New M5...

[jimbo2728]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/...

Discuss!

[john_r]

Hmmm... glad to see they are doing something about the fuel economy - I averaged 14.6mpg over approx 24,000 miles in my E60 M5!

[jimbo2728]

Worth every drop though I bet with the sound of that V10 under the bonnet!

[shadowninja]

Interesting. Any more pics?

[Zod]

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

[PaulTypeR]

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

[fatboy b]

I see Bangle's still working there then

[Zod]

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

[Martin Keene]

Zod said:

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

I sorry my fried but industry trends disagree with you. As emission's becomer tighter and tighter more and more engines become turbochargered.

It is also why diesel engines are moving towards twin stage turbo charging; MAN, John Deere & Cummins are all going to twin stage turbo charging for Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions.

[PaulTypeR]

I think another reason why diesels are going twin turbo is because as the power of these engines go up they need bigger turbos and so lag starts to become an issue. It may also happen with petrols although i think VAG could have started something with the supercharger turbo idea. We could have high reving 2ltr supercharge/turbo petrols producing in access of 400bhp lag free quite easily instead of a high rev 4ltr V8.

[thong]

driven a few new m5's and i dont think there much better than a e46 m3,my mate has and m3 which he's had 3yrs he came and had a demo in it and he agreed well disapointing.

[Zod]

thong said:

driven a few new m5's and i dont think there much better than a e46 m3,my mate has and m3 which he's had 3yrs he came and had a demo in it and he agreed well disapointing.

What are you talking about? It's a different car. It is massively faster in a straight line and slower in tight corners. I, unlike you and your (I imagine) equally ill-educated mate, have had three E46 M3s, a manual, an SMG and a CSL and am rather well placed to comment.

Your post is irrelevant to the thread. You prove yourself typical of the new influx to PH that is driving the established members away.

[Zod]

Martin Keene said:

Zod said:

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

I sorry my fried but industry trends disagree with you. As emission's becomer tighter and tighter more and more engines become turbochargered.

It is also why diesel engines are moving towards twin stage turbo charging; MAN, John Deere & Cummins are all going to twin stage turbo charging for Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions.

I said nothing about industry trends. I can see where they are going. They don't change the fact that sticking a turbo on an engine makes it use more fuel.

[The Count]

Well said Charlie.

[Martin Keene]

Zod said:

Martin Keene said:

Zod said:

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

I sorry my fried but industry trends disagree with you. As emission's becomer tighter and tighter more and more engines become turbochargered.

It is also why diesel engines are moving towards twin stage turbo charging; MAN, John Deere & Cummins are all going to twin stage turbo charging for Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions.

I said nothing about industry trends. I can see where they are going. They don't change the fact that sticking a turbo on an engine makes it use more fuel.

Ok, so why couldn't I get more than 25mpg out of my 167bhp 1.8 nat asp Civic VTi, yet I can get 32mpg out of my bigger and heavier 180bhp 1.8 turbo charged Octavia vRS?

The most I ever squeezed out of the Civic was 28 on a run. I have so far managed to get 40 on a run out of the Octavia and it weighs a 1/4 ton more!

I will get the book out from my dad which explains it, but for a given engine size, producing the same power, the turbo charged one will use less fuel. Yes, it does sound wrong, and yes when I first read it I didn't believe it either. But it is true.

It is all about the improved volumetric efficiency of the turbocharged engine.

[fatboy b]

Martin Keene said:

Zod said:

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

I sorry my fried but industry trends disagree with you. As emission's becomer tighter and tighter more and more engines become turbochargered.

It is also why diesel engines are moving towards twin stage turbo charging; MAN, John Deere & Cummins are all going to twin stage turbo charging for Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions.

No mate. Zod's right. It enables the engine's capacity to be reduced (or not made bigger), but allow it to have more power when it's needed. So if you have a couple of 3.0 cars - identical apart from one's turbo-charged, travelling along at a constant 60 mph, they'll use the same fuel, as the turbo is hardly working. However, plant the throttle on both, and the turbo one will see off the NA one 'cos it'll be producing more power, and therefore use more fuel doing it.

[Martin Keene]

fatboy b said:

Martin Keene said:

Zod said:

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

I sorry my fried but industry trends disagree with you. As emission's becomer tighter and tighter more and more engines become turbochargered.

It is also why diesel engines are moving towards twin stage turbo charging; MAN, John Deere & Cummins are all going to twin stage turbo charging for Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions.

No mate. Zod's right. It enables the engine's capacity to be reduced (or not made bigger), but allow it to have more power when it's needed. So if you have a couple of 3.0 cars - identical apart from one's turbo-charged, travelling along at a constant 60 mph, they'll use the same fuel, as the turbo is hardly working. However, plant the throttle on both, and the turbo one will see off the NA one 'cos it'll be producing more power, and therefore use more fuel doing it.

Err... No he is not... I work for a diesel engine manufacturer. And I *KNOW* that the industry is moving towards twin stage turbo charging for emissions reasons. Unless your telling me you know better than all our design engineers?

But, yeah when did facts get in the way on here...

[thong]

Zod said:

thong said:

driven a few new m5's and i dont think there much better than a e46 m3,my mate has and m3 which he's had 3yrs he came and had a demo in it and he agreed well disapointing.

What are you talking about? It's a different car. It is massively faster in a straight line and slower in tight corners. I, unlike you and your (I imagine) equally ill-educated mate, have had three E46 M3s, a manual, an SMG and a CSL and am rather well placed to comment.

Your post is irrelevant to the thread. You prove yourself typical of the new influx to PH that is driving the established members away.

Ok mr zod ive been in the motor trade as a tech for 30yrs working on only high end stuff ferraris aston martin lambos etc,ive also had CSL'S in bits there not very fast either,ive drove one of the first F430'S in the uk-did you-no,was i impressed it was ok,so i will say this ive far more auto experiance that you would imagine,oh and how many enzo's did you say you had driven????????
so don't even go the "what are you talking about route"you know zero about how cars go and handle.

Edited by thong on Saturday 10th May 16:30

[derestrictor]

Chew the what?

[Zod]

Martin Keene said:

fatboy b said:

Martin Keene said:

Zod said:

PaulTypeR said:

Zod said:

why do they need to "take the supersaloon fight to Mercedes’s doorstep"? The M5 is the benchmark and has been since the E28.

edit: this is just a typical Autocar article made up in their coffee break based on no evidence whatsoever. "It is also likely to get a direct injection, turbocharged unit, to reduce emissions" - so a turbocharged version of the V10 bored out to 5.5l will reduce emissions? Utter bks.And if they mean that there will be another version of the M5 with a smaller turbo engine, that is even bigger bks.

Autocar is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bandwidth required for its website.

Edited by Zod on Thursday 8th May 10:51

Turbocharging does reduce emissions dude and i'm expecting all performance car engine houses to revert to turbos in their next generation engines, even ferrari. It's why BMW has gone back to turbos for the first time since the 70's with the 335 and 135 etc, this development is ultimatly destined for the M-power engines. It's a shame i know but the performance n/a 8,000+ rpm engine is doomed.

turbocharging does not reduce emissions. It increases emissions in that if you stick a turbocharger n an engine, it will use more fuel. It does allow smaller engines to produce outputs comparable with larger ones and smaller engines produce lower emissions.

I sorry my fried but industry trends disagree with you. As emission's becomer tighter and tighter more and more engines become turbochargered.

It is also why diesel engines are moving towards twin stage turbo charging; MAN, John Deere & Cummins are all going to twin stage turbo charging for Tier 4 engines to reduce emissions.

No mate. Zod's right. It enables the engine's capacity to be reduced (or not made bigger), but allow it to have more power when it's needed. So if you have a couple of 3.0 cars - identical apart from one's turbo-charged, travelling along at a constant 60 mph, they'll use the same fuel, as the turbo is hardly working. However, plant the throttle on both, and the turbo one will see off the NA one 'cos it'll be producing more power, and therefore use more fuel doing it.

Err... No he is not... I work for a diesel engine manufacturer. And I *KNOW* that the industry is moving towards twin stage turbo charging for emissions reasons. Unless your telling me you know better than all our design engineers?

But, yeah when did facts get in the way on here...

so you think that adding a turbocharger to an engine will reduce its emissions, do you?