new M5

[rickm]

New M5 article (http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/07/cx_dl_0707vow.html)

[1992 BMW 535i]

New M5 article (http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/07/cx_dl_0707vow.html)

I hope this doesn't get me in trouble, but dang is that thing ever ugly. Nice power plant though!

[Jason]

doesn't require you to use your foot is terribly disappointing... at least give us the option.

[rickm]

I hope this doesn't get me in trouble, but dang is that thing ever ugly. Nice power plant though!

Yeah, I don't like the looks but that V10 would be handy. :) A nice 6 speed would be nice, make it a driver's car not a car for some wealthy old fart to drive to the golf course and back.

[1992 BMW 535i]

You know, I agree. I've driven bikes with sequential transmissions (remember the old Hondas?) and it takes a lot of the fun out of it. My dad has the SL55 with "manumatic" or whatever it's called, and it just doesn't give you the same control or feeling as the old clutch...

[AllanS]

Hopefully, BMW will sell lots and lots of these suckers in the states... to wealthy idiots who can't drive... who will then total the car... leaving the engine available for sale on ebay!

And hopefully, the engine will be able to mate up to a 6 speed manual box with little trouble, and be able to be dropped into an e34 ;)

[1992 BMW 535i]

Man, I love the way you think. Go M5!

[Phil M]

disgusting looks, disgusting power

someone should put some m parallels on her

[ryan roopnarine]

ehhh, that torque number sounds sucky. what, again, is the reason they couldn't have fitted a v8 or v12 to this car???? too much energy expended to try to be different on their parts. the RR (which i'm sure bmw had a hand in engine design of) 6.5L v8 puts out 300 ft lb at 1700 rpm (and looks like a damn m60). this car is supposed to exhibit some unkempt NVH and whatnot, its an m5. i think the 10 cyl is a terrible choice, to say nothing of the styling of the car.

[Super90]

After working on a V8 in the E34, I don't want to try to put a V10 in there! No space at all!

[G Feller]

Gotta love the finale, "BMW claims this M5 has cut 25 seconds off the best Nurburgring time of the outgoing M5" (the new one will do it in eight minutes flat).

There are certainly better-looking cars, but as they say, I wouldn't kick her out of bed. And I love my clutch too, but I could live without it as long as I remain in complete control of what gear I'm in ("7th"!).

This one from Autoweek (http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&loc_code=index&content_code=02986726)

[AllanS]

I sort of agree, it seems like the v10 has a lot of marketing appeal but not the performance to stand behind it. Plus, I'm sure they had to redesign all their tooling for the new block and heads, which couldn't have been cheap, and it probably weighs a good deal more than a comparable 8cyl. I guess they were looking more for an s14 kind of engine, but the way it's packaged (and without a manual tranny) seems weird.

[Scott H]

Ummmmm Autoweek doesn't really get in to enough details......try this

http://www.bmwm5.com/articles/m5e60/pressrelease2/julye60m5pressrelease.html

they are claiming it will be lighter than your average E60, and the V-10 has more thought behind it than some of you are speculating

[G Feller]

(cleans monitor after viewing engine pictures (http://www.bmwm5.com/articles/m5e60/pressrelease2/julye60m5pressrelease2.html))


Ummmmm Autoweek doesn't really get in to enough details......try this

http://www.bmwm5.com/articles/m5e60/pressrelease2/julye60m5pressrelease.html

they are claiming it will be lighter than your average E60, and the V-10 has more thought behind it than some of you are speculating

[MarkD]

I saw the new M5 yesterday, BMW brought one in for display at Oktoberfest here in Pasadena. I took a few pics, but can't upload to my site from here. I can email them if someone wants to host them.

Mark

[ryan roopnarine]

they seem to dwell a lot on the car's hp/litre, a little too similar to das honda in that press release. im impressed that the thing's only 5 litres for the 500 hp, the same displacement as the last v8 m5 motor, but they specifically say that the car doesn't have any more torque than the last, which is disappointing if that is (effectively) the case. i certainly wouldn't mind having one to drive :D but after the hullabaloo they went through to make the rolls motor kick out 300 at 1700 and 400 at 5x00 rpm, i'm sure it would have been simpler to improve on the 8 cylinder or go 12 and get an amount of torque at least commensurate to the old v8 (per cyl). i don't think anyone buying the car will care too much about the 10 cyl resemblance to an indy car. the metric torque specification sounds like they were specifically trying to imitate the dodge v10 motor (525 ftlb in the dodge to 525 nm in the bmw :p ).

[Phil M]

could you even imagine how big a bentley service manual would be for this thing? scary.

[rickm]

mark:

email them to me (rick.miale at nc.gov) and I'll put them up somewhere.

[GinoF]

go to this link

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1088679665527

[Scott H]

can only wait to see what some various performance numbers/times end up being. Their claim is that the high revving nature of this engine is the suitable alternative to higher displacement, lower revving V8. I have no where near enough knowledge to confirm the validity of this, but the people at BMW M know what they are doing while all you do is spout queer prose, and use unsafe techniques to dismount tires just to save $25......a recurring theme.


they seem to dwell a lot on the car's hp/litre, a little too similar to das honda in that press release. im impressed that the thing's only 5 litres for the 500 hp, the same displacement as the last v8 m5 motor, but they specifically say that the car doesn't have any more torque than the last, which is disappointing if that is (effectively) the case. i certainly wouldn't mind having one to drive :D but after the hullabaloo they went through to make the rolls motor kick out 300 at 1700 and 400 at 5x00 rpm, i'm sure it would have been simpler to improve on the 8 cylinder or go 12 and get an amount of torque at least commensurate to the old v8 (per cyl). i don't think anyone buying the car will care too much about the 10 cyl resemblance to an indy car. the metric torque specification sounds like they were specifically trying to imitate the dodge v10 motor (525 ftlb in the dodge to 525 nm in the bmw :p ).

[Martin in Bellevue]

can only wait to see what some various performance numbers/times end up being. Their claim is that the high revving nature of this engine is the suitable alternative to higher displacement, lower revving V8. I have no where near enough knowledge to confirm the validity of this, but the people at BMW M know what they are doing while all you do is spout queer prose, and use unsafe techniques to dismount tires just to save $25......a recurring theme.

[bahnstormer]

lol
u can NEVER be stuck on torque. have u driven a car with an insane amout of torque?
i have and i must say it feels GREAT to not have to go over 2000rpm and reach 40mph faster than anyone else in traffic....

esp since cars are getting heavier and heavier every day u need LOTS of torque.
but hp is good too =

[Matt P]

Woah. 330kph (205 MPH) top speed?!?!?! For an E60 sedan?

So much for my puny 275 kph (171 mph) top speed..

[Matt P]

Oh no! They canceled the Touring!

So much for a decent looking E60 M5... :(

(Not to mention my desire to to buy one)

[Matt P]

It sounds like BMW is moving the M5's engine character back towards what they had with the S38B36/B38 engines (E28 M5, E34 M5s) where big revs = big power as opposed to the big block, torque down low. Not that M5 would be anything you could call torque deficient... it'll probably have 300+ lb/ft over the entire useful rev range.

...Which, IMHO, is qute satisfactory. When I wind out my 3.8L M5T the last 2000 RPMs or so, the car just leaps forward like a wild animal. A very satisfying experience. :-)

[Phil M]

as i once read on this board before: "torque gets you there, HP keeps you there"


lol
u can NEVER be stuck on torque. have u driven a car with an insane amout of torque?
i have and i must say it feels GREAT to not have to go over 2000rpm and reach 40mph faster than anyone else in traffic....

esp since cars are getting heavier and heavier every day u need LOTS of torque.
but hp is good too =

[Unregistered]

could somebody give ryan a link to the merc owners forum plz? lol