Busta

M5

timlwting

if i had the money ...
i will get both !!

znod

My reply probably will be controversial. First, I "don't like" the M5 because it comes only with an SMG, I think. I would want either an excellent automatic, a manual, or (maybe redundantly) an ZSG transmission. I am not sold on the SMG. Honestly, I don't know too much about the ZSG, but I think I would take it sight unseen over the SMG. Don't get me wrong; I could make do with an SMG, and I know that many love it. I've just heard too many negative things to think I would like the SMG overall.

donv, the SMG setup for the BMW ///M cars is very different from what is found in the "regular" BMW vehicles, like the E60 5er. The E60 M5 comes with SMG III, which is the next iteration of SMG II. I had an M3 with the SMG II and it was fantastic to drive -- very different than what you find in the SMG for the E60 or E63. That being said, I agree with you that there are still issues that BMW needs to work out ... but then we've been down that road before with the big propeller in the sky, right? Think iDrive, cupholders, active steering, etc.

I did not know about SMG III. That probably would be better. But, note that most of what I said is predicated on having 2 cars--an out-and-out racer and a high-performace luxury cruiser. As mentioned, in the final part of my post, I said, in effect, if I can only have one car, and it is one of the three mentioned, then definitely the M5 (even with SMG whatever).

My other problems with the M5 are:

(1) It really doesn't accelerate that fast. I think the claim is 14.7 in the quarter. Once the prices come down to earth on both, I'd buy a new Z06 way before an M5. Yes, I know they are different kinds of cars, but I like having one pretty much all out race car and one extremely nice performance/luxury car. So, given these thoughts, I'd buy a 550i. The M3 would never come into the picture. An M3 verus the new Z06? I'd never give the issue a second thought.

Edit: I have lost my mind on the 14.7 value. The numbers I saw seemed disappointing, but definitely could not have been 14.7

No on[e] should really buy a BMW for straight line accelaration. If all you cared about was 0-60 numbers or 1/4 times, then get an E-Class AMG. The ///M cars are really about a wholistic experience and finding the right balance between accelaration, performance, handling and, yes, practicality. There is simply no other sedan out there on the market that can even come close to the M5. Sure the Z06 will outperform the M5 and based on the sticker MSRP price, the Vette is a bargain. But can the Vette carry 4 (or 5) adults? Plus, four suitcases? Would you really go grocery shopping in a Z06? What if you needed to strap a carseat for your 1-year old - could a Vette do that? Probably not.

I agee "no on[e] should really buy a BMW [only] for straight-line accelaration." But, note the word, only. Stated differently, I would not buy a BMW if it did not also have adequate straight-line acceleration. Adequate straight-line acceleration is a necessary condition for me. Actually, the more I think about it I think it would be fine if someone bought a BMW only for straight-line acceleration, but I wouldn't.

Plus, the other competitors to the E60 M5 that are out there are simply not up to par. The E55, RS6 and CTS-V don't even come close to the performance numbers that the M5 can put out, and none offer the technological advances found in the M5 - from the V10 Valvetronice engine, to the SMG III, to the chasis design.

I have acknowledged that the M5 and the M6 are, in effect, all out race cars much like the Z06--and more nicely finished and much more refined--interior, etc., etc. Note that I never even implied that "the E55, RS6 and CTS-V ... come close to the performance numbers that the M5 [but see performance numbers below] can put out, and ... offer the technological advances found in the M5 - from the V10 Valvetronice engine, to the SMG III, to the chasis design." I said nothing abou these cars at all. To date, I have only indicated that I recall [ugh!] 14.7 1/4 mile times for the M5/M6 and that my recollection could be faulty [I was right--faulty]. I also have noted that BMW's claimed time to 60 is 4.5. There are many cars that can to 0-60 in 4.5-4.7--even some not very good cars. Note that I understand that the cars I will mention below are not in the M5 class.

Lancer Evolution RS MT 3/05 276 4.3 13.1 102.8
Lotus Elise C&D 7/04 4.4 13.2 104.0
Mercedes AMG CLK55 C&D 5/04 4.5 13.1
Lancer Evolution R&T 5/05 4.6 13.3 105.9
Lotus Elise R&T 3/05 4.6 13.3 103.1
Cadallic CTS-V MT 2/05 400 4.7 13.1 109.8
Chrysler SRT-8 C&D 6/07 4.7 13.2 109.0
Lancer Evolution MR MT 3/05 4.7 13.4 102.0
Lancer Evolution VIII MT 3/05 4.7 13.5 100.0
Mercedes AMG C55 C&D 11/04 4.7 13.3
Subaru WRX Sti MT 10/04 4.7 13.3 100.1

Given these values I am thinking that the M5 probably will not do the 1/4 much, if any, less than 13 from the factory.

(2) As a corollary to (1). Yes, the M5 and the M6 will be appointed very nicely. But, they still are pretty much all out race cars. That's not what I want to drive daily. I would go for a 550i and keep my Z06 or buy a new one.

As I mentioned above, the M5/6 are not "all out race cars". The M5 is, IMO, the epitome of a luxury sports sedan. The M6 is probably the pinnacle of what a luxury GT can be (although I still don't like the 6er styling at all).

I can see how you could see the "M5 ... [as being] the epitome of a luxury sports sedan. For me, it is too much of a race car. I still would not want the M5 for my daily driver unless I was choosing soley from the M5, M3, or 550i.

But, OK, if I could have only 1 car, and 1 of the three mentioned, then I'd definitely have the M5. I'd never consider the M3. The 550i would be my second choice.

At the end of the day, no wrong choices either way I guess. Seriously, choosing between the M5, 550 and M3 is like asking a person to choose between a beautiful blonde, a grogeous brunette or a stunning red-head.

Right, no bad choices.

[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks for your comments. Now, I'm having fun. ~0{;^) I said my post would be controversial.

znod

14.7 in the 1/4. That can't be right. A 545 does high 13s I suspect.

Right, I have lost my mind on the 14.7 thing.

[/quote]Please see my reply to wolverine.
[/quote]

Freewilly

I will get a M5 .
For some reason, I think M3 is for rich teenagers and early 20s. Whenever I see an older guy driving a M3, it?s just doesn?t fit.
Ps. I am not trying to offend anyone!! It?s my thought, that?s all

znod

Also, not wanting to offend. But, I see many, many M3's. I see very few M5's

50cal

Well the current M3 is plain and simple more fun to drive than the E39 M5.

I'm sure that will continue to be the case with the E90 M3 vs. the E60 M5.

Who cares about perception, the M3 is a great car and always will be.

If you don't need a big sedan and don't mind waiting, save your money and wait for the M3.

Otherwise get a 550 or M5, whichever fits your needs or budget better.

wolverine

Probably the best testing is done by Sport Auto, a German car magazine that is famous for it's 'supertest', a complete testing of the car on the Nurburgring. All the testing is extremely well controlled, with temperature, pressure and weather conditions noted, and the same driver used for all the 'ring laps. The results are posted on the following website:

http://www.track-challenge.com/help4pix_e.htm

You can compare any of the two cars tested. Here are the results of the M5 vs the 996 Porsche Turbo:

BMW M GmbH Porsche
Testing Date 12/2004 6/2000
Engine 4999 cccm, 10 Zyl , 40 V 3600 cccm, 6 Zyl , 24 V
Power 507 PS (373 KW) @ 7750/min 420 PS (309 KW) @ 6000/min
Torque 520 Nm @ 6100/min 560 Nm @ 2700/min
Transmission 2 (7) 0 (6)
Weight 1844 Kg 1569 Kg
Weight / BhP 3,6 Kg / PS 3,7 Kg/ PS
0 - 100 Km/h 4,5 s 4,2 s
0 - 200 Km/h 13,8 s 14,6 s
0 - 200-0 Km/h 19,2 s 19,8 s
Top Speed
269 Km/h * el. begrenzt 305 Km/h
80 - 120 Km/h 4.Gear 4,5 s 3,5 s
100 - 0 Km/h hot 36,1 m , 10,7 m/s 36,1 m , 10,7 m/s
Transverse Acceleration 1,2 g 1,3 g
Slalom Course 36 / 110m 128 / 136 Km/h 128 / 139 Km/h
Round Time Nuerburgring 8.13 min 7.56 min
Round Time Hockenheim 1.16,5 min 1.14,6 min

This may be a little hard to read, but the highlights are, the M5 is quicker from 0-200 kph (13.8 vs 14.6 sec), and much quicker from 100 - 200 kph (9.3 vs 10.4 sec). There is no way the M5 will run in the 13's in the quarter. It will be low 12's, possibly high 11's with the right tires.

Quicker than a Porsche Turbo from a roll. That should be enough acceleration for most.

znod

Now, I know what I was remembering--whether correct or not. I was remembering one or more 0-60 (or maybe 0-62) times of about 4.7 for the M5/M6. At the time, I though, well, that's not particularly fast. I'll try to dig up some articles, but I may have thrown them out. Does anyone have M5/M6 magazine tests? And, note that the M5 should get rolling pretty well after 60. So, its quarter mile time should be in the higher 12's or lower 13's.

Edit:

I just found the following at Motor Trend On-line--with only estimates for the M5.

2005 BMW M5 Versus 2005 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG
Test Data:
0-60 mph, sec 4.5 (est) 4.2
0-100 mph 10.0 (est) 9.7
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 12.6 @ 115 (est) 12.4 @ 116.2

EBMCS03

F430 oh oh that wasnt a choice... so ya M5. DUH!!!!!! or M6.