RE: BMW M5/M6 (E60/E63): PH Buying Guide
Discussion
jon_273 said:
Actually I was pleasantly surprised at how cheap the brakes are. They are less than half the cost of the parts for an RS4.
I was intrigued by the mention of taking it to a specialist to get the brakes done. Are they in anyway unusual as I'd expect any garage (or even a semi competent diyer) to be able to change discs and pads?SkinnyPete said:
I would love one of these, that engine is incredible.
Would chop my left arm off to drive one round the Nurburgring
I am proud to say my first laps around the Nurburgring were in my brown bomber a 2005 M5 (only two weeks after purchasing it) - i describe the adventure as being the fastest slow car on the track, or the slowest fast car on the track. Having never owned or driven a fast car prior to hitting the 'ring (my previous car was an Avantime) it was a terrifying and thrilling experience, on the straights i was murderously fast, but i hit the corners like my grandma would have done and was lapped by every other car on the circuit at every corner.Would chop my left arm off to drive one round the Nurburgring
It was an amazing experience - both the 'ring and owning an M5 as our only car. The maintenance costs didnt kill the love for me, the 200miles per tank of gas did!
I then made the mistake of going from the m5 to a 535d msport, that was a stupid thing to do - i should have bought a really sensible car, instead of a pusedo sports car - the 535d always felt like a complete let down, where if i had bought that after my Avantime, then i think i would have totally loved it.
I love mine - owned just over a year and has cost less than my previous 535d to run (problem wise, fuel economy not withstanding!) that's before you factor in it's still worth what I paid for it!
Steering is beautiful, engine is immense, balance is lovely and I've only seen one other in a year.
Feels incredibly special every time I get in it and start that V10 - has more toys and feels a lot more special than my uncles £110k X6M and sounds a lot better too!
Difficult to know what I'll ever chop it in for.......
I'd much rather an E39 M5 and for a few reasons. The E60 5 Series is a much more complex machine and there's more to go wrong. Adding an M badge means M tax on parts, which is not cheap either way, but you're definitely going to get stung more on the newer model.
Also, and i'm pretty such this is petrol-head sacrilege, but i'm not that hung up on having a V10. I'd much rather a V8, like one found in the E39, funnily enough. I also prefer the looks of the E39, it's smaller dimensions and having a nice manual gearbox to go with it.
For the record, i do like the E60 M5. It's a bonkers engine to be found in a saloon and it represents a time of extremely over-engined cars that we are unlikely to ever see again. Hats off to BMW but the ownership proposition is some-what frightening.
Also, and i'm pretty such this is petrol-head sacrilege, but i'm not that hung up on having a V10. I'd much rather a V8, like one found in the E39, funnily enough. I also prefer the looks of the E39, it's smaller dimensions and having a nice manual gearbox to go with it.
For the record, i do like the E60 M5. It's a bonkers engine to be found in a saloon and it represents a time of extremely over-engined cars that we are unlikely to ever see again. Hats off to BMW but the ownership proposition is some-what frightening.
threadlock said:
I looked at the classifieds after reading this, wondering what my next everyday car might be when the lease hack goes back in November. 4.9 0-60, 155mph, 18mpg. Tempting.
Then I read the thread of comments.
Everybody's saying these things are a massive risk. Fair enough. It's a 500bhp monster. It's going to be highly-strung. It's going to be expensive to run. It's going to break.
Except my 2010 Jaguar XKR isn't. 0-60 in 4.6s. 21mpg. 503 bhp. Perfectly reliable. No Achillies heel. No Vanos, no fragile gearbox. Different body style and practicality, of course, but why does the BMW deserve the love? Jaguar managed to do everything the BMW does but with none of the hassle or expense.
I don't get it. XFR?
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?sort=price-...
You do raise a good point. I'm and advocate of left-field choices being the better ones, potentially. I've always wondered that, if given the choice, would i pick an E92 M3 over a Lexus ISF for the same reasons that you've highlighted.Then I read the thread of comments.
Everybody's saying these things are a massive risk. Fair enough. It's a 500bhp monster. It's going to be highly-strung. It's going to be expensive to run. It's going to break.
Except my 2010 Jaguar XKR isn't. 0-60 in 4.6s. 21mpg. 503 bhp. Perfectly reliable. No Achillies heel. No Vanos, no fragile gearbox. Different body style and practicality, of course, but why does the BMW deserve the love? Jaguar managed to do everything the BMW does but with none of the hassle or expense.
I don't get it. XFR?
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?sort=price-...
Coming back to your point, yes, an XFR probably will be cheaper to run and will also be more reliable. I'm not massively knowledgeable on Jaguar but i assume that even the XF has it's own problems which won't exactly be cheap though. There also seems to be tonnes of BMW specialists readily available all over the country, whereas i don't see that many Jaguar ones about in comparison.
Unfortunately, it's probably the branding that wins it over. When you think of fast saloon, there's a good chance that BMW will be one of the first to spring your mind. Not saying that the Jag isn't a good drive but even BMW's biggest saloons still have a nimble and agile feel to their handling. In the case of the E60 M5, you've also got a stunning V10 engine which is rare, bonkers and not available in a similar body.
It's one of those things where, as a buying proposition, the XFR is probably a much better car to own. But, ultimately, many just don't desire the Jag in the same way they do the BMW. I can understand it and many soon realise just how much it costs to run them.
culpz said:
I'd much rather an E39 M5 and for a few reasons. The E60 5 Series is a much more complex machine and there's more to go wrong. Adding an M badge means M tax on parts, which is not cheap either way, but you're definitely going to get stung more on the newer model.
Also, and i'm pretty such this is petrol-head sacrilege, but i'm not that hung up on having a V10. I'd much rather a V8, like one found in the E39, funnily enough. I also prefer the looks of the E39, it's smaller dimensions and having a nice manual gearbox to go with it.
For the record, i do like the E60 M5. It's a bonkers engine to be found in a saloon and it represents a time of extremely over-engined cars that we are unlikely to ever see again. Hats off to BMW but the ownership proposition is some-what frightening.
Agree with everything here: except I love tourings/estates! Limits my choices slightly!Also, and i'm pretty such this is petrol-head sacrilege, but i'm not that hung up on having a V10. I'd much rather a V8, like one found in the E39, funnily enough. I also prefer the looks of the E39, it's smaller dimensions and having a nice manual gearbox to go with it.
For the record, i do like the E60 M5. It's a bonkers engine to be found in a saloon and it represents a time of extremely over-engined cars that we are unlikely to ever see again. Hats off to BMW but the ownership proposition is some-what frightening.
Not sure I'd buy an e60 over an e39 saloons?
Owned mine for 2 years. Killed a clutch which left me stranded and new one with flywheel cost me £2500, but was an expected cost for running a V10 monster.
Fantastic car still miss it to this day, could take the family out in total luxury or when on your own hit the M button and have a good blast. 15-16 mpg isnt great but who buys a car like this and questions fuel economy.
No other issues in 2 years, maybe I was lucky.
Fantastic car still miss it to this day, could take the family out in total luxury or when on your own hit the M button and have a good blast. 15-16 mpg isnt great but who buys a car like this and questions fuel economy.
No other issues in 2 years, maybe I was lucky.
Why go to the effort of sticking the model codes in the title, but not include the E61, and then use an E61 for the article thumbnail :P
BMW made an epic car here. A bit strange that North America was the only market to get the option of a manual gearbox... From memory I believe there was a lot of hate for SMG with the '46 M3. Then again, the manuals are pretty rare, I believe most were still sold with the SMG gearbox.
BMW made an epic car here. A bit strange that North America was the only market to get the option of a manual gearbox... From memory I believe there was a lot of hate for SMG with the '46 M3. Then again, the manuals are pretty rare, I believe most were still sold with the SMG gearbox.
culpz said:
Unfortunately, it's probably the branding that wins it over. When you think of fast saloon, there's a good chance that BMW will be one of the first to spring your mind. Not saying that the Jag isn't a good drive but even BMW's biggest saloons still have a nimble and agile feel to their handling. In the case of the E60 M5, you've also got a stunning V10 engine which is rare, bonkers and not available in a similar body.
It's one of those things where, as a buying proposition, the XFR is probably a much better car to own. But, ultimately, many just don't desire the Jag in the same way they do the BMW. I can understand it and many soon realise just how much it costs to run them.
Absolutely spot-on - the XFR was very well rated against the E60 at release, and although there will be a few bits of the XF which need attention, they don't have anything like the issues of the M-car. But at the end of the day the badge alone (M5 that is) is enough to win more attention.It's one of those things where, as a buying proposition, the XFR is probably a much better car to own. But, ultimately, many just don't desire the Jag in the same way they do the BMW. I can understand it and many soon realise just how much it costs to run them.
Fabulous cars, and hearing one at full chat is absolutely splendid, but they do make you wonder how they made it so fragile. In the same vein the E55/E63 is also a contender in this price range, and again nothing like as delicate as the M5.
culpz said:
i assume that even the XF has it's own problems which won't exactly be cheap though.
That's my point though: the XFRs don't really have any fundamental problems. The ZF gearboxes are apparently bullet-proof and there don't seem to be any reliability issues with these supercharged V8 engines. The engine undertray came off my XKR last weekend at 160mph on the Autobahn and I considered the £150 cost of a replacement a perfectly reasonable expense given that my car has cost me almost nothing to own over the last four years I think a lot of the bad press/feeling come from owners expectations.
What other mainstream manufacturer has done this? What else was there in 2005 with this kind of performance and 4/5 seats?
An AMG 55 managed 500bhp but needed a bigger engine and a supercharger. The 6.3 only made 480ish to start with.
Jag needed a supercharger to get 420BHP from a 4.2 litre. And in 2009 a supercharger and 5.0 litres to get 550BHP
Audi C5 RS6, twin turbo 4.2 440BP, the C6 5.0 again turbocharged to make 500+BHP and not till 2008 - coking up problems anyone?
Maserati Quattroporte, 4.2 litre and 400BHP in 2005 - final version 4.7 litre and 440BHP in 2009
If the engine and SMG box were fitted to a Lambo or a Ferrari, no-one would be so upset about the repairs/maintenance these need. It's a 507 BHP naturally aspirated V10. So yes it's highly strung and needs to be looked after properly. BMW's error was putting it in a school run car, so it got treated as a 520d and expected to cost the same to run.
Have a think about the other 200 mph cars available with a big V8/10 naturally aspirated 100+ BHP/litre engine and their price point/running costs.
Carerra GT
F50
LFA
Don't get me wrong they're not perfect, but they need to be considered inline with the performance they offered. Not by the body style they were sold in.
Mini rant over!
What other mainstream manufacturer has done this? What else was there in 2005 with this kind of performance and 4/5 seats?
An AMG 55 managed 500bhp but needed a bigger engine and a supercharger. The 6.3 only made 480ish to start with.
Jag needed a supercharger to get 420BHP from a 4.2 litre. And in 2009 a supercharger and 5.0 litres to get 550BHP
Audi C5 RS6, twin turbo 4.2 440BP, the C6 5.0 again turbocharged to make 500+BHP and not till 2008 - coking up problems anyone?
Maserati Quattroporte, 4.2 litre and 400BHP in 2005 - final version 4.7 litre and 440BHP in 2009
If the engine and SMG box were fitted to a Lambo or a Ferrari, no-one would be so upset about the repairs/maintenance these need. It's a 507 BHP naturally aspirated V10. So yes it's highly strung and needs to be looked after properly. BMW's error was putting it in a school run car, so it got treated as a 520d and expected to cost the same to run.
Have a think about the other 200 mph cars available with a big V8/10 naturally aspirated 100+ BHP/litre engine and their price point/running costs.
Carerra GT
F50
LFA
Don't get me wrong they're not perfect, but they need to be considered inline with the performance they offered. Not by the body style they were sold in.
Mini rant over!
Edited by Mikeeb on Monday 5th June 11:05
elms said:
My old car
https://www.gilescooperautomotive.co.uk/bmw-m6-5.0...
I loved it but hated the fuel economy. How a slippery shaped car with an engine that's big but not 7.0 Dodge Viper size big can be so bad. But the engine is a gem, the gearbox is great when you learn how to get the best out of it.
I missed it the second I sold it.
The pedant in me had to mention that Vipers came with either an 8.0, 8.3 or 8.4 litre engine https://www.gilescooperautomotive.co.uk/bmw-m6-5.0...
I loved it but hated the fuel economy. How a slippery shaped car with an engine that's big but not 7.0 Dodge Viper size big can be so bad. But the engine is a gem, the gearbox is great when you learn how to get the best out of it.
I missed it the second I sold it.
Mikeeb said:
If the engine and SMG box were fitted to a Lambo or a Ferrari, no-one would be so upset about the repairs/maintenance these need. It's a 507 BHP naturally aspirated V10. So yes it's highly strung and needs to be looked after properly. BMW's error was putting it in a school run car, so it got treated as a 520d and expected to cost the same to run.
Agree with everything you said, hit the nail on the head there!I think over 3 years mine averaged £2k a year including everything but fuel. Zero depreciation, £295 VED (2005 car), indy servicing, no warranty, no major issues. Cheaper than most leased cars
t.
seefarr said:
Sure it'll bend you over if anything goes wrong, but isn't this the cheapest way into a V10 at present?
It probably is in initial cash outlay terms. The C6 generation RS6 V10 starts at about £18k for one with some miles on it, but at least the wagon version is a LOT more common than the equiv M5.Bills can be scary for some fairly trivial jobs (think manky coolant pipes, seal on the oil pump that's many hours of labour to replace) but the major mechanicals are pretty much bullet proof, including the gearbox.
No it's not as involving to drive, but at least the tank is usefully bigger and you get x2 turbos to fill in the torque curve.....the lack of range is one of the annoyances that would put me off considering an M5
MrTouring said:
I love mine - owned just over a year and has cost less than my previous 535d to run (problem wise, fuel economy not withstanding!) that's before you factor in it's still worth what I paid for it!
Steering is beautiful, engine is immense, balance is lovely and I've only seen one other in a year.
Feels incredibly special every time I get in it and start that V10 - has more toys and feels a lot more special than my uncles £110k X6M and sounds a lot better too!
Difficult to know what I'll ever chop it in for.......
threadlock said:
culpz said:
i assume that even the XF has it's own problems which won't exactly be cheap though.
That's my point though: the XFRs don't really have any fundamental problems. The ZF gearboxes are apparently bullet-proof and there don't seem to be any reliability issues with these supercharged V8 engines. The engine undertray came off my XKR last weekend at 160mph on the Autobahn and I considered the £150 cost of a replacement a perfectly reasonable expense given that my car has cost me almost nothing to own over the last four years The E60 5 Series in general is a more complex car than the car it replaced, packed full of electronics and is known to have a few issues in general. It's no surprise that a V10-powered M version will take it up a notch.
I presume that normal Jaguar XF's are pretty reliable so you could say that Jaguar have had a better base to work on from the off. They clearly have less serious common issues on them but that's not to say the XFR's are perfect.
exceed said:
MrTouring said:
I love mine - owned just over a year and has cost less than my previous 535d to run (problem wise, fuel economy not withstanding!) that's before you factor in it's still worth what I paid for it!
Steering is beautiful, engine is immense, balance is lovely and I've only seen one other in a year.
Feels incredibly special every time I get in it and start that V10 - has more toys and feels a lot more special than my uncles £110k X6M and sounds a lot better too!
Difficult to know what I'll ever chop it in for.......
The Bm is a laser guided missile to the Audis MOAB effect!
Add in that there are only 148 or so RHD e61s on the road.....................................
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff