RE: BMW M5 (E39): PH Heroes
Discussion
E34-3.2 said:
KungFuPanda said:
So what do people think about this car then?
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Toying with the idea given that these were out round the time I started driving.
Go for it. Have it inspected and take the plunge. M5 are great. Yes, running one is not a cheap affair but it is worth it. Once you floor it, you forget about the hole they just left in your bank account! https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Toying with the idea given that these were out round the time I started driving.
^^What he said!
njw1 said:
E34-3.2 said:
KungFuPanda said:
So what do people think about this car then?
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Toying with the idea given that these were out round the time I started driving.
Go for it. Have it inspected and take the plunge. M5 are great. Yes, running one is not a cheap affair but it is worth it. Once you floor it, you forget about the hole they just left in your bank account! https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
Toying with the idea given that these were out round the time I started driving.
^^What he said!
Also don't forget Mark Webber also had one.... as well as Tiff Needell... 😀
anonymous said:
[redacted]
A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that the E39's contemporary was the W210 E55 AMG, which had around 355bhp. The W211 with 470bhp was up against the E60 M5 with its V10 and 507bhp. There was a very brief overlap with each generation, but it was never more than about a year or so.
Seesure said:
Also don't forget Mark Webber also had one.... as well as Tiff Needell... ??
Tiff's is for sale currently for around the same price, https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201...
I thought the manual vs auto arguments were confined to the 911 forums ! But yes, there is a greater sense of achievement from cutting across country in a manual then simply pointing the wheel and stamping on the loud pedal.
I've just bought one, it's got 221k miles on it... looks like it's got less than half that mileage. The interior looks and feels like it's got a quarter of that on it.
My brother had a 2004 merc, you could hear it rust if you walked past it with a bag of ready sales crisps. Merc should never have let the accountants run the show, the e55/63 could really have been something special if the engineers were still in charge of cars.
This isn't my first M5 I used to have an e28 back in the day but this e39 is amazing. It's been mine for less than 500 miles but I was so convinced by its abilities that I knew it was a keeper. So it's just been in for an overhaul.
New bushes all round
New diff seals
New bilstein coilovers
And new anything else that it needed...
Yes I could have had something else.....ummm.... could I ? What else is out there that can do what an M5 can do for £10k ?
I've just bought one, it's got 221k miles on it... looks like it's got less than half that mileage. The interior looks and feels like it's got a quarter of that on it.
My brother had a 2004 merc, you could hear it rust if you walked past it with a bag of ready sales crisps. Merc should never have let the accountants run the show, the e55/63 could really have been something special if the engineers were still in charge of cars.
This isn't my first M5 I used to have an e28 back in the day but this e39 is amazing. It's been mine for less than 500 miles but I was so convinced by its abilities that I knew it was a keeper. So it's just been in for an overhaul.
New bushes all round
New diff seals
New bilstein coilovers
And new anything else that it needed...
Yes I could have had something else.....ummm.... could I ? What else is out there that can do what an M5 can do for £10k ?
LewisR said:
I could have sworn that the E39 M5 was £59,995 when it was new. Did they drop the price by £8k ?
Yes, circa 2000. From memory, it was when a lot of personal imports of (cheaper) new cars started coming in from BMW dealers in the likes of Holland, so they were forced to drop UK pricesPicking up on a posters comments, if the car comes into its own at higher speeds ( note the*if* ), then while it surely makes sense in places like Germany, here in the UK, this becomes something of a problem for those of us who wish to retain their licenses.
At "normal" speeds then, its spread of abilities is less omnipresent.
You are left with a car that needs its own BP forecourt and drinks like Boris Johnson, and is prone to rust.
I don't personally care at all about when cars came out. They're now well past their production date, and if there's a choice between, say, a 2005 model car versus a 2007/8/9 etc, then so what? If people are happy with second hand cars, then a few years either way won't make any difference.
Rather, look at a budget, and ask, whats the best car at that price point? And by budget, it doesn't translate ONLY to purchase price. A lot of people look at it in terms of price per year.
This is why a car that may cost 10k to buy but costs another 10k to run, will be more expensive than a car costing 15k to buy yet only costs 4k to run. Headline costs are a starting point only. (please note, the figures used are solely to make a point and no other reason, ie purchase price vs running costs).
And for those who've run their m5 for moon mileage and report minimal costs, I have to say, I have my doubts. A lot of people at work have had bmw's and had horrendous experiences, and this isn't with cars that push 400 bhp and need new tyres every few thousand miles, either.
At "normal" speeds then, its spread of abilities is less omnipresent.
You are left with a car that needs its own BP forecourt and drinks like Boris Johnson, and is prone to rust.
I don't personally care at all about when cars came out. They're now well past their production date, and if there's a choice between, say, a 2005 model car versus a 2007/8/9 etc, then so what? If people are happy with second hand cars, then a few years either way won't make any difference.
Rather, look at a budget, and ask, whats the best car at that price point? And by budget, it doesn't translate ONLY to purchase price. A lot of people look at it in terms of price per year.
This is why a car that may cost 10k to buy but costs another 10k to run, will be more expensive than a car costing 15k to buy yet only costs 4k to run. Headline costs are a starting point only. (please note, the figures used are solely to make a point and no other reason, ie purchase price vs running costs).
And for those who've run their m5 for moon mileage and report minimal costs, I have to say, I have my doubts. A lot of people at work have had bmw's and had horrendous experiences, and this isn't with cars that push 400 bhp and need new tyres every few thousand miles, either.
big_rob_sydney said:
And for those who've run their m5 for moon mileage and report minimal costs, I have to say, I have my doubts. A lot of people at work have had bmw's and had horrendous experiences, and this isn't with cars that push 400 bhp and need new tyres every few thousand miles, either.
Can i ask why you have your doubts?The facts are that i ran mine for over 40k and apart from routine maintenance/servicing the only costs were about £15 for a couple of oil breather pipes. Many others have ran theirs with no big costs over much higher mileages as well.
Any car is capable of throwing a big bill at the end of the day. The M5 was one car i had that never felt like it would.
big_rob_sydney said:
Picking up on a posters comments, if the car comes into its own at higher speeds ( note the*if* ), then while it surely makes sense in places like Germany, here in the UK, this becomes something of a problem for those of us who wish to retain their licenses.
At "normal" speeds then, its spread of abilities is less omnipresent.
This is true of the E39 M5's successor, the E60 M5 not its older brother. The power/torque curves for both make an interesting comparison. Bottom line, the E39 M5 has more usable power below 5500 revs (from memory) than the E60 iteration. (PH member Patrick Bateman posted a good graphic to illustrate this some time last year). It's the E60 that makes more sense at higher revs and speed on de-restricted autobahns. The E39's spread of abilities really is more omnipresent at normal UK speeds and it's what makes it such a joy to drive.
Relevant and quite interesting that the E39 M5 in the above Autocar review has the least power (Autocar typo: M5 actually has 394bhp, not 400), the least torque and the most modest power to weight ratio yet is still the preferred choice of the testing team.
You are left with a car that needs its own BP forecourt and drinks like Boris Johnson, and is prone to rust.
Minor point: it's a petrol-powered performance car and owners don't buy them for their economy. (But it's marginally more economical on fuel than its competitors in the Autocar review).
They're up to 19 years old and they do rust. More or less than any other 19yr old steel bodied car? Who can say?
I don't personally care at all about when cars came out. They're now well past their production date, and if there's a choice between, say, a 2005 model car versus a 2007/8/9 etc, then so what? If people are happy with second hand cars, then a few years either way won't make any difference.
Rather, look at a budget, and ask, whats the best car at that price point? And by budget, it doesn't translate ONLY to purchase price. A lot of people look at it in terms of price per year.
This is why a car that may cost 10k to buy but costs another 10k to run, will be more expensive than a car costing 15k to buy yet only costs 4k to run. Headline costs are a starting point only. (please note, the figures used are solely to make a point and no other reason, ie purchase price vs running costs).
You need to factor in depreciation. Buy a decent E39 M5 and there'll be little depreciation on your purchase price come sale time. Yes, you'll need to spend on it but they're not as ruinous to maintain as the internet suggests. If you buy well at the outset and are sensible with maintenance - using an indi garage and OE parts by the likes of Lemforder et al - then whole ownership costs (factoring in low/nil depreciation) can look reasonably attractive for what is, after all, a high performance car.
And for those who've run their m5 for moon mileage and report minimal costs, I have to say, I have my doubts. A lot of people at work have had bmw's and had horrendous experiences, and this isn't with cars that push 400 bhp and need new tyres every few thousand miles, either.
Horrendous experiences with older or more recent BMW cars? Don't know much about modern BMWs. The internet says they're not as well made as previous generations so it must be true.
At "normal" speeds then, its spread of abilities is less omnipresent.
This is true of the E39 M5's successor, the E60 M5 not its older brother. The power/torque curves for both make an interesting comparison. Bottom line, the E39 M5 has more usable power below 5500 revs (from memory) than the E60 iteration. (PH member Patrick Bateman posted a good graphic to illustrate this some time last year). It's the E60 that makes more sense at higher revs and speed on de-restricted autobahns. The E39's spread of abilities really is more omnipresent at normal UK speeds and it's what makes it such a joy to drive.
Relevant and quite interesting that the E39 M5 in the above Autocar review has the least power (Autocar typo: M5 actually has 394bhp, not 400), the least torque and the most modest power to weight ratio yet is still the preferred choice of the testing team.
You are left with a car that needs its own BP forecourt and drinks like Boris Johnson, and is prone to rust.
Minor point: it's a petrol-powered performance car and owners don't buy them for their economy. (But it's marginally more economical on fuel than its competitors in the Autocar review).
They're up to 19 years old and they do rust. More or less than any other 19yr old steel bodied car? Who can say?
I don't personally care at all about when cars came out. They're now well past their production date, and if there's a choice between, say, a 2005 model car versus a 2007/8/9 etc, then so what? If people are happy with second hand cars, then a few years either way won't make any difference.
Rather, look at a budget, and ask, whats the best car at that price point? And by budget, it doesn't translate ONLY to purchase price. A lot of people look at it in terms of price per year.
This is why a car that may cost 10k to buy but costs another 10k to run, will be more expensive than a car costing 15k to buy yet only costs 4k to run. Headline costs are a starting point only. (please note, the figures used are solely to make a point and no other reason, ie purchase price vs running costs).
You need to factor in depreciation. Buy a decent E39 M5 and there'll be little depreciation on your purchase price come sale time. Yes, you'll need to spend on it but they're not as ruinous to maintain as the internet suggests. If you buy well at the outset and are sensible with maintenance - using an indi garage and OE parts by the likes of Lemforder et al - then whole ownership costs (factoring in low/nil depreciation) can look reasonably attractive for what is, after all, a high performance car.
And for those who've run their m5 for moon mileage and report minimal costs, I have to say, I have my doubts. A lot of people at work have had bmw's and had horrendous experiences, and this isn't with cars that push 400 bhp and need new tyres every few thousand miles, either.
Horrendous experiences with older or more recent BMW cars? Don't know much about modern BMWs. The internet says they're not as well made as previous generations so it must be true.
akirk said:
TheAngryDog said:
...
The engine sounds great, but it would as it is n/a. It could do with more power imo however. Yes it is 394bhp, but it is also in a heavy car. To get the best from it you needed to use the gearbox.
...
I miss owning one despite how much I used to complain about it
I will never own another though, I am too used to the sledge hammer that is in the E55. A simple remap and pulley has taken my car from 469bhp to 522bhp and over 630lbft of torque. It would be around 550bhp but it was suffering high intake temps when dyno'd. That is a lot and it shows. Touch the throttle pedal and it moves quickly. Mash it to the floor and the world gets blurry. The supercharger whine is addictive, the engine sounds good and seems to be better built and less fragile than the S62, being able to take over 700bhp without needing to be opened up. The S62 cannot take the same power without internal work and will never give the same amount of torque.
The engine in the E55K is pretty much the same as the n/a one which is 354bhp. Take the supercharger away and the engine is less powerful than the one in the M5.
(lots of good bits removed...)The engine sounds great, but it would as it is n/a. It could do with more power imo however. Yes it is 394bhp, but it is also in a heavy car. To get the best from it you needed to use the gearbox.
...
I miss owning one despite how much I used to complain about it
I will never own another though, I am too used to the sledge hammer that is in the E55. A simple remap and pulley has taken my car from 469bhp to 522bhp and over 630lbft of torque. It would be around 550bhp but it was suffering high intake temps when dyno'd. That is a lot and it shows. Touch the throttle pedal and it moves quickly. Mash it to the floor and the world gets blurry. The supercharger whine is addictive, the engine sounds good and seems to be better built and less fragile than the S62, being able to take over 700bhp without needing to be opened up. The S62 cannot take the same power without internal work and will never give the same amount of torque.The engine in the E55K is pretty much the same as the n/a one which is 354bhp. Take the supercharger away and the engine is less powerful than the one in the M5.
I believe that quite a few people have supercharged the e39 M5 giving c. 600hp/700Nm - otherwise you are not comparing the same
handling on a good e39M5 is really good - you do need to manage the weight balance, so get it wrong and it can feel out of sorts - get it right - i.e. drive well!
and they are fantastic - they are definitely a driver's car that require one to drive well...TheAngryDog said:
In closing, people will like the M5, they will not. Some people like Corsa's...
not a big fan of Corsas! but agree with you...And I do not like Corsas's either
Max_Torque said:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the Supercharged W211 E55 AMG come out in early 2004? That's over 4 years after the E39 M5, and makes it a competitor for the E60 M5 (released in 2005) shirely?
The contemporary W210 E55 had just 350 bhp from an N/A V8 didn't it?
Indeed correct, and I agree. The E55 is an E60 M5 competitor. The W210 had 354bhp from its 5.4 litre V8 (the same V8 in the W211 E55, but with added boost). The E55 isn't an E39 M5 direct competitor, but as the E55 came out before the E60 M5 that will be why they're compared. The E55 became the E63 not long after the E60 M5 came out (a lot E numbers here, I'll be buzzing for hours! The contemporary W210 E55 had just 350 bhp from an N/A V8 didn't it?
).Nurburgsingh said:
My brother had a 2004 merc, you could hear it rust if you walked past it with a bag of ready sales crisps. Merc should never have let the accountants run the show, the e55/63 could really have been something special if the engineers were still in charge of cars.
My 2004 E55 is in much better condition than my old 1999 and 2001 M5's. The E39 is a rust bucket, plain and simple. I bet yours has rust in the places that you cannot see. Take off the plastic covers behind the sills and the jacking point covers and I expect you'll find rust.Depthhoar said:
This is true of the E39 M5's successor, the E60 M5 not its older brother. The power/torque curves for both make an interesting comparison. Bottom line, the E39 M5 has more usable power below 5500 revs (from memory) than the E60 iteration. (PH member Patrick Bateman posted a good graphic to illustrate this some time last year). It's the E60 that makes more sense at higher revs and speed on de-restricted autobahns. The E39's spread of abilities really is more omnipresent at normal UK speeds and it's what makes it such a joy to drive.
I agree. The E39 is very usable low down and you do not need to rev the arse off it to get the enjoyment.Depthhoar said:
Relevant and quite interesting that the E39 M5 in the above Autocar review has the least power (Autocar typo: M5 actually has 394bhp, not 400), the least torque and the most modest power to weight ratio yet is still the preferred choice of the testing team.
It is also the only car with a manual gearbox and a LSD. Auto's do take away the mechanical feel. I don't drive my E55 as such, I just point it in a direction, hit the loud pedal and go like a bat out of hell.Depthhoar said:
Minor point: it's a petrol-powered performance car and owners don't buy them for their economy. (But it's marginally more economical on fuel than its competitors in the Autocar review).
My E55 costs more to run in petrol. I have not seen over 22mpg from it. My M5 I could get 25mpg. But lets be honest, who the f
k buys a big V8 and worries about the fuel economy? 
Depthhoar said:
They're up to 19 years old and they do rust. More or less than any other 19yr old steel bodied car? Who can say?
Yes, probably lol. Both of mine had rust, rust that scared me off tbh.Depthhoar said:
You need to factor in depreciation. Buy a decent E39 M5 and there'll be little depreciation on your purchase price come sale time. Yes, you'll need to spend on it but they're not as ruinous to maintain as the internet suggests. If you buy well at the outset and are sensible with maintenance - using an indi garage and OE parts by the likes of Lemforder et al - then whole ownership costs (factoring in low/nil depreciation) can look reasonably attractive for what is, after all, a high performance car.
Depreciation should not be a factor. If it is then you've bought the wrong car. The M5 is a car to enjoy and to use daily, not wrap in cotton woll and bring it out once a month. While no more ruinous to maintain than any other car of its ilk, you do need to buy wisely. Keeping up on maintenance is a by-product of buying a car. You buy a car like this eyes wide open. There is enough information out there about the running costs for people to be able to make a properly informed decision. RichardM5 said:
Although it is very clean looking, that picture doesn't really show any of the bits that rust! It shows a nice clean plastic battery tray and nice clean shiny after market stainless steel silencers. Drop exhaust, fuel tank and rear sub-frame and see what the body looks like under there!
Agreed, maybe not the best picture to show the bad bits. Mine doesn't have any tho, subframe have been dropped, no rust, jacking points are mint as are the sills, rear arches and everything else, no bubbling on the inside of the doors, boot, bonnet either. 83000 miles and no winter use does that, in a way it's a shame really because it would make a fantastic and very entertaining winter car with the LSD and 400 hp... Patrick Bateman said:
If these had the corrosion resistance of the e60 and onward then I'd probably still have mine.
Still yet to ever see a rusty e60 or e90.
I'm looking forward (kinda) to my e46/330i getting too long in the tooth and picking up an e61.. guess I better start tracking prices!Still yet to ever see a rusty e60 or e90.
Patrick Bateman said:
If these had the corrosion resistance of the e60 and onward then I'd probably still have mine.
Still yet to ever see a rusty e60 or e90.
I think I am in agreement there - mine had a running issue and used oil, but that would have been easy to resolve. The bodywork however....Still yet to ever see a rusty e60 or e90.
My E55 is in much better condition with no rust that I can see. I have been underneath the car and there is nothing visible. It's all hidden probably lol.
no rust on mine - had it inspected before purchase, the previous owner was a collector who was meticulous in caring for the car
running cost so far (outside normal consumables) - 2 litres of oil in 6,000 miles - hardly expensive!
car wasn't bought as an investment, but was bought as a good example to minimise depreciation- and you have to compare it against alternatives - I have run a number of cars for many years - over the last 5 years I spent over £18k on 3 years of a kuga and 2 years of an octavia both on lease - now replaced by the M5 which I think will have a lower cost of ownership over the next few years regardless of increase in value or not...
also compare against buying newer - a new M5 (which I don't like as much) whether leased or as a cash purchase it is likely to be c. £1k a month so over 3 years it would cost £36k - I could throw away and rebuy the e39 m5 a couple of times for that even if it cost me half that or £6k a year in repairs it would still be good value for money and it is currently running at .5% of that cost
running cost so far (outside normal consumables) - 2 litres of oil in 6,000 miles - hardly expensive!
car wasn't bought as an investment, but was bought as a good example to minimise depreciation- and you have to compare it against alternatives - I have run a number of cars for many years - over the last 5 years I spent over £18k on 3 years of a kuga and 2 years of an octavia both on lease - now replaced by the M5 which I think will have a lower cost of ownership over the next few years regardless of increase in value or not...
also compare against buying newer - a new M5 (which I don't like as much) whether leased or as a cash purchase it is likely to be c. £1k a month so over 3 years it would cost £36k - I could throw away and rebuy the e39 m5 a couple of times for that
even if it cost me half that or £6k a year in repairs it would still be good value for money and it is currently running at .5% of that cost Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff