F90 M5 first performance test numbers

[Wills2]

Car and driver have tested the car.

0-60 2.8
0-100 6.6
0-130 10.9
0-150 15.9

Pretty impressive numbers the 0-100 mph is very impressive.

[Wills2]

Elysium said:

Crikey. I assumed the 0-60 would be one of those rolling start US tests, but the article says it was done with launch control.

I think the fastest I have seen for the f10 is 3.8 secs. This 4wd stuff is quite effectve!

That's a good point and comes from their 1/4 mile drag strip times where a roll out is part of the start procedure, they have the time it takes the front tyre to roll out of the stage beam, worth .3 of a second.

If we add that in the it's 6.9 to 100mph which is still mighty, I'm unsure how they factor in roll out if their not at a drag strip and whether a Vbox can replicate it but many US sites use it in their calcs.

Edited by Wills2 on Friday 16th February 10:18

[Wills2]

Andy M said:

Wills2 said:

Car and driver have tested the car.

0-60 2.8
0-100 6.6
0-130 10.9
0-150 15.9

Pretty impressive numbers the 0-100 mph is very impressive.

Do you have a link to the test?

Car and Driver tested the E63s at 0-60 in 3s and 0-100 in 7. Elsewhere 0-150mph is recorded at 16.6s

The E63s is slightly heavier than the new M5, but has a 9 speed gearbox and more powerful engine. Those M5 figures are hugely impressive if correct.

It's on Car & Drivers website.

[Wills2]

Mr Whippy said:

BMW need to rethink their M range, or create a new range for 'driving pleasure'

Think cheap and moderately powerful, but set up for fun over performance.

The last car BMW made like that was the 320si.
If that'd have been a 6 potter for the noise/smoothness I'd have had one.


Imo BMW should have kept a smaller revvier 6 pot turbo vs going 4 pot turbo too... having to buy a 340bhp engine in a 140i to get a six is bonkers.


But really the 5 is now like a 90s 7er, and they didn't do m7 back then as it was dumb.
Just like this m5 is now just a bit dumb.

I've never understood this mind set, the M5 was always the heaviest and best equipped 5 series with more power than you needed nothing has changed in terms of that positioning.

M cars have never been cheap and moderately powerful it's not what the customers want.

[Wills2]

Joscal said:

Wills2 said:

I've never understood this mind set, the M5 was always the heaviest and best equipped 5 series with more power than you needed nothing has changed in terms of that positioning.

M cars have never been cheap and moderately powerful it's not what the customers want.

I agree with this but it's the size that bothers me, I had a loan G30 when my F10 was in for a service and it was absolutely enormous! I know BMW have to do it to cater for the Chinese market particularly but personally I think it's too big for anything other than Mways. To be fair all cars are going the same way.

M5 was the original autobahn stormer so again nothing has changed in terms of its remit, what has changed are regulations dictating that they do everything they can to protect the occupants in the event of crash that's why the doors are like those on a vault and the cars wings so tall and broad shouldered.

I actually think the new one appears smaller than the F10 even thought it's not.

[Wills2]

Elysium said:

I had an e60 a few years ago, which felt like a bit of a bus.

The only F10 I have driven is my current M5. Although it's a big car, it really shrinks around you.

You can't deny it feels weighty, but the abundance of power, quick steering and high levels of front end grip mean that it is very chuckable. To me it feels like a dialled up version of my old 335i.

There are issues with traction under hard acceleration, which I dont really mind as I feel it adds character.

I was intitally worried about the move to 4wd, but all the reviews I have seen are so positive, I am really looking forward to a drive in the new one.

The F10 M5 is monster and I agree with your comments, another one of those M cars that some people will only appreciate later in it's life cycle, which often the case with most M cars.

I'd love a go in the new one but it's too rich for my pocket these days.

Edited by Wills2 on Friday 16th February 22:04

[Wills2]

i_alan_i said:

What's this got to do with very fast cars? I've never owned a car that gets to max power in 3rd below 70mph. Probably about 85 is normal. Even my wife's pug 107 would have been over 80.

Any petrol car that does must have absurdly short gears.

The f80 m3 comes close, as max power in 3rd comes in at just 71mph with DCT.

[Wills2]

janesmith1950 said:

Haha, but about 3 seconds later you'll be in Police VBRJ territory.

I love 4th in the DCT F80. 30mph to 120mph odd in one gear.

Yeah that is good gear, good for 132mph.

Edited by Wills2 on Wednesday 21st February 13:03

[Wills2]

Welshbeef said:

What about 3rd 30-108mph ??.


Also 7th 30-120mph WOT can an owner give a comparison as to what car that rate of acceleration feels like - as in 4th fear for another car.
I’m guessing E92 M3?

Not sure what that means, but you won't get the M5 into 7th at 30mph it's geared for over 250mph in 7th.

[Wills2]

ds666 said:

MOBB said:

I'm just imagining.....................pootling along at 40mph and flooring it in my old F10 resulted in crazy thrust so long as it was dry

What the hell must this one be like doing the same? I have no desire to own one of these now, but a cheeky test drive might be in order

If it's dry and you have no traction issues , the f10 must be almost as quick as the new one surely from 40mph ? They have around the same power and weight . The difference is off the line where the 4wd allows a massive traction advantage

F10 M5 will spin up its wheels in the dry at 40mph in my experience you needed to be up at 70-80mph in warm temps to floor the throttle and not get the traction intervening.

[Wills2]

ds666 said:

Comparing figures for the f10 : new car 60-100 3.8 s , f10 4.1 . 100-150mph new car 9.3 , f10 10.5 s . Not majorly different
I agree traction is a major challenge for the f10 , it never felt like 0-60 in 3.7 s
So the new car I’m pretty sure will be able to do the figures quoted nearly all the time whereas the f10 numbers were when the moons aligned ( and fwiw I had the traction light flashing on a dry overtake at 100 ... )

I think that's the nub of the issue, the F10 was timed to 7.8 seconds to 100mph IIRC but in the UK you'd be lucky to get it under 10secs managing the traction etc...The new one will just grip and go.

[Wills2]

ds666 said:

Wills2 said:

I think that's the nub of the issue, the F10 was timed to 7.8 seconds to 100mph IIRC but in the UK you'd be lucky to get it under 10secs managing the traction etc...The new one will just grip and go.

I'm pretty sure that my 335d xdrive is quicker 90% of the time than my m5 was . It was an epic car all the same .
Cant wait to drive the new one

Agreed to 60 my 335d was the fastest car I've ever timed couldn't match it in any of my m cars.

Still boring though

[Wills2]

Steve Rance said:

I think that BMWs obsession with straight line performance has led to cars who’s primary objective is deployment. Everything else becomes secondary. From a drivers perspective- as opposed to somebody who prefers a drag strip - that’s is disappointing.

As it's their first awd M car I think we should reserve judgement it's switchable to RWD

[Wills2]

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

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.

[Wills2]

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 ?

Edited by ds666 on Thursday 22 February 20:53

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.

[Wills2]

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.

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

I'm sure you're right on all those points Steve and I'm not going to argue with you as a layman.

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.

[Wills2]

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.

They have to move where the consumers is, RS6 then Merc E63 and of course Tesla, headline numbers sell cars, they know this.

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

[Wills2]

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 !

We need a post appreciation button....

[Wills2]

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'.

Why even mention them then? The thread is about a 2 tonne AWD M5, do you think the potential owner is looking for a lightweight road racer? Seriously.....

The "novelty" is in the eye of the beholder, you do realise that other people own fast cars as well and perhaps have different needs and wants to you?

Why does every M thread have to be infected with this nonsense about the features/character of another M car that isn't remotely comparable to the car being discussed.

I loved my e46 M3 and my 911 but what has that got to do with the new M5?

[Wills2]

Andy M said:

"New BMW M5 vs Mercedes-AMG E63 S - DRAG RACE, ROLLING RACE & BRAKE TEST"

https://youtu.be/EfZtr6Sc6q0

Tiny margins on the track so on the road there is nothing in it, nothing in the performance between them to be a meaningful factor in deciding which one you want IMHO.

Road and Track timed the M5 quicker than the e63S in their figured tests but again tiny margins so not really relevant.