BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

Inside Line "trashes" M5

35K views 246 replies 35 participants last post by  Needsdecaf 
#1 ·
basic premise is it's awesome and speedy but boring and isolated.. have we heard that before?

i have never for an M car

"But it basically comes down to this: Somehow the white coats in Munich made the 2013 BMW M5 more powerful and quicker and they've given it more grip, but they forgot something - the emotion. Where's the excitement? Where's the visceral thrill? Where's the M5's sinister evil twin?

Oh, that's right, it's down the street at the Cadillac dealer. It's called the CTS-V."

http://www.insideline.com/bmw/m5/2013/2013-bmw-m5-full-test-and-video.html
 
#2 ·
It's disappointing to say the least. When they now made every normal 5-series into a luxury power cruiser with no available factory options to really tighten it up you would hope that the M5 would be built for the purists but no, doesn't seem like that is the case. Just more of the same it seems.
 
#5 ·
but what you said sums it up nicely. up until very recently, this is what you would hear about BMWs, pedestrian interiors, but oh the driving dynamics. now an M-Car (an M-Car!!) is losing out on verve and pep to a Cadillac? is this bizarro world?

the next thing i'm going to hear is that the ferrari beats the porsche on reliability!
 
#6 · (Edited)
I'm not surprised though. Disappointed yes but not surprised, it is pretty much what I expected. Something is not right in Munich these days.
highyo, I think you'll be very happy with your timing to get into a real M car. I'm not optimistic about the upcoming M3. We'll see though, it could be that messing with the M3s virtues is something too sacred even in the name of higher predicted sales and profit for an isolated techno softy.
 
#12 ·
some part of me believes that they won't mess up the new m3, especially because they are trying to bring down weight to e46 standards (think its like -300 pounds on base model?) but who knows. one thing is for sure, the sound and feel of that bespoke engine is gone forever.

and that is very very sad
 
#7 ·
I would have purchased the Cadillac CTS V Coupe but it was too triangular and lacked any semblance of utility. The Sedan just does not have the lines--too boring.

+1 on the Factory isolation of the F10. I love my car now but I changed wheels (HRE 20s), springs (ACS) and tuning (Dinan S2). I would have definitely preferred OEM all the way. With the weight and size of the M5, it is just an unlikely "sportscar." I have a Viper for that. It will be interesting to see what BMW takes away from the feedback it receives.
 
#8 ·
The entire line is getting soft...for lack of a better word. Still love them, but that point and shoot feel is fading in just about all the models. My base 128i keeps the spirit alive with minimal electronic gizmos and good old direct hydraulic steering. But the wife's X3's electric steering just isn't the same. The sport programs help, but that is mostly software working the experience.

Still.....rather be in any BMW than anything else out there at the moment..
 
#9 ·
Again, love my F10, but had to modify it to get it "dialed in." Not to hijack th thread, but I have a new X3 Loaner now while my car is at the dealer and I must say that I am not impressed. For $30k it is a good car but I suspect it is closer to $45k+. For more than $30k, I would look to Toyota, Honda and Lexus (still Toyota) or maybe an Audi Q5 for this class of car. The X3 is spartan inside with bad seats and drives nothing like my previous X5 V8s. On the plus side, it does have more room than before.
 
#11 ·
If you think you're getting into a Q5 for $30k, keep dreaming.
 
#10 ·
I drove a CTS-V. IMO, the only thing it has going for it is that it's fast. That's it.

Steering? Heavy, no communication.
Handling? Loose.
Ride? Harsh.
Brakes - well, these are good too.
Interior - low rent
Seats - Great for 10 minutes, forget about it after.

It's a hot rod. It's not what the M5 is meant to be.
 
#13 · (Edited)
basic premise is it's awesome and speedy but boring and isolated.. have we heard that before?

i have never for an M car

"But it basically comes down to this: Somehow the white coats in Munich made the 2013 BMW M5 more powerful and quicker and they've given it more grip, but they forgot something ***8212; the emotion. Where's the excitement? Where's the visceral thrill? Where's the M5's sinister evil twin?

Oh, that's right, it's down the street at the Cadillac dealer. It's called the CTS-V."

http://www.insideline.com/bmw/m5/2013/2013-bmw-m5-full-test-and-video.html
Ridiculous review. What's even more ridiculous is that all of you assume its true, having never even driven the car.

I mean what makes this guy a more credible reviewer than Richard Hammond or Chris Harris?
 
#15 · (Edited)
a review is a review dude. nothing against your rig. but i don't recall ever reading any of this about the e60, e39, e92. and also note that "trashes" is in quotations, because they had some very nice things to say about it.
 
#14 ·
I have a slightly different take...

Instead of bemoaning what the M5 is not, I prefer to celebrate it for what it is - an ultimate expression of a gentleman's rapid express - a sporty large four door GT, capable of great velocity, offering a luxury environment. Moreover, being a BMW, the M5 is still a value play - a lot of content for a not an unreasonable sum.

Cars are changing - look at the 991 v. 997 - more capable but less visceral à la BMW M5. Slightly homogenized, less edgy, more luxury, enhanced efficiency and tech, is the new normal. I suspect we need to accommodate ourselves to this brave new reality. In a world increasingly dominated by a "green" vehicle psyche, and given the development costs of any new car, I toast BMW for having the courage to produce the M5.
 
#16 ·
I have a slightly different take...

Instead of bemoaning what the M5 is not, I prefer to celebrate it for what it is - an ultimate expression of a gentleman's rapid express - a sporty large four door GT, capable of great velocity, offering a luxury environment. Moreover, being a BMW, the M5 is still a value play - a lot of content for a not an unreasonable sum.

Cars are changing - look at the 991 v. 997 - more capable but less visceral à la BMW M5. Slightly homogenized, less edgy, more luxury, enhanced efficiency and tech, is the new normal. I suspect we need to accommodate ourselves to this brave new reality. In a world increasingly dominated by a "green" vehicle psyche, and given the development costs of any new car, I toast BMW for having the courage to produce the M5.
see this is where i disagree. i dont think that the M5 is the sporty large four door GT that you claim it to be. BMW invented this class of car. it used to be a 4 door sports car. you can argue that as cars get bigger/heavier/more luxurious, some of the inherrent sportiness falls away. i get that. but this is their wheelhouse. they INVENTED this niche. and now they are getting pushed out of the limelight by the Cadillac?

oh the irony
 
#19 · (Edited)
Richard Hammond? Top gear and BMW is a weird thing. When BMW built drivers cars they trashed them and now when they build luxo cruisers every BMW is the best car ever. When the Stig posts a poor lap with the new M5 there is no time to show it and it's not "interesting" anyway. Since when is lap times not interesting to them? Why even give it to the Stig if it's not interesting? Something smells here, I still enjoy Top Gear though but I don't trust them to be objective, government sponsored or not.

Anyway no one is accusing the M5 of being bad and there is no need for people who loves it to be offended. There are obviously more people that prefer these large techno overload cars but for us that prefer a purer more direct car these new cars is a huge disappointment. It's not what we want and not why we are attracted to BMW.
 
#26 ·
Oh, that's right, it's down the street at the Cadillac dealer. It's called the CTS-V."

http://www.insideline.com/bmw/m5/2013/2013-bmw-m5-full-test-and-video.html
I'd like to compare the sales of the M5 versus the CTS-V.

Problem is that the "purists" think they want manual transmission, light weight, tossability, etc. - except nobody is buying those cars anymore.

Someone with $100K+ to spend wants prestige plus 24 way power adjustable, heated, cooled, napa upholstered, massaging, comfort seats and every electronic gizmo possible.
 
#27 ·
the M5 was always more expensive than the competition, and always had all the bells and whistles, but it also ALWAYS crushed it's competitors in driving performance and "soul".

and now?
 
#33 · (Edited)
dunderhi;7114089) said:
,... but in your first-hand opinions is the E92 that last true ///M car (NA engine, RWD, lots of NVH)? The new M5 seems to have lost more than it's fair share of comparos, hopefully the new M3 won't share the same fate, but I don't see the F30 M3 diverging from the the path the F10 M5 took. :dunno:
Very difficult question - really depends how you define M. Is M defined by mechanical components or by some other measure? For me - I adore my M - because of the sense of "connectivity" that my M engenders - I feel hard wired into the car. I suspect the new M4 will offer superior performance, but will BMW be sufficiently artful in employing new technology to achieve that perfect "M" note?
 
#36 ·
I don't like that review.
It contradict itself throughout the whole article.
I'm going to go with Top gear's review instead.
"It's the best car in the world" (Richard Hammond)
 
#42 ·
And this thing is f-ing awesome. I don't understand how anyone can call a car which EXCLUSIVELY has this feature to be not exciting. It feels like an F1 experience shifting in the M5 when you couple the M-HUD with the best DCT on the market. I also think the steering is the best on the market too - and beats the **** out of the EPS crap Porsche is using these days.

 
#45 · (Edited)
I agree. HUD doesn't do much for me generally and I would not pay for it but that rev. and gear view would be helpful with a DCT. After having the DCT for 26k miles now I like it a lot but the one thing I miss the most compared to an MT is the direct and 100% immediately accurate gear selection on the downshifts. With the DCT under hard braking from high speeed into a tight corner you need to frantically flip through gears and you are not really sure where you endup without looking at the gear display in the instrument cluster or trying to keep count. With an MT you need none of that, each gear has a fixed position that you know where it is without having to look or think. You can also go directly from sixth to second and if you misjudged you can feel it in the reaction to the clutch engaging and quickly select another gear. All this without having to direct or re-focus your eyes away from the road. That HUD view would mitigate some of that. On the upshifts the DCT is superb and the auto mode has it's own charm. IN the scenario above it's actually quite cool in auto since when you dive into a corner with no pressure on the accelerator and then squeeze it there will be a phenomenal throttle blip that engage the rigth gear smoother than you thought possible. Due to the perfect blip there is no detectable impact on the speed when the gear engages that could unsettle your car. Then if you choose to bury the throttle it's another story :)
 
#44 ·
ps one more point :) in fastestlaps, there have been probes made at the 7:55 timing - as to whether it's true - the administrators have provided additional details in the website as to why the 7:55 timing has been recorded. I have posted the info on this previously :)
 
#48 ·
Is the M HUD reconfigurable to a mode like the standard F10s?
 
#55 ·
Maybe Chris Harris can add some perspective for some of the differing viewpoints in this thread. :drive:

http://youtu.be/K8jLbyNloCg

I would have a tough time picking one of these cars over the other. :dunno:
 
#58 · (Edited)
Look at what people do, not what that they say. CH stretched into a 100k GBP loan to buy a GT3 4.0 RS after having traded his former GT3 ( The finances were tough to swing so he now traded the 4.0 for a used 599 GTB ). So much for the talk of the "easy to live with" stuff. When it comes down to it seems that it's excitement and purity that counts for Mr Harris himself.

Here's his idea of a perfect Porsche. Not very plush and high tech.
 
#61 · (Edited)
All manufacturers need time on the track to test how their cars functions and behaviour under all speeds and conditions in a controlled and reasonably safe environment. Track times are important to them since they are efficient marketing tools as some commenters in this thread clearly validates. Regarding posting about sporty driving, I like sporty driving in sporty cars. It' not the same as liking a car purely because it's fast and it that I can't like cars that aren't especially fast. Sportiness comes in many flavors, my preferred flavor has little to do with ring times.

Think about a car that is fully controlled by computers to always be in the perfect power band, always optimal timing of breaking, corner entry speed and cornering speed, perfect line etc, etc. It would post very fast track times with you in the back seat but would that be fun engaging driving? Then take a classic race or sports car from the 60s with no driver aids and modern tech and drive that a lap at the top of your abilities. Way slower but does that mean less or more of a sporty driving experience?

I believe that with the tech available today there is a point where making the car faster takes away from the fun instead of adding to it. Often that point is when adding tech and huge power instead of removing weight and tuning passive components is needed to find more speed.
 
#64 ·
I have driven all of these cars too. Some of them on tracks. And I still rate the M5. The only one that comes close in my opinion is the CLS63. The choice of that it the M5 is a matter of taste.

But the XFR, Panamera GTS and CTS-V are poor competitors that I wouldn't consider of the same calibre.
 
#66 ·
+1

My current car is my first german sedan. Before even doing a test drive, I had been researching for months, and based on what I read, I was 95% sure I'd be getting an A6/A7 over the 5 series. Most of the articles I read were raving over the Audi's interior for example, that it was best in class. So I test drove the Audi and loved it (coming from an Acura). Then I tried the BMW. Guess what, I liked the interior a lot more. So really, every time I read these reviews I take them with a grain of salt.
 
#68 · (Edited)
BM323 - those are some good quotes.

It seems those who like the CTS-V like the old M5. Hammond nailed it when he said the problem with the old M5 was that you could not live with it. The new M5 is a better sports car on the track, but its also more friendly for day to day driving on the street.

Another analogy I might use is this: When the Infiniti G37 came out in 2002, it offered a more raw, more edgy, sportier alternative to the E46 330i. However back then most people who drive both preferred the 330i because it was more polished while delivering fantastic driving dynamics and performance. The balance of both is what made BMWs special. Now it seems reviewers want BMW to go and build a Porsche or a Ferrari. But that is to miss the genius of what BMW does.

BMWs M Cars have traditionally excelled in day to day real world driveability as well as on the track. The E60 M5 lost that. But it's back. And if you read the reviews of the E39 vs E60 M5s you would see that.

And to this day the E39 has been the best selling M5. However if the launch numbers from BMW are to be believed, the F10 M5 is crushing the first year sales numbers of the E60 M5 despite a weaker global economy. Here's a factoid - in the first month BMW sold 222 E60 M5s. The F10 M5 had only been out three weeks when the recall was announced and the recall had 489 sold customer cars on it.
 
#133 · (Edited)
That is a great analogy! In my honest opinion, BMW is not the best at building raw, track oriented go carts. What BMW best at is building fast, powerful sports car that is livable and usable everyday.

I don't understand why people want the F10 M5 to be more raw. It's not what the M5 is built for. The M5 is purposely built for a fast, powerful, 'executive' sedan. If they want a light, agile sports car, it wouldn't be an M5, it would be the M3.

For all it's intent, I believe the M5 is the best car of it's kind. It's a mult-purpose mult-personality car that can eats supercars for breakfast than takes your clients/family out for lunch.

(btw It's G35 that came out in 2002, G37 didn't come along till 2008) ;)

That's my point.

Cadillac is picking a bigger and more expensive car and the saying its smaller car handles like a smaller car.

That comparison is as ridiculous as the M5 vs Bentley comparison.

They should compare to the M3, and when the new M3 is out it will crush the CTS-v.
Exactly! Comparing the CTS-V to the M5 is nonsense really.
The People that are looking into buying the M5 will not cross shop a CTS.
They would be looking at Mercedes/Audi/Porsche etc.

The CTS was always a competitor to the 3 series and always will be.
 
#70 ·
I don't understand why people are comparing the CTS-V to the M5.

The CTS-V has no rear legroom. It is closer to an M3 in cabin space than an M5.

Motortrend's measurements are 36.1" rear leg room for CTS-V vs. 41.5" rear leg room for M5. That's a 5.4" difference in rear legroom and places the cars in a completely different category. I know from experience when I was shopping the CTS for my Dad, that I can't fit in the back of a CTS. My Dad actually passed on the CTS for that very reason. Even the M3 sedan has more rear leg room than the CTS-V.

Basically they are comparing Cadillac's M3 to BMWs M5 and saying the Cadillac is lighter and more agile. That's ridiculous as a comparison.

What's also interesting is that despite being a class-size smaller, and lighter, the CTS pulls fewer Gs on the skidpad than the M5.
 
#72 ·
I don't understand why people are comparing the CTS-V to the M5.
Only because the CTS-V trashed the M3 on the track. Caddy purposely built the car in between the 5 and 3 in terms of size to create a platform that could take on the M3. Then when the M5 beat the CTS-V on the same tracks the bickering started.

Going to be people complaining that the M whatever isn't a pure sports car; whether because they can't afford it, don't understand the concept of a sports sedan, gives them some relevance on some forum, have obviously no driving skill/experience, whatever.

So many people argue class boundaries to justify this or that car, but totally ignore them to trash a car.
 
#77 · (Edited)
Dunderhi this data you have on the rear leg room is completely bogus. I have rented the CTS several times and the rear seats have less room than the 3 series. End of story.
 
#82 ·
Dunderhead this data you have on the rear leg room is completely bogus. I have rented the CTS several times and the rear seats have less room than the 3 series. End of story.
I provided actual test measurement data from two reputable sources and resort to name calling? That's pathetic! :thumbdwn:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top