PDA

View Full Version : 528/530 vs 540 steering


Thrasherlife
02-10-2003, 02:28 PM
I was wondering if anyone could possibly explain the difference between the steering feel between the two. I know one is rack and pinion and the other is ricirculating ball, but is there a huge difference in feel between the two?

Thrasherlife

SS
02-10-2003, 03:04 PM
The 528 and 540 have two different types of steering setups. The 528 has Rack & Pinion, and the 540 has Recirculating Ball (yes, I realize you know this much!).

The Rack and Pinion has a more firm, cummunicative, responsive...pretty "sports car-like" feel to it. Most road imperfections, etc., can be felt (part of the "communication"). Also, it gives the 528 more "capability" than Recirculating Ball would in turns.

The Recirculating Ball is much more smooth, a bit less communicative, more loose (and dead on center)...and kinda isolates the car from road imperfections. This is the setup many luxury car manufacturers use for smoothness...although BMW particularly used it because they could not fit the R&P system in the 540's because of the engine size.

The difference in feel between the two? Many people do not pay attention and do not notice a difference (albiet the fact it is very clear). Some may prefer one or the other...depending on what that person expects in the car. Most enthusiasts would prefer the feel of the R&P...most people who want a less-harsh, luxurious ride would opt for the RB.

Personally, I like the communicative feel of my 528 much better than the 540's I have driven. Now, if you're comparing the two cars overall...people such as myself who are pleased with the power of the manual 528 would rather the "drive" of it. However, people who love the power and really do not care about the minor handling trade-off's would take the 540 any day over the 528! I guess it would really be in whether or not you were pleased with the power of the 528!

Thrasherlife
02-10-2003, 03:08 PM
Thanks for the info SS

Thrasherlife

PropellerHead
02-10-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by SS
Also, it gives the 528 more "capability" than Recirculating Ball would in turns. This is a pretty ambiguous statement as both systems will allow the same tolerances in a given turn. Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 :). I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns. One should not infer a difference between "communication" and "capability" of any E39's handling.

SS
02-12-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
This is a pretty ambiguous statement as both systems will allow the same tolerances in a given turn. Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 :). I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns. One should not infer a difference between "communication" and "capability" of any E39's handling.

Actually, you are incorrect. RB is NOT as capable as R&P...and slalom tests concur with exactly what I stated. Actually, just over a month ago, I posted slalom number comparing the 528 non-SP to the 540 Sport, and the 528 non-sport STILL had higher numbers! Now, I'm sure the 528 SP numbers would be even better :bigpimp:

By the way, I did not gather this from the "communication" - this is a well-discussed topic, and most people are well aware of the fact that RB is less performance-oriented than R&P.

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by SS
By the way, I did not gather this from the "communication" - this is a well-discussed topic, and most people are well aware of the fact that RB is less performance-oriented than R&P. We're not discussing performance orientation. We are discussing R&P's "cabability" over RB and whether or not one system will get the driver through a given turn as well as the other in an E39. Try to stay on topic.
Originally posted by SS
Actually, just over a month ago, I posted slalom number comparing the 528 non-SP to the 540 Sport, and the 528 non-sport STILL had higher numbers! Now, I'm sure the 528 SP numbers would be even better If you have those numbers and a creditable (like a published article) source for them, I'd like to see it and I'd like to read the article in its entirety to discern whether or not they credit the added weight of the 540i (sport) or the R&P streering on the 528i (non-sport) with a difference in numbers. The article must be about 528i non sport vs 540i sport to back your claim. Not just R&P vs RB. It's not that I don't believe you, I like to make my judgements on the best information possible. I believe that basing information soley on what I read on an Internet message board is just plain foolish. If you dont have the article, it's not only foolish, it's hearsay.
edited for spelling

SS
02-12-2003, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
We're not discussing performance orientation. We are discussing R&P's "cabability" over RB and whether or not one system will get the driver through a given turn as well as the other in an E39. Try to stay on topic.
If you have those numbers and a creditable (like a published article) source for them, I'd like to see it and I'd like to read the article in its entirety to discern whether or not they credit the added weight of the 540i (sport) or the R&P streering on the 528i (non-sport) with a difference in numbers. The article must be about 528i non sport vs 540i sport to back your claim. Not just R&P vs RB. It's not that I don't believe you, I like to make my judgements on the best information possible. I believe that basing information soley on what I read on an Internet message board is just plain foolish. If you dont have the article, it's not only foolish, it's hearsay.
edited for spelling

I do not have much time to dig up the article, however, I will tell you it is on Car & Driver (you can go to their website, and play around with the search one 528i/540i, etc. http://www.caranddriver.com). I VAGUELY remember the 540 numbers something like .84 and the 528's like .92, or something like that...but I may be a bit off.

Again, this is valid information...if you have trouble finding the article, let me know and I may be able to find it a little later. As well, there are other online resources comparing the 528 to the 540, so C&D is not the last resort.

F1Crazy
02-12-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by SS
Actually, you are incorrect. RB is NOT as capable as R&P...and slalom tests concur with exactly what I stated. Actually, just over a month ago, I posted slalom number comparing the 528 non-SP to the 540 Sport, and the 528 non-sport STILL had higher numbers! Now, I'm sure the 528 SP numbers would be even better :bigpimp:

By the way, I did not gather this from the "communication" - this is a well-discussed topic, and most people are well aware of the fact that RB is less performance-oriented than R&P.

Slower slalom numbers are more likely due to the fact that 540 is heavier and has slightly nose heavy weight distribution and not the RB steering.
It's still hard for me to believe that non SP 528 would post better numbers than 540i Sport in the same conditions. Just think about tires only, what tires would give you crisper turn in? What about body roll? Those are huge factors in slalom times.

The differences between RB and R&P may be significant on a twisty road track and unless you autosross they are meaningless in real life.

SS
02-12-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by F1Crazy
Slower slalom numbers are more likely due to the fact that 540 is heavier and has slightly nose heavy weight distribution and not the RB steering.
It's still hard for me to believe that non SP 528 would post better numbers than 540i Sport in the same conditions. Just think about tires only, what tires would give you crisper turn in? What about body roll? Those are huge factors in slalom times.

The differences between RB and R&P may be significant on a twisty road track and unless you autosross they are meaningless in real life.

That is correct...slalom numbers are based on several factors. As well, one thing many people do not realize is that slalom numbers do NOT mean "handling". A car with a lower slalom number "may" handle better.

As far as it being hard for you to believe the numbers...I'm just going by what I read...I don't make the rules.

Lastly, many people keep saying what you stated about "real life" meaningness. As far as I am concerned, it DOES matter in real life. Why? I take hard turns every single day - I put my 528 near its limits very often...just as I would if I were on a track. So, personally, I'd say it does matter... :dunno:

SS
02-12-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by SS
I do not have much time to dig up the article, however, I will tell you it is on Car & Driver (you can go to their website, and play around with the search one 528i/540i, etc. http://www.caranddriver.com). I VAGUELY remember the 540 numbers something like .84 and the 528's like .92, or something like that...but I may be a bit off.

Again, this is valid information...if you have trouble finding the article, let me know and I may be able to find it a little later. As well, there are other online resources comparing the 528 to the 540, so C&D is not the last resort.

I was wrong about ONE thing! The skidpad numbers on the non-SP 528 is .78, and SP 540 is .82...so the SP 540 DOES have a better number than the non-SP 528 (notice, I did not say it "handles" better...because skidpad #'s do not mean actual handling). However, once again, the SP 528i does have higher numbers...I've just gotta find them again!

F1Crazy
02-12-2003, 11:06 AM
As far as I am concerned, it DOES matter in real life. Why? I take hard turns every single day - I put my 528 near its limits very often...just as I would if I were on a track. So, personally, I'd say it does matter...

I'm a little confused here, are you saying that cornering limits of 528 are higher then 540? Is it because of different steering?:confused:

Unless your daily driving consists of 30 miles of canyon carving you'll hardly notice a difference.
Let me tell you this: if RB in BMW really sucked they wouldn't put it in one of their top performers.

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by SS
I do not have much time to dig up the article, however, I will tell you it is on Car & Driver (you can go to their website, and play around with the search one 528i/540i, etc. http://www.caranddriver.com). I VAGUELY remember the 540 numbers something like .84 and the 528's like .92, or something like that...but I may be a bit off. Are you talking skid pad or slalom? The skid pad results found in this Car and Driver article (http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/1998/April/199804_feature_bmw_540i.xml?Manufacturer=BMW&Name=5-Series&class=43) concur with your .84 number, but that's skid pad. A whole different world from slalom and one where a heavy nose would probably bring lower numbers over a 528. To Wit: In the Dinan M5 S2 article (http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2002/november/0211_specialtyfile_dinan.xml?&Manufacturer=BMW&Name=5-Series&class=43&page=2) they show the stock M5 skidpad as .83- lower than the 540. Think the M5's sixty extra pounds (listed in the article) has anything to do with it? The skidpad results from this article were also improved after adding sport tuned Dinan springs and shocks to the M5. Pertinent inferrences can be drawn here, because the 540i sport does have perfomance tuned shocks and springs as compared to a non-sport 528. Whether it would bring lower slalom numbers over a 528 non-sport is now in doubt as the selections "BMW" and 5 Series (http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/bg/reviews/reviews_searchresults.xml?Manufacturer=BMW&Name=5-Series&class=43) under the road tests section returns ten articles and only one stock 528 tested- the Touring. They didn't bother to put this 9.1-second-to-sixty flier on the skid pad. Originally posted by SS
Again, this is valid information...if you have trouble finding the article, let me know and I may be able to find it a little later. As well, there are other online resources comparing the 528 to the 540, so C&D is not the last resort. Based on the M5 versus 540 skidpad results to which you inadvertantly pointed, I conclude that higher skid pad numbers have more to do with nose weight than steering type. As for your claims that a 528 non-sport can out slalom a sport 540, I am looking for a published article from a reputable, unbiased source- not some hack who thinks what he thinks because that's what he thinks. That would just be more hearsay- and I say again, hearsay is foolish.

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by F1Crazy
I'm a little confused here, are you saying that cornering limits of 528 are higher then 540? Is it because of different steering?:confused:

Unless your daily driving consists of 30 miles of canyon carving you'll hardly notice a difference.
Let me tell you this: if RB in BMW really sucked they wouldn't put it in one of their top performers. Hear hear! They put it in the M5 their TOP peforming sedan.

SS
02-12-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by F1Crazy
I'm a little confused here, are you saying that cornering limits of 528 are higher then 540? Is it because of different steering?:confused:

Unless your daily driving consists of 30 miles of canyon carving you'll hardly notice a difference.
Let me tell you this: if RB in BMW really sucked they wouldn't put it in one of their top performers.

Yes, the cornering limits in the 528 ARE higher than the 540...did you not know this? This has been a hot topic for a very long time among us E39 guys!!!

Also, I completely disagree with your statement about 30 miles of canyon carving - that is just like saying unless the daily driving consisted of 30 miles of canyon carving, the handling of a BMW is no better than a Malibu. Really think about this stuff...

Lastly, with your comment about BMW not putting this stuff in their "top performers"...you're incorrect. Their top performers (in terms of handling)...the 3-series, I6 5-series, new 745's, etc, all have R&P handling. For performance, auto-makers prefer R&P over RB...this is a well-known fact. Actually, again, the reason BMW did NOT use R&P for the 540, is because it could not fit...NOT so it would perform better. Also, to my knowledge, the next generation 545i will have R&P...

Plaz
02-12-2003, 11:51 AM
: popcorn:

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by SS
I was wrong about ONE thing! We can agree, there. Originally posted by SS
The skidpad numbers on the non-SP 528 is .78, and SP 540 is .82...so the SP 540 DOES have a better number than the non-SP 528 (notice, I did not say it "handles" better...because skidpad #'s do not mean actual handling). We never discussed "handling." I disagreed when you said the R&P was more "capable" than RB in a non-sport 528 vs a sport 540 and you then used as your backup numbers and assumptions ab the 540 sport versus the non sport 528 that are incorrect.Originally posted by SS However, once again, the SP 528i does have higher numbers...I've just gotta find them again! If "higher skidpad #'s do not mean actual handling," then why would you care to find the numbers when nothing can be proven- Except that you were wrong ab the capablity of one type of steering over another when comparing a non-sport I-6 versus sport V8 E39? :confused: Besides, we've agreed you were wrong about that.

edited for spelling and content

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Plaz
: popcorn: I was waiting for someone to put that in! Maybe you learn after 200 posts or so that you cant just make assumptions based on BS like non-sport 528's being more "capable" than sport 540's because of R&P steering over here like you can on other boards.:dunno:

SS
02-12-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
We can agree, there. We never discussed "handling." I disagreed when you said the R&P was more "cabable" than RB and you then used as your backup numbers and assumptions ab the 540 sport versus the non sport 528 that are incorrect. If "higher skidpad #'s do not mean actual handling," then why would you care to find them when nothing can be proven except that you were wrong ab the cability of one type of steering over another in a non-sport I-6 versus sport V8 E39?:confused:

Let's back up. First, when I was talking about "capability" I was referring to "handling". Secondly, when you brought up "slalom" I mixed it up with "skidpad", which is what really matters for handling/cornering capabilities. Third, skidpad number do NOT mean actual handling...but I brought that up because I figured that is what you were referring to (by the way, how can you say I'm wrong about it, if you did not bring proof to the table? I stated I was wrong about numbers, but remember, if we're going to compare the RB to the R&P, we need both SP, or both non-SP...not two different setups!).

Now, my original statement was simply that the R&P is more capable than RB in terms of handling, and that is a fact. Again, I do not feel like digging up all the references, but I am not "assuming" this stuff, and you keep stating. These are facts I simply did not provide referrences for...if you are not certain about them, proceed to research yourself, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding.

SS
02-12-2003, 12:12 PM
As for your claims that a 528 non-sport can out slalom a sport 540, I am looking for a published article from a reputable, unbiased source- not some hack who thinks what he thinks because that's what he thinks. That would just be more hearsay- and I say again, hearsay is foolish. [/B]

Again, I am not simply making stuff up based on what I *think*...I simply gave my comments on a well-discussed topic.

SS
02-12-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
Hear hear! They put it in the M5 their TOP peforming sedan.

And AGAIN...M5 has RB steering because BMW COULD...NOT...FIT...the R&P in the V8 equipped models! :) Just because the M5 is listed as their TOP performing sedan, does NOT mean it would not perform BETTER with R&P...right or wrong?

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by SS
Let's back up. First, when I was talking about "capability" I was referring to "handling". Secondly, when you brought up "slalom" I mixed it up with "skidpad", So that makes it, what- two things you were mistaken about? Mixing up slalom and skidpad and then assuming the 528 non-sport handles better- which you did: Originally posted by SS
Actually, just over a month ago, I posted slalom number comparing the 528 non-SP to the 540 Sport, and the 528 non-sport STILL had higher numbers! Originally posted by SS
Secondly, when you brought up "slalom" I mixed it up with "skidpad", which is what really matters for handling/cornering capabilities. Third, skidpad number do NOT mean actual handling... There is simply nothing here but contradiction. Originally posted by SS
but I brought that up because I figured that is what you were referring to That's called an assumption, and once again, you assumed incorrectly. Originally posted by SS
(by the way, how can you say I'm wrong about it, if you did not bring proof to the table? Because YOU brought the numbers to the table and proved yourself wrong for me:Originally posted by SS
I was wrong about ONE thing! The skidpad numbers on the non-SP 528 is .78, and SP 540 is .82 Originally posted by SS
I stated I was wrong about numbers, but remember, if we're going to compare the RB to the R&P, we need both SP, or both non-SP...not two different setups!).
You could take your own advice. You're the guy who brougt the non sport 528 into discussion to make a point that has been proven invalid and based on nothing to back it up- also known as "assumptions."
Originally posted by SS
Now, my original statement was simply that the R&P is more capable than RB in terms of handling, and that is a fact. Your original statement to which I took exception and which you have not been able to prove with anything other than conjecture (assumption) was:
Originally posted by SS
Also, it gives the 528 more "capability" than Recirculating Ball would in turns. Originally posted by SS
Again, I do not feel like digging up all the references, but I am not "assuming" this stuff, and you keep stating. These are facts I simply did not provide referrences for...if you are not certain about them, proceed to research yourself, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding. I have a satisfactory understanding of the differences between R&P and RB and the way one E39 handles over another- with proof from reputable sources rather than hearsay. If we cant provide *good* information, we shouldn't give it.

SS
02-12-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
This is a pretty ambiguous statement as both systems will allow the same tolerances in a given turn. Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 :). I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns. One should not infer a difference between "communication" and "capability" of any E39's handling.

By the way...it is possible for a car that does not handle quite as well as another to make it through the slalom faster than another. A much faster car can get through the slalom quicker than, and at a higher speed than a slower car that handles corners better. So, perhaps, you should not have even mentioned that...

I was not saying the 528 handles MUCH better than the 540...or R&P handles MUCH better than RB, but that is does indeed handle better...this conversation has dragged out much further than it should have...

SS
02-12-2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
So that makes it, what- two things you were mistaken about? Mixing up slalom and skidpad and then assuming the 528 non-sport handles better- which you did:

Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP). Again, I corrected myself, so let's move on...

There is simply nothing here but contradiction.[/QUOTE}

A contradiction? LOL...my point is that skidpad numbers show roadholding, which CAN translate to handling, but that a car with a lower skidpad number can handle better than a car with a higher skidpad number. Perhaps the wording was not correct...


[QUOTE]That's called an assumption, and once again, you assumed incorrectly.

Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions!

Because YOU brought the numbers to the table and proved yourself wrong for me:

You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it.

You could take your own advice. You're the guy who brougt the non sport 528 into discussion to make a point that has been proven invalid and based on nothing to back it up- also known as "assumptions."
Your original statement to which I took exception and which you have not been able to prove with anything other than conjecture (assumption) was:

Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???


I have a satisfactory understanding of the differences between R&P and RB and the way one E39 handles over another- with proof from reputable sources rather than hearsay. If we cant provide *good* information, we shouldn't give it.

The information I gave is good. Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). This is a well-known fact, and for someone who continuously keeps stating I'm "assuming", you sure are doing tons of assuming I am assuming without backing up your statements that I am incorrect!

SS
02-12-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
So that makes it, what- two things you were mistaken about? Mixing up slalom and skidpad and then assuming the 528 non-sport handles better- which you did:

Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP). Again, I corrected myself, so let's move on...

There is simply nothing here but contradiction.[/QUOTE}

A contradiction? LOL...my point is that skidpad numbers show roadholding, which CAN translate to handling, but that a car with a lower skidpad number can handle better than a car with a higher skidpad number. Perhaps the wording was not correct...


[QUOTE]That's called an assumption, and once again, you assumed incorrectly.

Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions!

Because YOU brought the numbers to the table and proved yourself wrong for me:

You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it.

You could take your own advice. You're the guy who brougt the non sport 528 into discussion to make a point that has been proven invalid and based on nothing to back it up- also known as "assumptions."
Your original statement to which I took exception and which you have not been able to prove with anything other than conjecture (assumption) was:

Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???


I have a satisfactory understanding of the differences between R&P and RB and the way one E39 handles over another- with proof from reputable sources rather than hearsay. If we cant provide *good* information, we shouldn't give it.

The information I gave is good. Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). This is a well-known fact, and for someone who continuously keeps stating I'm "assuming", you sure are doing tons of assuming I am assuming without backing up your statements that I am incorrect!

SS
02-12-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
This is a pretty ambiguous statement as both systems will allow the same tolerances in a given turn. Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 :). I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns. One should not infer a difference between "communication" and "capability" of any E39's handling.

By the way...it is possible for a car that does not handle quite as well as another to make it through the slalom faster than another. A much faster car can get through the slalom quicker than, and at a higher speed than a slower car that handles corners better. So, perhaps, you should not have even mentioned that...

I was not saying the 528 handles MUCH better than the 540...or R&P handles MUCH better than RB, but that is does indeed handle better...this conversation has dragged out much further than it should have...

bmw325
02-12-2003, 01:14 PM
I don't see how r&p vs rb steering would directly affect handling assuming you tried both systems in the exact same car and they had the same steering ratio.
But:
-I think that often rb systems have a slower ratio than r&p systems, i'm not sure if this is the case with the 540 vs 528. If the rb system was slower, it could slighlty affect the driver's ability to get through the slalom as fast. But this is sort of an indirect effect.
2. Another indirect effect would be that the lesser feel provided by the rb system could make it more difficult to squeeze the lastounce of handling ability out of the car.

As far as skid pad numbers, I don't see how it would matter-- on a skidpad the driver just turns the wheel in 1 direction and accelerates until the car oversteers or understeers. THe steering system doesn't matter.

I think "handling" is a pretty vague term-- and it can be defined as narrowly or broadly as you'd like. I think this is partly why this discussion grew so confusing. I think that, generally, when we say that BMW have good handling, we mean:
-good weight balance
-good turn-in characteristics
-not too much body roll on turns
AND
-good steering feel (reasonably firm, progressive build up of weigt in turns, can feel road).

If you accept this broader definitoin of handling, then, yes I agree that the r&p systems "handles" better than the rb systems. Its all a moot point anyway, BMW is ditching the rb system on the next 5 and already has on the 7.

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by SS
Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? Because you presented it as fact that was backed by proof when in fact it was false information. You only corrected yourself after you were called on it. Originally posted by SS
The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP). Your "original statement" had no mention of sport package or non-sport package. There is absolutely NO clear distiction of apples, oranges, or any other fruit except the fuit loop statement about a 528 being more "capable" in a corner to which I took exception. By original statement, I mean the FIRST reply to Thrasher. Were you talking about another original statement? Can there be two original statements?Originally posted by SS
Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions! No one said it did. There is no reciprocal relationship being drawn from one assumption to the other. Each is taken on it's own merit.Originally posted by SS
You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it. Assumption: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assumption)
asĚsumpĚtion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.
1)The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2)The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3)The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4)Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
Presumption; arrogance.
Logic. A minor premise.
Assumption
Christianity. The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death.
A feast celebrating this event.
August 15, the day on which this feast is observed. Originally posted by SS
Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things??? I assume nothing. It's sort of the point behind this whole exercise. If I did assume anything, it would certainly not that you were assuming something... I mean assuming that I would assume something like that.:confused:Originally posted by SS
The information I gave is good. Fine, All I have asked is that you prove a 528 is more "capable" than a 540 rather than more "communicative" and that there is a difference between communication and capability. Prove it using the opposite of the definition above. Pay close attention to #3.Originally posted by SS
Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). SS? Let's look at the dispute without trying to make it more than it is: I disputed your assumption that the 528 is more "capable" because of it's steering. My dispute has nothing to do with the much more broad comparisons of the two systems. I'll put this in italics to see if you can get it. This may be the fourth time I've said it:
You presented as fact that a 528 was more cabable in turns than a 540. You have no proof of this. This is called an assumption.See #3. In fact, you provided proof that the 528 non sport failed when compared to a 540 sport. If you present fruit loops as fact, be prepared to back it up.

SS
02-12-2003, 02:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because you presented it as fact that was backed by proof when in fact it was false information. You only corrected yourself after you were called on it.

Uhmm...I corrected myself BEFORE being called on it. What are you talking about?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your "original statement" had no mention of sport package or non-sport package. There is absolutely NO clear distiction of apples, oranges, or any other fruit except the fuit loop statement about a 528 being more "capable" in a corner to which I took exception. By original statement, I mean the FIRST reply to Thrasher. Were you talking about another original statement? Can there be two original statements?

Again, in my ORIGINAL statement...meaning the FIRST statement, I was comparing the 528 vs 540. I meant that in an apples to apples way...meaning, SP vs SP, non-SP vs non-SP. Got it?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one said it did. There is no reciprocal relationship being drawn from one assumption to the other. Each is taken on it's own merit.

It seemed as though you were implying it did...otherwise, why mention it? I already correcet myself...

quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumption:
asĚsumpĚtion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.
1)The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2)The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
Again, you are misusing the word, and I will tell you how. #3, you did not prove to me that what I stated is FALSE, and neither IS it false. #4, who said it is taken for granted withOUT proof? Just because I did not PROVIDE proof on the board, does NOT mean it has not been proven. What part of this does not make sense to you???

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume nothing. It's sort of the point behind this whole exercise. If I did assume anything, it would certainly not that you were assuming something... I mean assuming that I would assume something like that.

You clearly made an assumption that I was incorrect...did you NOT? You also clearly ASSUMED I was ASSUMING...right or wrong?I could provide proof...just not in the mood to go digging for proof...there IS a difference!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
The information I gave is good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, All I have asked is that you prove a 528 is more "capable" than a 540 rather than more "communicative" and that there is a difference between communication and capability. Prove it using the opposite of the definition above. Pay close attention to #3.

And you also ASSUMED twice with your statment that "Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 . I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns." Many, many slalom tests will concur? Both systems are equally capable? Where's your proof??? Perhaps you should read #3 again.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS
Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SS? Let's look at the dispute without trying to make it more than it is: I disputed your assumption that the 528 is more "capable" because of it's steering. My dispute has nothing to do with the much more broad comparisons of the two systems. I'll put this in italics to see if you can get it. This may be the fourth time I've said it:
You presented as fact that a 528 was more cabable in turns than a 540. You have no proof of this. This is called an assumption.See #3. In fact, you provided proof that the 528 non sport failed when compared to a 540 sport. If you present fruit loops as fact, be prepared to back it up.

Again, I did not assume...and I don't know why you keep abusing that word. Do you not fully understand what #3 means? Without PROOF and without pulling out proof are two completely different things! Also, a non-SP vs SP is not a valid comparison...and again, I threw that out after I realized the numbers were transposed. With that, if the numbers WERE read correctly, is that my point would easily be proven that even with inferior suspension, the R&P would outhandle the RB...but again, that was thrown out...okay?

I'm not going to keep going on and on with this topic...it is ridiculous. Point is, I stated FACTS to the original poster. If you so strongly believe I am incorrect, show me proof, and I will retract that statement. If you cannot prove I am incorrect, do not keep telling me I am incorrect/assuming! If you have been in duscussions about these two setups over the past FOUR years, as I have...perhaps you would understand more about the differences between the two. If you do not own a 5-series (which I will ASSUME you do not, because you frequent the E46 board...or did), why get into it with a 5-series owner who knows tons about his car, and like cars?

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by SS
Uhmm...I corrected myself BEFORE being called on it. What are you talking about? Fair enough. You corrected youreself on being wrong- or was that mistaken? Or maybe "incorrectly remembering? Is there a difference?
Originally posted by SS
Again, in my ORIGINAL statement...meaning the FIRST statement, I was comparing the 528 vs 540. I meant that in an apples to apples way...meaning, SP vs SP, non-SP vs non-SP. Got it? Well, sure, NOW.. But you have to admit it works better when you say what you mean the first time rather than back peddling, Mr. Clinton. You can't refer to your original statement pointing to substance that isn't there. Whether you meant to mention SP or non SP in your original statement or not, you didn't. That omission makes it inherantly unclear.

Assumption:
asĚsumpĚtion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.
3)The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4)Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.Originally posted by SS Again, you are misusing the word, and I will tell you how. #3, you did not prove to me that what I stated is FALSE, and neither IS it false. #4, who said it is taken for granted withOUT proof? Just because I did not PROVIDE proof on the board, does NOT mean it has not been proven. What part of this does not make sense to you??? Um, the part where you think not providing proof means you have proof. I mean, if someone questioned whether or not you were male, you'd surely whip out your proof, wouldn't you? If you didn't, don't you think SOMEBODY at the bar would wonder? I mean, how can we be sure if he wont prove it? These are weird times, and a weird medium. One's electronic word just doesn't hold water. Originally posted by SS
You clearly made an assumption that I was incorrect...did you NOT? Nope, I proved that you were wrong about the 540 i sport being less capable than a 528 non sport with help from you. Originally posted by SS
You also clearly ASSUMED I was ASSUMING...right or wrong?
Again, no. You agreed you were assuming.
Originally posted by SS
I could provide proof...just not in the mood to go digging for proof...there IS a difference! Yes, I suppose there is.. Wanna see my Porsche?Originally posted by SS

And you also ASSUMED twice with your statment that "Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 . I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns." Many, many slalom tests will concur? Both systems are equally capable? Where's your proof??? Perhaps you should read #3 again. You provided the proof that said 528's numbers aren't as high as 540's. Unless you're suggesting that those numbers are false?Originally posted by SS
Again, I did not assume...and I don't know why you keep abusing that word. Do you not fully understand what #3 means? Without PROOF and without pulling out proof are two completely different things! Man my Porsche is sweet. 0-60 in 4.3 secs and WHOA the smell of leather! Originally posted by SS
Also, a non-SP vs SP is not a valid comparison...and again, I threw that out after I realized the numbers were transposed. With that, if the numbers WERE read correctly, is that my point would easily be proven that even with inferior suspension, the R&P would outhandle the RB...but again, that was thrown out...okay? So your point is that there is no point? That may be the closest you've come to bullseye.Originally posted by SS
I'm not going to keep going on and on with this topic...it is ridiculous. Point is, I stated FACTS to the original poster. Facts without support are not facts. They are opinions. Opinions without proof are assumptions. Like it or not. Originally posted by SS
If you so strongly believe I am incorrect, show me proof, and I will retract that statement. If you cannot prove I am incorrect, do not keep telling me I am incorrect/assuming! Nope- no fair turning the tables. I called you on something you said and it's up to you to clean your own mess off the floor, Snoopy. Originally posted by SS
If you have been in duscussions about these two setups over the past FOUR years, as I have...perhaps you would understand more about the differences between the two. If you do not own a 5-series (which I will ASSUME you do not, because you frequent the E46 board...or did), why get into it with a 5-series owner who knows tons about his car, and like cars? You know that saying about assumptions? Thanks for proving it. In case you're NOT familiar it goes something like: "Don't ASSume- when you ASSume, you make an A$$ out of yourself." Oh, and thanks for admitting, once again, that you assumed something proven (by me) to be incorrect. I've owned bimmers since you were in diapers, junior and that includes a couple E39's, an E46, an E53, a couple '02s, and some others.

But nothing is as sweet as my Porsche. I mean, I'd prove it- cause I have proof- I just don't want to provide the proof.

SS
02-12-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by PropellerHead
Fair enough. You corrected youreself on being wrong- or was that mistaken? Or maybe "incorrectly remembering? Is there a difference?
Well, sure, NOW.. But you have to admit it works better when you say what you mean the first time rather than back peddling, Mr. Clinton. You can't refer to your original statement pointing to substance that isn't there. Whether you meant to mention SP or non SP in your original statement or not, you didn't. That omission makes it inherantly unclear.

Assumption:
asĚsumpĚtion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.
3)The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4)Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption. Um, the part where you think not providing proof means you have proof. I mean, if someone questioned whether or not you were male, you'd surely whip out your proof, wouldn't you? If you didn't, don't you think SOMEBODY at the bar would wonder? I mean, how can we be sure if he wont prove it? These are weird times, and a weird medium. One's electronic word just doesn't hold water. Nope, I proved that you were wrong about the 540 i sport being less capable than a 528 non sport with help from you. Again, no. You agreed you were assuming.
Yes, I suppose there is.. Wanna see my Porsche?You provided the proof that said 528's numbers aren't as high as 540's. Unless you're suggesting that those numbers are false? Man my Porsche is sweet. 0-60 in 4.3 secs and WHOA the smell of leather! So your point is that there is no point? That may be the closest you've come to bullseye. Facts without support are not facts. They are opinions. Opinions without proof are assumptions. Like it or not. Nope- no fair turning the tables. I called you on something you said and it's up to you to clean your own mess off the floor, Snoopy. You know that saying about assumptions? Thanks for proving it. In case you're NOT familiar it goes something like: "Don't ASSume- when you ASSume, you make an A$$ out of yourself." Oh, and thanks for admitting, once again, that you assumed something proven (by me) to be incorrect. I've owned bimmers since you were in diapers, junior and that includes a couple E39's, an E46, an E53, a couple '02s, and some others.

But nothing is as sweet as my Porsche. I mean, I'd prove it- cause I have proof- I just don't want to provide the proof.

Okay, name calling...how appropriate, and mature. Then, stating you "proved" something you assumed, but turn the tables around and say the other person is assuming? A Porsche? How relevant to the conversation. My age...again, how relevant. The amount of cars you owned? Again...how relevant.

No matter what you say, you cannot rightfully tell a person he/she is "assuming" just because that person did not PROVIDE facts. And you cannot use the 528/540 skipad numbers as water for your "proof" I am incorrect, because the 528 had non-SP versus the superior SP suspension...how ridiculous!

...clearly, this is a waste of time. Until you SHOW me some proof I am incorrect, I will continue to laugh at how silly your comments are.

PropellerHead
02-12-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by SS
Until you SHOW me some proof I am incorrect, I will continue to laugh at how silly your comments are. It's not up to me to clean up your mess. Why, with your resistance and proven inability (or, to candy coat it: lack of desire) to back assumptions you present as fact, a person may even infer that you've lied here. I challenged you to provide actual, printed, unbiased, unmitigated proof that a 528 was more capable than a 540 in turns and you can't. Do it and the case is closed.

F1Crazy
02-12-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by SS
Yes, the cornering limits in the 528 ARE higher than the 540...did you not know this? This has been a hot topic for a very long time among us E39 guys!!!

Lastly, with your comment about BMW not putting this stuff in their "top performers"...you're incorrect. Their top performers (in terms of handling)...the 3-series, I6 5-series, new 745's, etc, all have R&P handling. For performance, auto-makers prefer R&P over RB...this is a well-known fact. Actually, again, the reason BMW did NOT use R&P for the 540, is because it could not fit...NOT so it would perform better. Also, to my knowledge, the next generation 545i will have R&P...

Hmmm... After reading this and your later posts I don't really know where to start.
Everybody knows that R&P steering provides better road feel and feedback and in that aspect is superior to RB. BMW engineers knowing RB's limitations made sure through suspension calibration that cars equipped with it would handle on par with their R&P equipped siblings. Do you think that Motorsport's flagship would be equipped with RB if it wasn't capable of providing well handling car? They would rather stick with I6 and R&P.
You make R&B equipped cars look like their handling is vastly inferior to 528 but you're having problems to back it up.

Also, I completely disagree with your statement about 30 miles of canyon carving - that is just like saying unless the daily driving consisted of 30 miles of canyon carving, the handling of a BMW is no better than a Malibu. Really think about this stuff...

This is just saying that unless your daily driving consisted of 30 miles of canyon carving, you'll hardly notice the difference between handling of 528 and 540 in daily driving.

jzdinan540i
02-13-2003, 08:46 AM
Not this again.....
I own 2 RP BMW's, and one RB BMW and I like te RB better. I don't agree with any of the comments above about RP bieng better hands down. In fact, I find the difference to be so slight the only time it really becomes noticable is at speeds over 130.
On the track yes there would be some differences, but we are talking about a 4000lb sedan, not a sports car. Funny, how the old E39 M5 still out drives all the super sedans and it has RB.
I find the RP very twitchy on the Mcoupe and almost perfect on the X5, it just depends on the application.
Now SS go back to Turdfly, they are getting jelous you're over here.
Gosh it must get so old having 4 morons run a board about nothing :)

SS
02-13-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by jzdinan540i
Not this again.....
I own 2 RP BMW's, and one RB BMW and I like te RB better. I don't agree with any of the comments above about RP bieng better hands down. In fact, I find the difference to be so slight the only time it really becomes noticable is at speeds over 130.
On the track yes there would be some differences, but we are talking about a 4000lb sedan, not a sports car. Funny, how the old E39 M5 still out drives all the super sedans and it has RB.
I find the RP very twitchy on the Mcoupe and almost perfect on the X5, it just depends on the application.
Now SS go back to Turdfly, they are getting jelous you're over here.
Gosh it must get so old having 4 morons run a board about nothing :)

LOL...what's up JZ?!? You know, as I stated originally, what each person likes better is "personal pref" - however, it is proven that R&P is more sharp, responds faster than RB, and has a more communicative feel. With the M5...yes, of course it out-drives all the "super sedans", but there are many other suspension components that helped it achieve that accomplishment. As I'm quite certain you know, it only has RB because R&P could not fit in the V8 E39's...something that will be changed in the future (Ever wonder why they decided to change that??? ;) )

BTW, JZ, isn't the MCoupe based on the E30 platform? I've read something about that before...and I know the E30 handles great on the lower end, and starts to "lose it" at higher speeds.

Cheers,

SS

SS
02-13-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by jzdinan540i
Not this again.....
I own 2 RP BMW's, and one RB BMW and I like te RB better. I don't agree with any of the comments above about RP bieng better hands down. In fact, I find the difference to be so slight the only time it really becomes noticable is at speeds over 130.
On the track yes there would be some differences, but we are talking about a 4000lb sedan, not a sports car. Funny, how the old E39 M5 still out drives all the super sedans and it has RB.
I find the RP very twitchy on the Mcoupe and almost perfect on the X5, it just depends on the application.
Now SS go back to Turdfly, they are getting jelous you're over here.
Gosh it must get so old having 4 morons run a board about nothing :)

LOL...what's up JZ?!? You know, as I stated originally, what each person likes better is "personal pref" - however, it is proven that R&P is more sharp, responds faster than RB, and has a more communicative feel. With the M5...yes, of course it out-drives all the "super sedans", but there are many other suspension components that helped it achieve that accomplishment. As I'm quite certain you know, it only has RB because R&P could not fit in the V8 E39's...something that will be changed in the future (Ever wonder why they decided to change that??? ;) )

BTW, JZ, isn't the MCoupe based on the E30 platform? I've read something about that before...and I know the E30 handles great on the lower end, and starts to "lose it" at higher speeds.

Cheers,

SS

jzdinan540i
02-13-2003, 09:35 AM
You are right, the reason why RP isn't in the E39/E38 was space. But hey I drive the 540, so what ever it comes with is best LOL so FU hehehe
The Mcoupe/Z3 has the worst suspension ever, I mean it is only 20 year old technology LOL. Rear trailing arms are for ****. So I just hold on and pray the rear end doesn't kick out. The Coupe is very nimble, but twitchy and its night and day compared to the E39. Can you beleive the Coupe is my winter car LOL. Yep the E30 and Z's have the same rear suspension, ick...

Chuck
02-14-2003, 08:19 AM
Shane you are, without a doubt, the Energizer Bunny of verbal diarrhea. LOL, what a bunch of crap.

DDB
02-14-2003, 09:16 AM
From the looks of the this thread, it appears as if Roadfly isn't the only place where SS is called out for posting erroneous claims without any proof.

My favorite was where Shane wrote above, "It is a well-known fact that..." Oh, well clearly that settles it! It's a well-known fact, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Shane, in comparing the handling/cornering/slalom/skidpad properties of the 528 and 540, you need to remember that there are other differences besides just the steering mechanism. How about weight differences and weight-balance characteristics of the two cars? Tires? I think you get the point...

The only way that you could prove your point would be to take two identical 528s and fit the RB steering mechanism into one of them, and go get some numbers. Until then, your vague speculation will remain entertainment to us all.

:)P eter
02-14-2003, 09:18 AM
Its so nice and peaceful back home, I was wondering why. The answer is clear now. Propellerhead ,hes all yours !! Wait till you get into uphill/downhill issues with him ! Hi JZ , no I wasnt home last night when you were bashing me LOL !

rsmillar
02-14-2003, 09:23 AM
Just more proof: no matter what planet you're on, uphill always equals downhill, and you can't polish a turd...

The real question is: Is the 528 truly an all around better car?

:)P eter
02-14-2003, 09:37 AM
Randy can you define "all around better car" please . Is that one that is capable of going up and down ,back and forth without ever offsetting the altitudes? Or is it one that the driver knows the difference between a skidpad and the skidmarks in his "undies" when he sees the possy after his sorryass ? Hi again JZ hows life on the other side?? I bet you get a lot of respect here when SS is seen as an expert on the board !

PropellerHead
02-14-2003, 09:51 AM
I think we'd need another thread for that one...

beewang
02-14-2003, 12:35 PM
I know I am WAY too late in this game, but I have to throw in my 2 cents worth.

I have (and had) varies BMW w/ and w/out RP or RB. I can say that:

1) Power and speed aside, I prefer the feel of BMW RB over RP.
2) Yes, perhaps the RP does communicate a touch better than RB, but the difference between the two IMO is deminimus.

IMO, if you got the dough, buy the 540 because the BMW RB is excellent, trying to argue otherwise is just plain stupid (no offense Shane:) )

cheers,

beewang:bigpimp:

Greco
02-16-2003, 01:31 PM
: popcorn: : popcorn: :wahwah: :wahwah: :slap:

That was fun reading all of this.

Just a small note to hardcore bimmerfest posters... No one at roadfly has ever made any comments/name calling about this board. It would be only fair to say that the same behavior be represented by yourself's over here. Name calling only renders a board juvenile and deters *real* posters for either asking questions or trying to help *real* owners with actuall issues.

PS: Randy, Pete, pass the popcorn...

ow595
03-19-2003, 03:28 AM
I'm new to this board... And after reading this thread, I would say some people need to get out a little more often.