But if a driver is looking for a decent element of intereaction with his or her car - and surely that's what M cars were all about - Then I think that it's a shame
The E39 M5 was not a small car but the balance between power and chassis engagement was very well judged. As a result, a peach of a car. One of the very best I ever owned. It was fast enough - but not too fast that the chassis was compromised. For example, an engineer has a lot more negative camber options on a rear tyre deploying 400 bhp than he does with one deploying 700bhp. Negative camber has a profound effect of the cornering performance of a car. In the 400bhp car, the chassis engineer can concentrate on providing the driver with feel as he is the source of primary input. On a car producing 700bhp, the sensors detecting slip become the primary source of input and act on information before the driver is even aware of it. It all adds up to a vaigue, clinical and dull driving experience once the thrill of the speed wears off - and it does.
I am not advocating that BMW build an M5 Caterham, just that they revievew thier priorities and once again try to product a car that satisifies in more than one dimension.
Edited by Steve Rance on Friday 23 February 11:32
Steve Rance said:
Wills2 said:
I don't think they've gone the full Audi just yet, they'll need to locate the engine in the front bumper for that to happen.
Not sure we can point to deployment strategies and then dismiss the option of RWD as that option shows it's not all about the efficient deployment of power in terms of the character of the car.
In terms of balance no reason to suggest that it won't be balanced or a good drive for what it is a near 2 tonne autobahn stormer.
Yep understand you're a racing driver but for the majority of ham fisted drivers like myself the opportunity to have a bit of blast up/down the slip road when no one is looking never really gets old.
I'm not sure that I made my points well. My first point was that the main emphasis of the majority of the M range now is the deployment of power. The chasis and - more importantly - the electronic systems that to a large extent effect it's control - are largely engineered to deploy power. It is a disproportionate factor in the balance of the overall machine. Ie; the cars have more power than the chassis can cope with without it being managed. Once the primary purpose of a chassis becomes the deployment of BHP and not to provide interaction and feedback to a driver, the fundamental balance of the car is changed and it becomes something designed to thrill by just going fast. My second point was that the thrill of going fast in a straight line alone wears off quickly when compared to the thrill of feeling part of a machine. Engaging with it if you will. Hence my comment about experiencing 800bhp in a 900kg car. Not sure we can point to deployment strategies and then dismiss the option of RWD as that option shows it's not all about the efficient deployment of power in terms of the character of the car.
In terms of balance no reason to suggest that it won't be balanced or a good drive for what it is a near 2 tonne autobahn stormer.
Yep understand you're a racing driver but for the majority of ham fisted drivers like myself the opportunity to have a bit of blast up/down the slip road when no one is looking never really gets old.
The E39 M5 was not a small car but the balance between power and chassis engagement was very well judged. As a result, a peach of a car. One of the very best I ever owned. It was fast enough - but not too fast that the chassis was compromised. For example, an engineer has a lot more negative camber options on a rear tyre deploying 400 bhp than he does with one deploying 700bhp. Negative camber has a profound effect of the cornering performance of a car. In the 400bhp car, the chassis engineer can concentrate on providing the driver with feel as he is the source of primary input. On a car producing 700bhp, the sensors detecting slip become the primary source of input and act on information before the driver is even aware of it. It all adds up to a vaigue, clinical and dull driving experience once the thrill of the speed wears off - and it does.
I am not advocating that BMW build an M5 Caterham, just that they revievew thier priorities and once again try to product a car that satisifies in more than one dimension.
Edited to add:
Obviously if a driver is soley interested in going very fast in a straight line with engagement as a low priority, this is absolutely fine. But if a driver is looking for a decent element of intereaction with his or her car - and surely that's what M cars were all about - Then I think that it's a shame
Edited by Steve Rance on Friday 23 February 11:32
All I can say is that as used as a daily driver I've liked driving my F80 M3 (clocking up 66,000 miles in 2 years) just as much as my old e46 M3/ e92 M3s or M5 there is only so much a normal driver on the road wants explore and is capable of exploring.
theboss said:
Welshbeef said:
What’s the lowest speed you can engage 7th?
Or say 6th the. From 30-120mph what car does that feel like?
I’ll figure out the former on the way to the station tomorrow. Not so sure on the latter though Or say 6th the. From 30-120mph what car does that feel like?
Wills2 said:
As it's their first awd M car I think we should reserve judgement it's switchable to RWD
BMW will probably do a good job of making such a big car handle well, they always do. I just can't help but think that no matter how good it is, it would be even better without the weight penalty of the AWD.Brainpox said:
Wills2 said:
As it's their first awd M car I think we should reserve judgement it's switchable to RWD
BMW will probably do a good job of making such a big car handle well, they always do. I just can't help but think that no matter how good it is, it would be even better without the weight penalty of the AWD.No one complained about the current RS6 everyone raves about them, the new e63s gets lauded on PH too, as does the Tesla to some extent at least for it's sheer grunt off the line, BMW move to compete and people complain.
I've been driving M cars for nearly 15 years and I don't think I've ever seen one launched that people didn't complain about.
Edited by Wills2 on Friday 23 February 19:42
[quote=Wills2]
They have to move where the consumers is, RS6 then Merc E63 and of course Tesla, headline numbers sell cars, they know this.
That's exactly what I was thinking . For me too the sweet spot was the e39 m5 but the world has moved on . You need 600bhp in this sector , emissions/fuel consumption means you need turbos , peak torque is therefore around 1800rpm . This means traction is an issue .
The M5 only needs to be better than its direct competitors , nothing else . Best in class is the aim . I suspect the M3 is more like what the e39 was .
But BMW can't do an n/a car so even that is troubled by low rpm torque /traction compared with an e39 or e60 .( Don't remember ever having traction issues with the e60) .
What should BMW do to make the M5 better whilst avoiding not selling any ?
Oh and I don't agree that (on the road ) awesome acceleration quickly becomes boring !
They have to move where the consumers is, RS6 then Merc E63 and of course Tesla, headline numbers sell cars, they know this.
That's exactly what I was thinking . For me too the sweet spot was the e39 m5 but the world has moved on . You need 600bhp in this sector , emissions/fuel consumption means you need turbos , peak torque is therefore around 1800rpm . This means traction is an issue .
The M5 only needs to be better than its direct competitors , nothing else . Best in class is the aim . I suspect the M3 is more like what the e39 was .
But BMW can't do an n/a car so even that is troubled by low rpm torque /traction compared with an e39 or e60 .( Don't remember ever having traction issues with the e60) .
What should BMW do to make the M5 better whilst avoiding not selling any ?
Oh and I don't agree that (on the road ) awesome acceleration quickly becomes boring !
Edited by ds666 on Friday 23 February 19:29
ds666 said:
Wills2 said:
They have to move where the consumers is, RS6 then Merc E63 and of course Tesla, headline numbers sell cars, they know this.
That's exactly what I was thinking . For me too the sweet spot was the e39 m5 but the world has moved on . You need 600bhp in this sector , emissions/fuel consumption means you need turbos , peak torque is therefore around 1800rpm . This means traction is an issue .The M5 only needs to be better than its direct competitors , nothing else . Best in class is the aim . I suspect the M3 is more like what the e39 was .
But BMW can't do an n/a car so even that is troubled by low rpm torque /traction compared with an e39 or e60 .( Don't remember ever having traction issues with the e60) .
What should BMW do to make the M5 better whilst avoiding not selling any ?
Oh and I don't agree that (on the road ) awesome acceleration quickly becomes boring !
ds666 said:
But it's not trying to be a Caterham / hothatch /e46/pickup truck/bus /whatever .
I don't understand why some people bemoan the fact that it isn't ?
I don't understand why some people bemoan the fact that it isn't ?
Edited by ds666 on Thursday 22 February 20:53
Wills2 said:
Agreed, M5 has always been about luxury/performance coupled with decent/good handling and rock solid stability at high speed, I've no idea why people compare it to an e30 m3 or CSL......It's daft.
You two have missed the point myself and Steve Rance have made that in my (and I assume Steves) opinion is that fast big saloon can become boring when the novelty of straight line speed wares off.I didn't compare an E30 M3 and CSL to an M5 as I know full well (having owned M5's) that they are not comparable, I just backed up my view of enjoying something with less straight line go but better 'feel'.
BSSBMW said:
You two have missed the point myself and Steve Rance have made that in my (and I assume Steves) opinion is that fast big saloon can become boring when the novelty of straight line speed wares off.
I didn't compare an E30 M3 and CSL to an M5 as I know full well (having owned M5's) that they are not comparable, I just backed up my view of enjoying something with less straight line go but better 'feel'.
https://youtu.be/FjJSY0eZpHsI didn't compare an E30 M3 and CSL to an M5 as I know full well (having owned M5's) that they are not comparable, I just backed up my view of enjoying something with less straight line go but better 'feel'.
This captured what you say perfectly
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff