2012 BMW M5

[Christopher]

It's good to have you back.

 

[Sir_Dave]

I suspect Dave is also shorter than average.

5 foot 7, so about a foot taller than u iirc

 

[Christopher]

Same as me. lol.

I think everyone assumes I'm literally a midget. I met Malice at Japfest and I think he was disappointed.

 

[Darren S]

:dapprove:

M Division should be NA.

They'll announce it'll be specced with runflats and EPS, next.

And their customers. Believe it or not, some customers want efficiency and poke, which is being achieved by manufacturers these days, BMW are responding. They cannot keep appealing to customers with crap MPG. Its a great marketing message to the customers (not Brussels) when you can say, "hey have 0-60 in 4.5 and get over 30mpg" or whatever.

I think its a great move.

I agree. There's a reason that M has sold more than AMG/RS. They are purer, without compromising the everyday aspect of the cars. Lose the purity, their usp, and you're left with a range that looks worse than the Audi/Merc competition, and can't get close in terms of build quality. Added that most journo's are now saying the AMG cars have better steering than the M-products, and why would you pick one?

I don't think it is, but I don't think the M engineers had any choice in the matter. They would have been pushed in one direction through the greater powers at be. I personally LOVE turbo cars <----- but what both Chris and BB says about the 'pure' aspect of the NA lump rings true to me. I'm convinced that given a free reign with no concerns of emissions and tax, the M boys would be shoving an NA lump under that M5's bonnet. Why? Because they could and they should. Forced induction is the easy way to get muchos power - extracting similar power through NA methods (and doing it very well) is an entirely different focus altogether.

Same with the Type-R engines to a certain extent. If the Integra Type-R was available straight from a Honda showroom today with both a 1.8litre NA screamer or a 2.0litre turbo lump, which do you think would sell better? I would wager a hefty sum that the 1.8 would outsell the turbo unit. A high revving NA engine is an experience to drive - even more so in this day and age of CO2 and tax bands. And brand images such as the Type-R and M's have always tried to stick true to that philosophy. It is core to their being.

I'm sure the multi-turbo'd M5 will still sell massively well and have a 3 year waiting list within a few weeks. But going down the route of forced induction is an inevitable shame. A realisation that even sacred brands such as the M-Division are not immune to sweeping changes within the engine building industry.

D.

 

[alanc1000]

Just to clarify then, are people here against the F10 M5 purely because it has turbos, even if it ends up faster, lighter and more tunable than the current V10, or are you against it because you think it wont perform as well?

What will be your measure of success in terms of saying of this is a s**t or good move, or are you all saying its crap purely as it has turbos, regardless of anything else such as performance? If so, isn't that a bit narrow minded?

 

[mike1pow]

I think it looks vulgar!

Surely you can have faster cars for less and nicer looking cars for less!

The 172 Cup for example :rasp:

 

[Christopher]

Great post, D.

 

[alanc1000]

I think it looks vulgar!

Surely you can have faster cars for less and nicer looking cars for less!

The 172 Cup for example :rasp:

around the twisties!!

..

Heres some words about the twin turbo set up, quite a nice read (or have i just been blinded by marketing speak)

"Using BMW’s “M TwinPower Turbo” unit with High Precision Direct Injection and twin turbochargers as a basis, the new M engine introduces twin-scroll twin turbochargers and patented exhaust manifold technologies to increase thrust and pulling force, while preserving the most compact dimensions possible. Two low-mass twin-scroll turbochargers are positioned together with the catalytic converters in the “V” section between the two banks of cylinders. By reversing the flow of gases through the engine from traditional arrangements, the intake and exhaust ducts are shortened and widened. The result is that pressure losses on the exhaust side are minimized.
The goals were to virtually eliminate turbocharger lag while maximizing combustion efficiency and power output. The new M V8 engine with twin-scroll twin turbo technology uses a single exhaust manifold with tuned-length runners, incorporating both cylinder banks and connecting cylinders in carefully-selected pairs. This configuration, patented by BMW M and known as Cylinder-bank Comprehensive Manifold (CCM), offers quick response, a linear build-up of engine power, and a broad, consistent torque curve by feeding each of the twin turbochargers with a “charge pulse” at approximately every 90 degrees of crankshaft rotation, rather than the more traditional “irregular schedule” of charging.
The managed flow of exhaust gas provided by the CCM ensures high-velocity flow of combustion gases. The appropriate separation of exhaust gas flow from different cylinders is maintained until the gas reaches the turbine wheel, spooling the two twin-scroll turbochargers without back-pressure. There is a maximum boost pressure of 1.5 bar (21 psi)."

 

[Darren S]

I think you're missing the point at what I'm (we?) are trying to get at.

It's not about numbers, stats or even efficiency. It's a continuation of a legacy that has grown a solid fan base and appreciation of doing something a little 'unique'. Mention the M-brand and immediately the image of a high revving, screaming performance saloon springs to my mind. That's what appeals - especially in light of its nearest rivals predominantly being force-fed with their power.

As BB said. It's part of the M-Power's USP. Something that makes them stand out from the rest. Subaru could develop a far more frugal, efficient and tax friendly inline 4 for their Imprezas tomorrow. But would people necessarily like or want it? I'd argue that purists wouldn't - that they would want to take the flat-4 in favour of the inline (warts 'n all) because that part of the appeal of the Subaru Impreza.

Even Evo magazine last month mentioned that there's been whispers of a 4-pot Porsche 911? Because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. Tradition and failure to adopt new ideas is indeed narrow minded at times. But certain things - the M engine being one to me anyway, is something that should be left alone and away from turbos and/or superchargers.

And when did I say it would crap? I merely said that it's a shame.

D.

 

[Christopher]

Spot on. Again.

 

[Englebert]

I admire the purist's point of view, but most people who buy M5s and similar performance motors 'like cars', but aren't full-on petrol heads. The sort of person who would up you and say "How much powah that got mate?". For example, my personal trainer has a Porsche and 'loves cars' but doesn't know how to open the bonnet. He also asked if his girlfriend's Corsa was RWD....

The reality is, as has been said, consumers want more of everything. They want more power, better economy, more room etc. This all requires turbos and massive cars. We are, collectively, contradictions. I personally blame focus groups, not legislation.

 

[Christopher]

People who claim to like cars like that annoy me. The kind of bloke that says 'torques'

I understand that not everyone gets the horn from sticking their head inside the slightly ajar perspex window of an F40 and smelling it.

FYI, it smelt fantastic.

 

[Graham Gooch]

People who claim to like cars like that annoy me. The kind of bloke that says 'torques'

I understand that not everyone gets the horn from sticking their head inside the slightly ajar perspex window of an F40 and smelling it.

FYI, it smelt fantastic.

I hate to reference the r5 gtt twice in this post, more so in comparison to an F40 but I think thats an 1980s turbo thing......its the smell of burnt oil.

Personally I love that smell. All GTTs smell the same and its true of every Grp B rally car Ive had a smell of.......not that I'm weird.

 

[alanc1000]

I admire the purist's point of view, but most people who buy M5s and similar performance motors 'like cars', but aren't full-on petrol heads. The sort of person who would up you and say "How much powah that got mate?". For example, my personal trainer has a Porsche and 'loves cars' but doesn't know how to open the bonnet. He also asked if his girlfriend's Corsa was RWD....

The reality is, as has been said, consumers want more of everything. They want more power, better economy, more room etc. This all requires turbos and massive cars. We are, collectively, contradictions. I personally blame focus groups, not legislation.

This is exactly what i'm getting at. Plus that fact that many M drivers own one because of the M badge rather than performance, in fact i dont often see M5s booting it around, more older owners who like something a bit special.

And IMO it's their money so good on them, there is no hard and fast rule which states owners of M cars have to be hardened petrol heads.

 

[Christopher]

I hate to reference the r5 gtt twice in this post, more so in comparison to an F40 but I think thats an 1980s turbo thing......its the smell of burnt oil.

Personally I love that smell. All GTTs smell the same and its true of every Grp B rally car Ive had a smell of.......not that I'm weird.

<3

 

[Darren S]

Great post, D.

Spot on. Again.

Twice in one thread! I am doing well!

D.

 

[Budgie]

A turbo'd M car is the same as having two chickens at Christmas instead of a massive turkey.

It'll do the job, but it's just not the same.

 

[Waitey]

Purist..... what a load of s**t. Turbo cars can be just as good as anything else. Its good to see some real progress being made with engines.

BMW started the game remember.

 

[alanc1000]

^ SPOT ON!

I didn't want to bring up the 2002, i was saving that for later!

The only people who dont like turbos are the ones who can't predict the engines well, maybe a bit scared of the boost? :quiet:

 

[Waitey]

FBW throttles cause more lag than modern turbos.

Money is been pumped into R&D, zero lag turbo set ups are already here.

 

[Craigus]

Although I can understand the purists not liking Turbo's, mit seems like it is going a bit far for me to agree.

The people described by Englebert are probably going to account for 80% of the sales figures of these types of cars, the ones that like cars but don't even know what a turbo is. So if the manufacturers can get better everything from the engine (i.e mpg, performance, reliability) if it is a turbo rather than N/A, they are clearly going to do that, as it will only upset a small number of people who like the cars because of their legacy.

Appeal to the masses, etc.

 

[Waitey]

I can't wait for small turbo engines with 8k limiters and zero lag.

 

[alanc1000]

Although I can understand the purists not liking Turbo's, mit seems like it is going a bit far for me to agree.

The people described by Englebert are probably going to account for 80% of the sales figures of these types of cars, the ones that like cars but don't even know what a turbo is. So if the manufacturers can get better everything from the engine (i.e mpg, performance, reliability) if it is a turbo rather than N/A, they are clearly going to do that, as it will only upset a small number of people who like the cars because of their legacy.

Appeal to the masses, etc.

exactly that. And whilst they may loose a few M fanboys, they are actually probably going to win over more new fans who are attracted to the BENEFITS of the new car, lighter, more economical, probably faster etc. What more could people want? The outgoing M5 was the most popular ever, despite people saying it was the ugliest with a fiddly iDrive, the SMG III that people slated for being jerky etc. They still sold very well - which is what BMW want. I reckon this new one will do well.

 

[Christopher]

Purist..... what a load of s**t. Turbo cars can be just as good as anything else. Its good to see some real progress being made with engines.

BMW started the game remember.

Wasn't the first. Not by a long way.

^ SPOT ON!

I didn't want to bring up the 2002, i was saving that for later!

The only people who dont like turbos are the ones who can't predict the engines well, maybe a bit scared of the boost? :quiet:

NA>Forced Induction. Every time. :dapprove:

I bet Alan would buy this new M5, but only if it came with runflats, EPS and a big pair of hairdryers.

 

[Budgie]

Built in GHD's.

(;

 

[alanc1000]

Wasn't the first. Not by a long way.



NA>Forced Induction. Every time. :dapprove:

I bet Alan would buy this new M5, but only if it came with runflats, EPS and a big pair of hairdryers.

The first true M was a turbo as well (racing division!!)

You might be right, maybe i should buy the X6M now as it has the same engine, and i'll let you know how they are (love these too!!). I ditched my runflats, over rated results from the swap TBH.

Can i have it on record here and now that even if when they are launched and the motoring press say its amazing, you'll still dissaprove??!

 

[ForceIndia]

People (1 in particular lol) are missing the point, by a massive amount. No-one has said turbo's are crap. No-one's saying you can't have epic turbo engine's (F40 is the obvious one!). But a 3l diesel in a caterham would be quicker than any petrol engine. But that's not the point. M is about razor sharp engine's, in the face of FI competitors. And they've outsold those competitors, consistently. So to say Turbo's are a consumer driven idea, is nonsense.

But as said, this is a short term detour. High comp petrol engines will replace this engine when the M5 is replaced.

 

[Christopher]

+1

No one's arguing that they've ruined the M5, we're just of the opinion that they should be NA, if they were allowed to be.

If it was down to the engineers, I highly doubt they'd go for FI.

 

[ForceIndia]

Can i have it on record here and now that even if when they are launched and the motoring press say its amazing, you'll still dissaprove??!

Are you just in a troll mood? I don't think many (any?) have said turbo's are crap. Or that the M5 will be crap. What they have said, is that it seems a retrograde step. As we've said, hopefully they've got it right. But even if they have, there's no doubt that in recent years the M brand has become diluted, and continues to be.

 

[alanc1000]

Are you just in a troll mood? I don't think many (any?) have said turbo's are crap. Or that the M5 will be crap. What they have said, is that it seems a retrograde step. As we've said, hopefully they've got it right. But even if they have, there's no doubt that in recent years the M brand has become diluted, and continues to be.

Let me put my finger specifically on the point i'm making before you start booing.

How is the following a "retrograde"

Will probably be faster
will be lighter
will be more economical and potentially cheaper to run
will be more appealing to new customer base
will be more tunable

If turbo's are not crap, why would you (anD some of these M fanboys) be so afraid of them?

 

[Craigus]

If it boils down to engine response, then I am sure that the M division can make it happen, so what are you worried about?

EDIT: Don't say I'm missing the point, lol.

 

[Christopher]

Oh. My. God.

I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.
I'm sure the new M5 will be awesome. But I will miss them being NA.

 

[Christopher]

Seriously, stop trolling. No one's having a go.

Waitey: Thought you meant the first FI car, not the first BMW FI car. And M Division didn't make the 2002, they didn't exist then.

 

[Waitey]

The first FI car was some Oldsmobile V8 thing iirc.

I meant the first car in the 'M' spirit of things if you get me.

 

[ForceIndia]

The first FI car was some Oldsmobile V8 thing iirc.

I meant the first car in the 'M' spirit of things if you get me.

Bentley made a Turbo road car in the 30's!

 

[Waitey]

Edit found the oldsmobile thing.

Wiki:

Turbo Jetfire
In 1962 and 1963 Oldsmobile built a turbocharged version of the 215. The small-diameter Garrett T5 turbocharger was manufactured by Garrett AiResearch and produced a maximum of 5 psi (34 kPa) boost at 2200 rpm. The engine had 10.25:1 compression and a single-barrel carburetor. It was rated at 215 hp (160 kW) @ 4600 rpm and 300 lb·ft (410 N·m) @ 3200 rpm. The high compression ratio created a serious problem with spark knock on hard throttle applications, which led Olds to use a novel water-injection system that sprayed small amounts of distilled water and methyl alcohol (dubbed "Turbo-Rocket Fluid") into the combustion chambers to cool the intake charge. If the fluid reservoir was empty, a complex double-float and valve assembly in the Turbo-Rocket Fluid path would set a second butterfly (positioned between the throttle butterfly and the turbocharger) into the closed position, limiting the amount of boost pressure. Unfortunately, many customers did not keep the reservoir filled, or had mechanical problems with the turbocharger plumbing.
The turbocharger was offered only in a special Jetfire model, which was the first turbocharged passenger car offered for public sale. Only 9,607 were sold in two model years, and many were converted by dealers to conventional four-barrel carbureted form.

 

[Christopher]

Was that lighter and better than the 1959 Turbo Jetfire? They ditched the SMGIII in 1960, IIRC.

I bet the customers were thrilled.

 

[Craigus]

But why if the turbo engines are superior in every way? It's not trolling at all, I just can't understand why you will miss it not being N/A aside from the fact you are stuck in your ways.

 

[Christopher]

Jesus H.

I prefer N/A engines.

Given a regulation-free brief, I doubt they'd be going for FI engines.

That's all we're saying.

I'm sure the car will be mint. M Div always deliver on their proper products. The X6M and 1M aren't.

 

[Waitey]

I just lol'd at customers having to use WI in the 50's.