RE: All-new BMW M5 Touring officially launched
Discussion
GT9 said:
Do you really want to know the rather boring and technical answer or would it be simpler that we just perceive weight to be the arch-enemy and leave it at that?
If you did want the answer, it goes like this.
About half of a car's fuel/energy consumption is governed by mass, the other half by aero.
For the half governed by mass, some of that is to add kinetic energy to the car (i.e. accelerate it) and some it is to overcome friction between the tyres and the road, i.e. rolling resistance.
Both of the mass-related consumptions increase linearly in line with the kerb mass.
Aero has no relationship to mass.
To address the energy usually lost by accelerating the car, which would traditionally end up as heat in the brakes, adding a motor/generator connected to the wheels and a battery means that most of that energy can now be recovered, stored and used again, either for acceleration or one of the other energy consumers already mentioned.
If the car now has a battery and a motor, and if the battery is big enough to cover much of the usage cases, the amount of energy it requires to overcome rolling resistance is several time less than using an engine to do that, despite the fact that the car is heavier.
The same applies to acceleration, but it's even more attractive to have a battery and motor, as it allows for regenerative braking.
Why, because an engine (and its gearbox) produce large amounts of waste heat whereas a battery and motor do not.
And because an engine is powered by a non-renewable carbon-intensive fuel whilst the battery can be topped up from renewable sources.
Obviously the same applies to overcoming aero drag but the question was specifically about mass (aka weight).
In essence, the car's energy consumption and lifetime carbon footprint is much more loosely linked to its mass if it carries a battery and motor.
If the car can be used without the engine at all, and the mass associated with the engine and its systems, that ultimately delivers the lowest lifetime carbon footprint.
Wasn't life a lot more fun when cars could be discussed without the words "efficiency" and "carbon footprint"?! I'm so glad I got to experience driving before over-intrusive aids and flashing lights, touchscreens for everything, stupid speed limits and cameras everywhere, pedestrian impact regs making most cars as ugly as the next one, and the constant fixation with carbon dioxide. If you did want the answer, it goes like this.
About half of a car's fuel/energy consumption is governed by mass, the other half by aero.
For the half governed by mass, some of that is to add kinetic energy to the car (i.e. accelerate it) and some it is to overcome friction between the tyres and the road, i.e. rolling resistance.
Both of the mass-related consumptions increase linearly in line with the kerb mass.
Aero has no relationship to mass.
To address the energy usually lost by accelerating the car, which would traditionally end up as heat in the brakes, adding a motor/generator connected to the wheels and a battery means that most of that energy can now be recovered, stored and used again, either for acceleration or one of the other energy consumers already mentioned.
If the car now has a battery and a motor, and if the battery is big enough to cover much of the usage cases, the amount of energy it requires to overcome rolling resistance is several time less than using an engine to do that, despite the fact that the car is heavier.
The same applies to acceleration, but it's even more attractive to have a battery and motor, as it allows for regenerative braking.
Why, because an engine (and its gearbox) produce large amounts of waste heat whereas a battery and motor do not.
And because an engine is powered by a non-renewable carbon-intensive fuel whilst the battery can be topped up from renewable sources.
Obviously the same applies to overcoming aero drag but the question was specifically about mass (aka weight).
In essence, the car's energy consumption and lifetime carbon footprint is much more loosely linked to its mass if it carries a battery and motor.
If the car can be used without the engine at all, and the mass associated with the engine and its systems, that ultimately delivers the lowest lifetime carbon footprint.
I got to "earn my stripes" driving around in a cheap s
tbox as a rite of passage like many my age, and then move up steadily through the ranks with slightly faster and more expensive cars. I got to spend evenings in the workshop with friends, messing around modifying our cars, fitting bigger turbos and fancy suspension, thinking we were hitting the big time, rather than the reality of making them less practical and worse to drive! But we were having fun. Cars are like the "anti-fun" now, all anyone wants to talk about is efficiency and "wasted heat", whilst local authorities laud their latest clean air zone or parking charge. God it's boring. We've now got to a point where BMW launch a new M5 and all people want to do is moan about either how heavy it is, or how they wish it was all electric. We're slowly migrating to the situation where everyone drives the same generic electric blob that looks like a bar of soap, all bimbling around silently in 20mph zones having our every move tracked and monitored by our esteemed government. The bold new future! Great stuff, but hey, at least we're "efficient" zzzzzzz...
As a serial M5 owner (E39, F10, E60, F90) and former G81 M3 owner this M5 Touring should be at the very top of the list, but it is the first M5 I have absolutely no want for.
The F90 M5 shows it up in every single way:
2500 kilos is just so far removed from any “Motorsport” connotation
Hybrid technology for the sake of economy rather than purely performance
Slower than an F90 M5, same performance as an G81 M3
5.1 metres and 2 metre wide is beyond massive, yet the same cargo space as a 3 series Touring
Cartoonish looks
If an I5 M60 interior is anything to go by, it will be a lot of hard and scratchy plastics and plenty of cost-cutting everywhere
The F90 M5 shows it up in every single way:
2500 kilos is just so far removed from any “Motorsport” connotation
Hybrid technology for the sake of economy rather than purely performance
Slower than an F90 M5, same performance as an G81 M3
5.1 metres and 2 metre wide is beyond massive, yet the same cargo space as a 3 series Touring
Cartoonish looks
If an I5 M60 interior is anything to go by, it will be a lot of hard and scratchy plastics and plenty of cost-cutting everywhere
cerb4.5lee said:
Terminator X said:
philmots said:
cerb4.5lee said:
...and sell about 4 of them in the process in the UK. Nobody wanted the E61 M5 Touring in the UK, plus the RS6 has had this market sown up for years in the UK anyway.
I love BMW don't get me wrong, but I've never really understood why they have bothered with this or the M3 Touring to be honest(in the UK anyway). I presume that this(and the M3 Touring) will do really well in other markets though?
The M3 touring is flying… I’ve got one and it’s the car I’ve been waiting for for years.I love BMW don't get me wrong, but I've never really understood why they have bothered with this or the M3 Touring to be honest(in the UK anyway). I presume that this(and the M3 Touring) will do really well in other markets though?
It’s a way better steer than an RS6 for example.
TX.
I wish them luck don't get me wrong, but it is still a strange move in my eyes though.
X3M no doubt great cars but quite compromised compared to the M3T as a drivers car.
I realise the new M5 might be equally as compromised re the weight but it’ll still be good.
philmots said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Terminator X said:
philmots said:
cerb4.5lee said:
...and sell about 4 of them in the process in the UK. Nobody wanted the E61 M5 Touring in the UK, plus the RS6 has had this market sown up for years in the UK anyway.
I love BMW don't get me wrong, but I've never really understood why they have bothered with this or the M3 Touring to be honest(in the UK anyway). I presume that this(and the M3 Touring) will do really well in other markets though?
The M3 touring is flying… I’ve got one and it’s the car I’ve been waiting for for years.I love BMW don't get me wrong, but I've never really understood why they have bothered with this or the M3 Touring to be honest(in the UK anyway). I presume that this(and the M3 Touring) will do really well in other markets though?
It’s a way better steer than an RS6 for example.
TX.
I wish them luck don't get me wrong, but it is still a strange move in my eyes though.
X3M no doubt great cars but quite compromised compared to the M3T as a drivers car.
I realise the new M5 might be equally as compromised re the weight but it’ll still be good.
Plus from a personal stand point...I've moved away from an Estate to an SUV as well now to be fair. Plus the default performance Estate for me(and many others) has always been the RS4 or the RS6 rightly or wrongly I reckon.
While I think the Rs6 has it for aggression still, I like it. However, I think there is so much bodywork going on the wheels may have needed another inch.
Interesting vid from Joe Achilles on the FL5 civic, how wide that was to peddle down a country road and how aware you are - this is wider still and if its a one car does it all that matt black paint is going in the brambles
Interesting vid from Joe Achilles on the FL5 civic, how wide that was to peddle down a country road and how aware you are - this is wider still and if its a one car does it all that matt black paint is going in the brambles
GT9 said:
Hunky Dory said:
Why on earth does it need to be 2.5T…?
Do you really want to know the rather boring and technical answer or would it be simpler that we just perceive weight to be the arch-enemy and leave it at that?If you did want the answer, it goes like this.
About half of a car's fuel/energy consumption is governed by mass, the other half by aero.
For the half governed by mass, some of that is to add kinetic energy to the car (i.e. accelerate it) and some it is to overcome friction between the tyres and the road, i.e. rolling resistance.
Both of the mass-related consumptions increase linearly in line with the kerb mass.
Aero has no relationship to mass.
To address the energy usually lost by accelerating the car, which would traditionally end up as heat in the brakes, adding a motor/generator connected to the wheels and a battery means that most of that energy can now be recovered, stored and used again, either for acceleration or one of the other energy consumers already mentioned.
If the car now has a battery and a motor, and if the battery is big enough to cover much of the usage cases, the amount of energy it requires to overcome rolling resistance is several time less than using an engine to do that, despite the fact that the car is heavier.
The same applies to acceleration, but it's even more attractive to have a battery and motor, as it allows for regenerative braking.
Why, because an engine (and its gearbox) produce large amounts of waste heat whereas a battery and motor do not.
And because an engine is powered by a non-renewable carbon-intensive fuel whilst the battery can be topped up from renewable sources.
Obviously the same applies to overcoming aero drag but the question was specifically about mass (aka weight).
In essence, the car's energy consumption and lifetime carbon footprint is much more loosely linked to its mass if it carries a battery and motor.
If the car can be used without the engine at all, and the mass associated with the engine and its systems, that ultimately delivers the lowest lifetime carbon footprint.
Edited by GT9 on Thursday 15th August 22:20
TX.
I'll never understand why they attempt to showcase new models using a matt black car with black wheels. Let's see a nice metallic blue one with silver wheels.
I've said this before about other cars (like the latest C63) but can you imagine the bork factor in years to come when 10/15 year old examples are kicking about with that level of complexity. No thanks!
I've said this before about other cars (like the latest C63) but can you imagine the bork factor in years to come when 10/15 year old examples are kicking about with that level of complexity. No thanks!
JAMSXR said:
Look horrible and will suffer rapid depreciation. Who fancies owning one of these out of warranty.
Most BMWs and the Mini seem to be built for China, their biggest market. We are an afterthought. Only glimmer of hope is that Chinese sales are slowing for them.
Nope. You are clearly misinformed regarding the biggest markets for M cars. This is from Jan 2024. We are NOT an afterthought, even though you might perceive that. Most BMWs and the Mini seem to be built for China, their biggest market. We are an afterthought. Only glimmer of hope is that Chinese sales are slowing for them.
"The USA was once again the most important single market for BMW M GmbH automobiles in the 2023 financial year.
The German home market again took second place in the ranking of sales regions, while the UK remained the third most important market, as in the previous year."
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/deta...
Oh and regarding owning one out of the 3 year's manufacturer warranty, plenty of people run older BMWs with an extended warranty from BMW themselves, to give some peace of mind.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff