I Test Drove M5

Originally Posted by Decboy

Wait a few years and the M5 will be popular in the CPO market.

Yeah, the residual value is 48% after 3 yrs.

Originally Posted by Mark K

You cannot really pass on most two-lane roads because only 1 km or more of a straight counts as "safe" for passing in this country and you better believe that you will enrage people if you pass them on a full line. Even when you pass on dotted line, you better be very careful how you do it because people might perceive your move as threatening, aggressive, driving too fast, unsafe, encroaching their space on the road or simply just generally making them uncomfortable. And they don't like that. What they DO like, though, is making their problems somebody else's problem - in this case their problem is not having a slightest clue how to drive, but they will make it yours if they can.

Today, during a decent rain on a two lane road the car in front of me who barely maintained the speed limit at times, but kept slowing down to 15-20mph below the speed limit as he crested each hill. On a dotted line passing section I passed him. This of course made him mad. Now there was no speed he was unwilling to travel and he followed me as best as he could. After a few miles, I encountered some slower traffic and no passing lane, so this guy decided to use the shoulder to pass me and the cars in front of me to be back where he belonged; up front holding up all of the traffic back.

Times like this is when I enjoy have 555hp and xDrive. Buh-bye

Originally Posted by dunderhi

Today, during a decent rain on a two lane road the car in front of me who barely maintained the speed limit at times, but kept slowing down to 15-20mph below the speed limit as he crested each hill. On a dotted line passing section I passed him. This of course made him mad. Now there was no speed he was unwilling to travel and he followed me as best as he could. After a few miles, I encountered some slower traffic and no passing lane, so this guy decided to use the shoulder to pass me and the cars in front of me to be back where he belonged; up front holding up all of the traffic back.

Times like this is when I enjoy have 555hp and xDrive. Buh-bye

lol idiot... Lucky I wasn't with you I'd have probably found a spot to go around and catch him and pass him hows the x5? hows the handling when you've really pushed it through corners? The 50i and 35d I've spent time in I'd be terrified to push it hard in corners.

Originally Posted by SuperTerp

lol idiot... Lucky I wasn't with you I'd have probably found a spot to go around and catch him and pass him hows the x5? hows the handling when you've really pushed it through corners? The 50i and 35d I've spent time in I'd be terrified to push it hard in corners.

Too bad you weren't with me you would have enjoyed my manuevers. Let just say he was a distant blip in my rearview mirror when I finally turned off that road.

Anyway, the X5M handles pretty well for such a heavy vehicle. I've been pushing it in clover leafs and there's a tendancy to understeer, but it's controllable. The bigger challenge is controlling the power under wet conditions; today the torque was transferred to the rear, then to the front, and then back to the rear as the Xer accelerated like a banshee.

Originally Posted by K-A

What that tells us is BMW will learn some kind of lesson from this. Being that as the F10 fly's off lots, the M5 seems to collect dust.

I think it'll be the F10 is so good of a luxury car from the start, the M5 version just doesn't do enough to warrant the "M" tag, due to it now being considered "held back" by what inherently makes the F10 such an incredible Luxury Saloon. The F10 can be specc'd so well as a non-M that it dangers rendering the M5 practically irrelevant. At one time, getting an M5 wasn't just about better paper specs, it was about a more racey and raw driving experience. Not to mention, the 550i being Turbocharged, you can squeeze out "real world" power performance of an M5, or maybe close to it (or maybe more than it), for a lot less money.

Also, the M Sport Package looks so good, that the M5 styling doesn't stand out from it enough so, I think.

People have to keep in mind, the chassis on the F10 is the same chassis under the Rolls Royce Ghost, the latter being just modified and a larger extension of it (i.e F01 chassis which houses the Ghost is an extended version of the F10 chassis). The F10 is such a BRILLIANT luxury car because the inherent chassis isn't a built up 3, it's a built down 7, and actually a built down Ghost. BMW had to over-engineer this chassis to be inherently capable under a $300+K Super-Luxury-Wafter. Some hate that, some love it. The F10's chassis has an incredibly high torsional rigidity figure due to that, to where the M5 didn't need any additional stiffening up from the basic structure, from what I hear.

.... With that, comes a ton of weight, and isolation. IMO it makes the car over-engineered in this segment, but some find it a huge downside as it's now "too much" in that area. What I can argue makes the 535i a much better car for the common consumer (all that said above), may turn off lots of M5 buyers.

Interesting. You just taught me something. I had no idea BMW used the F01 chassis in the Rolls. I will say this. The F10 5 is my favorite to date. A truly great car and I drive 30k plus miles a year in it. I love the M5 too and think it is worth the money. However, the roads are great where I live. I am in D.C. right now with my 5. I could never own an M5 here. The roads are just too bad. Like Dunderhi I think the M cars are too harsh over pothole ridden roads.

Originally Posted by Alpine300ZHP

Interesting. You just taught me something. I had no idea BMW used the F01 chassis in the Rolls. I will say this. The F10 5 is my favorite to date. A truly great car and I drive 30k plus miles a year in it. I love the M5 too and think it is worth the money. However, the roads are great where I live. I am in D.C. right now with my 5. I could never own an M5 here. The roads are just too bad. Like Dunderhi I think the M cars are too harsh over pothole ridden roads.

Do you have non RFT on your F10 now? Although the stock suspension is very cushy, our RFT tires feel like rocks when hitting bumps.

It's hard to not seem like a Luddite when criticizing any true M, but are these cars supposed to have better gadgets than steering?

I think in 10 years BMW historians may regard the E9x as the last true M series.

All this turbocharging was destined to kill the mystique of the moniker.

I, for one, welcome our new BMW-Lexus overlords. Resistance is futile.

Originally Posted by bodonx

Yeah, the residual value is 48% after 3 yrs.

The m5 is a little bit of a fcuk you car. It's the sort of car impulsive football players buy with their signing bonus. I bought mine from a ny giant who apparently decided that M5 wasn't getting him nearly enough attention. He took an almost 30k depreciation hit in just a little over 7 months...

Originally Posted by K-A

People have to keep in mind, the chassis on the F10 is the same chassis under the Rolls Royce Ghost, the latter being just modified and a larger extension of it (i.e F01 chassis which houses the Ghost is an extended version of the F10 chassis). The F10 is such a BRILLIANT luxury car because the inherent chassis isn't a built up 3, it's a built down 7, and actually a built down Ghost.

Not quite right. Both the F10 chassis and the Ghost chassis are modified versions of the F01 chassis. The F10 chassis is not the same chassis under the Ghost, and F01 chassis does not house the Ghost

Originally Posted by mryakanisachoad

The m5 is a little bit of a fcuk you car. It's the sort of car impulsive football players buy with their signing bonus. I bought mine from a ny giant who apparently decided that M5 wasn't getting him nearly enough attention. He took an almost 30k depreciation hit in just a little over 7 months...

The guy you purchased from obviously purchased the wrong car. The M5 is purposely understated. If you want to scream look at me this is not the car for you.

Originally Posted by mryakanisachoad

I think in 10 years BMW historians may regard the E9x as the last true M series.

All this turbocharging was destined to kill the mystique of the moniker.

I am not a big fan of turbos either but the EPA regulations moving forward have made turbos popular. Look at Mercedes, their AMG and non-AMG V8s are now turbos. Gone are the NA big block engines. DI and Turbos will become more and more popular.

Originally Posted by Decboy

I am not a big fan of turbos either but the EPA regulations moving forward have made turbos popular. Look at Mercedes, their AMG and non-AMG V8s are now turbos. Gone are the NA big block engines. DI and Turbos will become more and more popular.

I don't see a reason why NA can't survive in enhusiasts vehicles like M cars. Power is mainly generated from how much fuel ( energy content ) you burn per time unit. There are three obvious ways of increasing the fuel volume per time unit:

1. Increase displacement. Larger combustion chambers will load more fuel per engine cycle.
2. Forced induction. More fuel is forced into the combustion chambers per engine cycle.
3. Increase rpms. More fuel is combusted per time unit when more engine cycles are executed per time unit.

Now, how does these technologies rate in terms of fuel efficiency? The trick is to use minimum fuel when you don't need all that power or to reduce the power needed to move the vehicle.

A turbo engine is normally more efficient than a NA engine that delivers the same power per engine cycle since it's displacement is smaller, i.e when you feather the throttle or cruise it drinks like a NA engine of it's relatively smaller size. When you are running full boost it is likely not more efficient than the larger NA engine that can burn the same amount of fuel per engine cycle as is forced into the turbo engine.

However a high rpm small NA engine with the same displacement as the turbo engine should be able to be nearly as fuel efficient but instead of feathering the throttle the efficiency is achieved by keeping the rpms low.

Also I don't think the race should be lost for a bigger NA engine with low end grunt either. There are technologies to cut out a number of cylinders while going easy on the throttle and thereby provding a turbo like efficiency where the discplacement used is smaller when going easy on the throttle or cruising.

You can also lighten the cars and make them more aerodynamic etc. The transmission can be more efficient by "sailing", i.e no engine breaking and KERS like systems can be used for energy savings.

One obstacle I see for a high performance NA engine is that it requires a lot more skills, have lower tolerances and is in general more costly to develop and manufacture. Now when the genie is out of the bottle on easier and cheaper M turbo power the BMW bean counters can be reluctant to put it back.

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

We all give up. You just don't get it.

Nope, but he won a prize: First buffoon added to my Ignore list in 2013. Kind of impressive I made it through the whole month of January without any other fanboi irritating me that much. I must be mellowing with age.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using BimmerApp

Originally Posted by solstice

I don't see a reason why NA can't survive in enhusiasts vehicles like M cars. Power is mainly generated from how much fuel ( energy content ) you burn per time unit. There are three obvious ways of increasing the fuel volume per time unit:

1. Increase displacement. Larger combustion chambers will load more fuel per engine cycle.
2. Forced induction. More fuel is forced into the combustion chambers per engine cycle.
3. Increase rpms. More fuel is combusted per time unit when more engine cycles are executed per time unit.

Now, how does these technologies rate in terms of fuel efficiency? The trick is to use minimum fuel when you don't need all that power or to reduce the power needed to move the vehicle.

A turbo engine is normally more efficient than a NA engine that delivers the same power per engine cycle since it's displacement is smaller, i.e when you feather the throttle or cruise it drinks like a NA engine of it's relatively smaller size. When you are running full boost it is likely not more efficient than the larger NA engine that can burn the same amount of fuel per engine cycle as is forced into the turbo engine.

However a high rpm small NA engine with the same displacement as the turbo engine should be able to be nearly as fuel efficient but instead of feathering the throttle the efficiency is achieved by keeping the rpms low.

Also I don't think the race should be lost for a bigger NA engine with low end grunt either. There are technologies to cut out a number of cylinders while going easy on the throttle and thereby provding a turbo like efficiency where the discplacement used is smaller when going easy on the throttle or cruising.

You can also lighten the cars and make them more aerodynamic etc. The transmission can be more efficient by "sailing", i.e no engine breaking and KERS like systems can be used for energy savings.

One obstacle I see for a high performance NA engine is that it requires a lot more skills, have lower tolerances and is in general more costly to develop and manufacture. Now when the genie is out of the bottle on easier and cheaper M turbo power the BMW bean counters can be reluctant to put it back.

Clearly BMW is not thinking along your lines; they are into turbo (for all new M cars) and have it even in 3 cylinder 1500 cc petrol and diesel engines http://www.bmwblog.com/2012/09/14/bm...etrol-engines/

You have persistently been praising your E60 (535i) saying that it was sporty was that not turbo??

And if enthusiast cars should/must be NA, then the new M3, M4, RS6 soon, E63 are all not enthusiast cars!

Everyone on the planet realizes that the F10 is overweight and doesn't handle well. BMW went too far to the 7 side of the equation with the F10 and strayed too far from the E90 feel of the previous generation. That's essentially the problem with all of the F10 models from the 528 all the way up to the M5. Theres no reason to defend the M5, practically every auto mag says the same thing...the M5 is no longer the best sport sedan in the world. it's too heavy and the electronic steering which was used to save fuel sucks. Theres really no debate on this...Ive owned 2 E92s and now the F10 Msport and the F10 drives more like a good GM car than it does my E92.

Sounds like you'd be at least a slightly happier camper if you would have waited to get a 2013 with the passive M Sport suspension (not the higher riding, softer Active suspension which wasn't exclusive to M Sports in 2012). Makes a fairly good difference in tightening up (and lowering) the F10's ride.

The same steering wheel vibrations are there with my 535i since day one. Feels like there is a wheel balance issue but it is not the case because it goes away at times - randomly. Very annoying but I don't think that the service can fix it.

Originally Posted by rikwynn

Everyone on the planet realizes that the F10 is overweight and doesn't handle well. BMW went too far to the 7 side of the equation with the F10 and strayed too far from the E90 feel of the previous generation. That's essentially the problem with all of the F10 models from the 528 all the way up to the M5. Theres no reason to defend the M5, practically every auto mag says the same thing...the M5 is no longer the best sport sedan in the world. it's too heavy and the electronic steering which was used to save fuel sucks. Theres really no debate on this...Ive owned 2 E92s and now the F10 Msport and the F10 drives more like a good GM car than it does my E92.

I agree although I do consider myself an M5 hater. IMO the M5 is impressive sporty fast executive express offering high doses of luxury and tech. However, ultimately the inherent bulk and girth of the F10 M5 limits its lust factor for me. BTW the M5 retains hydraulic steering.

The M5 is a beast. But it comes down to this.

The extra cost gets you a limited production high performance 500HP+ engine and tranny (about $15k) and forged wheels (another $5k).

I would never be able to open up that kind of power. As it is, I can't open up a 535 all that much.

To me, the key to the M5 looking awesome is the color and wheel choices. Some of the color and wheels choices are just nasty.

Originally Posted by rikwynn

Everyone on the planet realizes that the F10 is overweight and doesn't handle well. BMW went too far to the 7 side of the equation with the F10 and strayed too far from the E90 feel of the previous generation. That's essentially the problem with all of the F10 models from the 528 all the way up to the M5.

bingo