Inside Line reviews the new M5

Originally Posted by dunderhi

+1 (but maybe a candidate for the ultimate driving saloon?)

I thought the M5 was a four door (family) sedan. You know, large back seat to hold the child seats, large trunk to hold the diapers; baby clothes; pac-n-play; and crib, luxury appointments, and a quiet ride with just a bit of artificial engine noise to make the driver imagine the M'ness.

Sounds like the M is for mommy .

Some guys only have room in the garage for only one vehicle for themselves and one for their wife. So I have to drive my car in the snow. Why shouldn't BMW make an AWD M5 for me and a RWD for those living in Seattle. Does it ever snow in Seattle? And besides if I spend 110k on a BMW I want to drive it in the winter too. I have had five V8 Bimmers, one 7, three 5s, and one 6, since 1992 and I have always driven every one in the snow.

BTW, I had an E39 M5 for three years as my daily driver, including in the snow. Performance of my E39 M5 and my F10 550i xDrive is almost identical in the dry. The main difference was the higher performance tires on the M5 both winter an summer tires.

I really think the ultimate test here would be a direct comparo between the F10 M5 vs a 550i xDrive equipped with the Dinan Stage II and with the same tires on both the road and on the track. Both cars to be driven by the same professional driver. I think this would point out the overall performance superiority of AWD. But until such a test is published it really remains pure conjecture.

Originally Posted by richschneid

Some guys only have room in the garage for only one vehicle for themselves and one for their wife. So I have to drive my car in the snow. Why shouldn't BMW make an AWD M5 for me and a RWD for those living in Seattle. Does it ever snow in Seattle? And besides if I spend 110k on a BMW I want to drive it in the winter too. I have had five V8 Bimmers, one 7, three 5s, and one 6, since 1992 and I have always driven every one in the snow.

BTW, I had an E39 M5 for three years as my daily driver, including in the snow. Performance of my E39 M5 and my F10 550i xDrive is almost identical in the dry. The main difference was the higher performance tires on the M5 both winter an summer tires.

I really think the ultimate test here would be a direct comparo between the F10 M5 vs a 550i xDrive equipped with the Dinan Stage II and with the same tires on both the road and on the track. Both cars to be driven by the same professional driver. I think this would point out the overall performance superiority of AWD. But until such a test is published it really remains pure conjecture.

Some great points and some compelling arguments. If you look at the M5's most direct competition, the RS6 is already AWD and the E63 is RWD so it's not like the class is exclusively an RWD-only club. Given some of the ostensibly pointless niches BMW is willing to explore (such as the X4) you'd think an AWD M5 would be something they could accomodate. Personally, I think BMW ought to offer the option (and also a sub option to disengage drive to the front axle so the car can perform as either all or rear wheel drive as required).

Still, regardless of the myriad benefits of AWD, which I do understand and appreciate, the likelihood is that M5 will ultimately be quicker and perform appreciably better on a track than the AWD 550i xDrive with the Dinan Stage II by virtue of its weight advantage, its LSD, what will in all probability be a more sporting suspension setup and its better power to weight ratio. As you say, until we see such a test it's all conjecture, but if we were going to indulge in the usually pointless art of bench racing I'd have to suspect the M5 is going to deliver performance that's a few notches about a Dinan S2 550 xDrive.

Instead of one foot clad in Ferrari garb as the prior M5 did, this one has CTS-V pants. Or, to be more direct, a truck engine instead of a sports car engine.

Yawn.

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Instead of one foot clad in Ferrari garb as the prior M5 did, this one has CTS-V pants. Or, to be more direct, a truck engine instead of a sports car engine.

Yawn.

Wow, what a compelling and insightful statement. A truck engine? If anything your 335 (do you have that or still a Hyundai?) has the truck engine: single turbo inline 6.

Originally Posted by swajames

Some great points and some compelling arguments. If you look at the M5's most direct competition, the RS6 is already AWD and the E63 is RWD so it's not like the class is exclusively an RWD-only club. Given some of the ostensibly pointless niches BMW is willing to explore (such as the X4) you'd think an AWD M5 would be something they could accomodate. Personally, I think BMW ought to offer the option (and also a sub option to disengage drive to the front axle so the car can perform as either all or rear wheel drive as required).

Still, regardless of the myriad benefits of AWD, which I do understand and appreciate, the likelihood is that M5 will ultimately be quicker and perform appreciably better on a track than the AWD 550i xDrive with the Dinan Stage II by virtue of its weight advantage, its LSD, what will in all probability be a more sporting suspension setup and its better power to weight ratio. As you say, until we see such a test it's all conjecture, but if we were going to indulge in the usually pointless art of bench racing I'd have to suspect the M5 is going to deliver performance that's a few notches about a Dinan S2 550 xDrive.

Does it ever snow in Silicon Valley?

"Why shouldn't BMW make an AWD M5 for me"
You can forget about it now, no way BMW is going to grant the wish of a guy who suggests that a $3000 tune will be an equal to what the mighty M-division has been honing for years with the 550 as base and that costs 10 times the Dinan tune

Honestly I think the M5 would absolutely smoke a 550 in any shape on the track.

Originally Posted by richschneid

Does it ever snow in Silicon Valley?

You'd be amazed at just how much snow we can get to in a couple of hours

Originally Posted by solstice

"Why shouldn't BMW make an AWD M5 for me"
You can forget about it now, no way BMW is going to grant the wish of a guy who suggests that a $3000 tune will be an equal to what the mighty M-division has been honing for years with the 550 as base and that costs 10 times the Dinan tune

Honestly I think the M5 would absolutely smoke a 550 in any shape on the track.

You'll get no argument from me on that. The M-division shaved 300+ lbs from the M5 in addition to higher HP output and significant suspension changes. Fact: the 550 is a big huge car. As "big" as all the pundits call the new F10 M5, the F10 550 is 300lbs heavier.

Originally Posted by swajames

usually pointless art of bench racing I'd have to suspect the M5 is going to deliver performance that's a few notches about a Dinan S2 550 xDrive.

what if dinan comes with a tune on M5 ?
will probably be 700hp lol

Originally Posted by bmw_enthusiasm

what if dinan comes with a tune on M5 ?
will probably be 700hp lol

Well when that day comes THEN you will hear me questioning the lack of AWD and rightly so.

Originally Posted by solstice

"Why shouldn't BMW make an AWD M5 for me"
You can forget about it now, no way BMW is going to grant the wish of a guy who suggests that a $3000 tune will be an equal to what the mighty M-division has been honing for years with the 550 as base and that costs 10 times the Dinan tune

Honestly I think the M5 would absolutely smoke a 550 in any shape on the track.

As I said this is pure conjecture. One possible way to test a similar hypothesis would be to test two Porshe Panameras. Both with the same engine and tires. One a RWD version and one an AWD version. Or one could test a RWD 550i versus a 550i xDrive. On a high speed oval track the lighter weight RWD should prevail. On a low speed tight road course the better low speed acceleration of the AWD should prevail.

BTW, the Dinan Stg II 550i has more torque than the F10 M5. But the only true test will never be done. A RWD F10 M5 vs an AWD F10 M5. Of course, I don't think the DCT is compatable with xDrive. But ZF also makes a sport version of the 8 speed automatic which could be used on an F10 M5 xDrive.

Originally Posted by richschneid

As I said this is pure conjecture. One possible way to test a similar hypothesis would be to test two Porshe Panameras. Both with the same engine and tires. One a RWD version and one an AWD version. Or one could test a RWD 550i versus a 550i xDrive. On a high speed oval track the lighter weight RWD should prevail. On a low speed tight road course the better low speed acceleration of the AWD should prevail.

BTW, the Dinan Stg II 550i has more torque than the F10 M5. But the only true test will never be done. A RWD F10 M5 vs an AWD F10 M5. Of course, I don't think the DCT is compatable with xDrive. But ZF also makes a sport version of the 8 speed automatic which could be used on an F10 M5 xDrive.

Actually it's much more complicated than that, weight is as much a factor on tight tracks so generally awd cars don't fare as well here, look at M3 vs RS5 at Hockenheim for an example, yet on more open tracks it's the RS5 which is slightly quicker. No two tracks are the same and no car can to setup to work perfectly on everyone without being having itself suspension setup to suit.

Best to look at AWD as a safety net in difficult situations rather than a performance enchancement.

Originally Posted by BobBigMan

Actually it's much more complicated than that, weight is as much a factor on tight tracks so generally awd cars don't fare as well here, look at M3 vs RS5 at Hockenheim for an example, yet on more open tracks it's the RS5 which is slightly quicker. No two tracks are the same and no car can to setup to work perfectly on everyone without being having itself suspension setup to suit.

Best to look at AWD as a safety net in difficult situations rather than a performance enchancement.

As I said, this is pure conjecture. Until we see an actual test on both road and track of the same car in RWD and AWD with the same equipment by a professional driver it will remain pure conjecture. As you so aptly point out there are so many variables that only an actual test will determine the result. You must have the same driver test the cars on the same track or tracks. So, I agree with you that testing on both a tight road course and a more open course makes a lot of sense to me.

Right now the best comparison seems to me to be the 550i RWD vs the 550i xDrive and the Porsche Panamera RWD vs the AWD version with the same equipment. As a physicist I can tell you there are advantages to both RWD and AWD so speculation as to the result remains purely conjecture and the actual result requires a head to head test.

Originally Posted by richschneid

As I said, this is pure conjecture. Until we see an actual test on both road and track of the same car in RWD and AWD with the same equipment by a professional driver it will remain pure conjecture. As you so aptly point out there are so many variables that only an actual test will determine the result. You must have the same driver test the cars on the same track or tracks. So, I agree with you testing on both a tight road course and a more open course make a lot of sense to me.

Right now it best comparison seem to me to be the 550i RWD vs the 550 xDrive and the Porsche Panamera RWD vs the AWD version with the same equipment. As a physicist I can tell you there are advantages to both RWD and AWD so speculation as to the result remains purely conjecture and the actual result requires a head to head test.

With respect to the 550's, the AWD & RWD variants have different final drive ratios that will influence some performance numbers. Even with a level playing field, in a head-to-head comparison it may be inconclusive due to insufficient sample size. For example, MotorTrend tested two Audi A7 3.0Ts and recorded two different 0-60 times: 4.7 & 5.3 seconds. If we had numerous tracks times and numerous road tests, then all we would need is a comprehensive car performance database with a little bit artificial intelligence and we would then know which of any two cars would come out on top in a given hypothetical situation. Until then all we can do is .

Originally Posted by dunderhi

With respect to the 550's, the AWD & RWD variants have different final drive ratios that will influence some performance numbers. Even with a level playing field, in a head-to-head comparison it may be inconclusive due to insufficient sample size. For example, MotorTrend tested two Audi A7 3.0Ts and recorded two different 0-60 times: 4.7 & 5.3 seconds. If we had numerous tracks times and numerous road tests, then all we would need is a comprehensive car performance database with a little bit artificial intelligence and we would then know which of any two cars would come out on top in a given hypothetical situation. Until then all we can do is .

According to this logic automobile comparison tests are meaningless. And by extension all road tests in the automative press are also useless. Were these two different Audi A7s tested simultaneously or at two different times? In any case, in the limited data we have, such as on Porsche Panamera AWD compared to RWD as published by Porsche low speed acceleration tends to be greater for AWD despite the additional weight and high speed acceleration tends to be better with RWD because of the lower weight. In other cases, as you state, different tests need to be averaged to get some idea of actual differences.

If the tests of the A7 3.0Ts were done on different days under different conditions then your contention that all road tests are meaningless based on this data is what is actually meaningless and illogical.

Therefore, please post the links or reference the issues of the Motor Trend tests that you are citing. I have never seen two tests of two of the same cars done by the same magazine done simultaneously.

My point is that if we want to draw conclusions about the relative performance of RWD vs AWD in the same model of car, the tests must be done AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE. All potential variations that are known and are controllable must be equalized. This inclues driver and testing equipment. If the final drive ratios are different that may not be able to be equalized and should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results, but that does not mean that the results are meaningless.

"Until then all we can do is :drive". If that's the case then go out and drive the RWD and AWD versions of the 5 series and give your opinion. I would be especially interested in your personal opinion comparing your driving experience on the road and on the track of the new F10 M5 and an F10 550i xDrive with Dinan Stage II. But please use a stopwatch on the track so we can get some objective data. And please put some decent tires on the 550i before you do your personal comparison test.

Originally Posted by richschneid

According to this logic automobile comparison tests are meaningless. And by extension all road tests in the automative press are also useless. Were these two different Audi A7s tested simultaneously or at two different times? In any case, in the limited data we have, such as on Porsche Panamera AWD compared to RWD as published by Porsche low speed acceleration tends to be greater for AWD despite the additional weight and high speed acceleration tends to be better with RWD because of the lower weight. In other cases, as you state, different tests need to be averaged to get some idea of actual differences.

If the tests of the A7 3.0Ts were done on different days under different conditions then your contention that all road tests are meaningless based on this data is what is actually meaningless and illogical.

Therefore, please post the links or reference the issues of the Motor Trend tests that you are citing. I have never seen two tests of two of the same cars done by the same magazine done simultaneously.

My point is that if we want to draw conclusions about the relative performance of RWD vs AWD in the same model of car, the tests must be done AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE. All potential variations that are known and are controllable must be equalized. This inclues driver and testing equipment. If the final drive ratios are different that may not be able to be equalized and should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results, but that does not mean that the results are meaningless.

"Until then all we can do is :drive". If that's the case then go out and drive the RWD and AWD versions of the 5 series and give your opinion. I would be especially interested in your personal opinion comparing your driving experience on the road and on the track of the new F10 M5 and an F10 550i xDrive with Dinan Stage II. But please use a stopwatch on the track so we can get some objective data. And please put some decent tires on the 550i before you do your personal comparison test.

I stated a single test point is inconclusive, not meaningless. All tests provide data points, but when there are dozens of independant variables, so a single data point is not conclusive. Of course there are multiple test parameters that result in variations in test results, BUT there are also numerous manufacturing variations that also result in the variation of test results. It is illogical to assume complex systems such as cars are manufactured identically. Just do a search for dyno day results and you find that supposedly identical cars produce different test results under the same test conditions or you can do a BMW factory tour and ask them why they test every engine to meet a minumum pressure standard. After that, ask them by how much the engines exceed this standard. You'll probably get a blank stare, as I did. As a Physicist you know very well the empirical data that varies needs a sufficiently sized sample set to have any validity. In the case of my cited example below, the testers were certain the difference was caused by an undocumented difference in the cars, but the manufacturer had no explanation other than a minor 92lb difference, which a simple statisically based 0-60 calculator estimates to be less than a 0.1 second difference and not 0.6 seconds.

A fast A7

A not so fast A7

Originally Posted by http://www.motortrend.com

The "little" engine in the A7 had us scratching our heads. It's down on cylinders and way down on power compared with the other two. Rated at just 310 ponies and 325 pound-feet of torque, the five-door four-ringer's supercharged V-6 bested the Jag by virtue of hitting 60 mph in a startling 4.7 seconds and flying down the quarter mile in a very quick 13.3 seconds at 103.5 mph. The slightly lighter and much more powerful Jaguar (385 horses, 380 pound-feet of torque) needed 13.4 seconds, though its trap speed was 106.3 mph.


Like most other Audis, the A7 is AWD, but something smells slightly fishy in Ingolstadt, and here's why: Last month, we tested another A7 with the same engine and transmission (Audi's very nice eight-speed automatic) and recorded a 60-mph run in 5.3 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 13.8 at 100.9 mph. True, because of options or lack thereof, this A7 is nearly 100 pounds lighter than the car we previously tested (4140 pounds versus 4232), but 92 pounds does not explain away six-tenths of a second. Our testing crew complained about the A7's violent shifts, and we asked Audi if the transmission (or anything else) had been reprogrammed. They had no explanation.

Finally, thanks for the advice. I did get rid of my RFTs and replaced them with Michelin Pilot Super Sports.

There shouldn't be any doubt that AWD provides better grip. Very simply if it didn't rally cars wouldn't be AWD, nor heavy equipment trucks, and other vehicles where grip is the utmost importance. The question is does this carry on over to high performance cars.

Originally Posted by richschneid

A RWD F10 M5 vs an AWD F10 M5. .

are you serious now?

Originally Posted by solstice

"Why shouldn't BMW make an AWD M5 for me"
You can forget about it now, no way BMW is going to grant the wish of a guy who suggests that a $3000 tune will be an equal to what the mighty M-division has been honing for years with the 550 as base and that costs 10 times the Dinan tune

Honestly I think the M5 would absolutely smoke a 550 in any shape on the track.

Agree on a street circuit.

But probably not a Dinan 550xi in a straight line. 580lb ft torque vs. 502lb ft on the M5, plus awd. Only one car will win that drag race.

Acceleration numbers are one thing and fun is another.

[QUOTE=dunderhi;6344459]"I stated a single test point is inconclusive, not meaningless. All tests provide data points, but when there are dozens of independant variables, so a single data point is not conclusive."

The logical conclusion from this statement is that all test resuls are inconclusive and that THEREFORE a direct comparison test between a 550i xDrive and a 550i RWD is pointless to conduct unless one does such a test repeatedly to achieve adequate data to achieve a P value of 0.05. So, one would first have to test various examples of that car to determine the percentage in the manufacturing variability in order to calculate the number of tests required to achieve statistical significance at the p=0.05 level. Since this data would not be available for a direct comparison between individual examples of the two cars in question, and neither would multiple tests be available, the only logical conclusion from your statement is that a direct comparison test between any two vehicles is useless and meaningless.

The Motor Trend example you cite is tests from two different dates on cars with different equipment. Now if you were to test the cars in which all the CONTROLLABLE variables were the same except for the presence or absence of AWD that would be meaningful and useful information. No test is ever conclusive to 100% of certainty, not in physics or in medicine. Furthermore, since, as you state, there is variability in manufacturing of individual vehicles of the same model the odds that one of the tested vehicles is an above average example and the other is a below average vehicle, the odds of one being a better example than the other is exactly 50-50.

But one data point, ie one comprehensive test, still points to a certain likelihood of correctly indicating that one vehicle is inherently superior to the other in the characteristics, acceleration, track times, etc., that are measured. This may only be a 60% probability or an 80% probability or something else but it is still useful information even if it is not a 100% probability. A p=0.05 level indicates a 95% probability or approximately three standard deviations from the mean.

But to say a direct comparison test would be less likely to give an accurate conclusion than just a seat of the pants driving experience I think is patently absurd from a scientific and mathmatical perspective.

Originally Posted by richschneid

The logical conclusion from this statement is that all test resuls are inconclusive and that THEREFORE a direct comparison test between a 550i xDrive and a 550i RWD is pointless to conduct unless one does such a test repeatedly to achieve adequate data to achieve a P value of 0.05. So, one would first have to test various examples of that car to determine the percentage in the manufacturing variability in order to calculate the number of tests required to achieve statistical significance at the p=0.05 level. Since this data would not be available for a direct comparison between individual examples of the two cars in question, and neither would multiple tests be available, the only logical conclusion from your statement is that a direct comparison test between any two vehicles is useless and meaningless.

The Motor Trend example you cite is tests from two different dates on cars with different equipment. Now if you were to test the cars in which all the CONTROLLABLE variables were the same except for the presence or absence of AWD that would be meaningful and useful information. No test is ever conclusive to 100% of certainty, not in physics or in medicine. Furthermore, since, as you state, there is variability in manufacturing of individual vehicles of the same model the odds that one of the tested vehicles is an above average example and the other is a below average vehicle, the odds of one being a better example than the other is exactly 50-50.

But one data point, ie one comprehensive test, still points to a certain likelihood of correctly indicating that one vehicle is inherently superior to the other in the characteristics, acceleration, track times, etc., that are measured. This may only be a 60% probability or an 80% probability or something else but it is still useful information even if it is not a 100% probability. A p=0.05 level indicates a 95% probability or approximately three standard deviations from the mean.

But to say a direct comparison test would be less likely to give an accurate conclusion than just a seat of the pants driving experience I think is patently absurd from a scientific and mathmatical perspective.

Illogical conclusions and absurd statements? I'm not sure if you are serious or just being argumentative.

Anyway, given your level of understanding of the testing process and data analysis, I think I'll pass on further comments.

Originally Posted by dunderhi

Illogical conclusions and absurd statements? I'm not sure if you are serious or just being argumentative.

Anyway, given your level of understanding of the testing process and data analysis, I think I'll pass on further comments.

richschneid is absolutely fair and correct on his statements
read about experimental design and statistics and you will see his is fair.

Originally Posted by BobBigMan

Actually it's much more complicated than that, weight is as much a factor on tight tracks so generally awd cars don't fare as well here, look at M3 vs RS5 at Hockenheim for an example, yet on more open tracks it's the RS5 which is slightly quicker. No two tracks are the same and no car can to setup to work perfectly on everyone without being having itself suspension setup to suit.

Best to look at AWD as a safety net in difficult situations rather than a performance enchancement.

Not true bet you that AWD is a performance enhancement for 99% of the population. Unless you are way above averager driver will you be able to take an RWD to it's maximum or 9/10ths while AWD will allow a good driver to reach this level much easier.

Originally Posted by bmw_enthusiasm

richschneid is absolutely fair and correct on his statements
read about experimental design and statistics and you will see his is fair.

I will gladly take your advice to read about experimental design and statistics (to be fair, I get paid to do it anyway).

Since richschneid is the recognized authority in these fields, then he's the man and I will no longer question his mastery of Design of Experiments, test processes, data collection/reduction, statistical analysis, or the analytical rigor associated with the typical automotive journalist's testing process. Thanks for the insight.