znod

I blew another topic title; the itallics did not work, and the word is "surreal."

Hi Friends:

The latest issue of evo contains it's car of the year selections--one set of results contains "real-world" cars and another contains "surreal-world" cars. The worst news is that the M6 came in 8th of 10 cars. The article commented on the M6's lack of low end torque (among other things it mentioned its "peaky V-10"), floaty feeling, jelly-like brakes, excess weight, runaway-train sensation, seeming too much like the M5, and BMW's blown chance at building a real Ferrari 575 beater. The Ford GT was the winner, and the M3 CS came in 5th. The M3 CS also came in second in the set of "real-world" cars.

Many very capable cars were not in either group. And, I did not read the article carefully enough to know precisely what criteria were used in determining the original sets of 10 finalists from which the winners were selected or how the winners were selected from the finalists. I am going to try to find time to read the article more carefully today. I did read enough to know that "feel" was a major criterion. I'll post more info in anyone has questions--after I read more carefully.

cidair

They were drunk or what?????

znod

I'm going to read carefully soon. I'll get back to you. Low-end torque has always been a concern to me about the M5 and M6. But, every time I say so someone jumps down my throat. At least someone "official," who has tested the car, has said it now. OK, I'm for the non-objective comments that will follow from this point (I don't mean yours though since at least you have an M5). They'll start something like "yeah, but the M6 and M5 are about a lot more than handling, feel, and being a driver's car."

darkside

How much torque do you need? I finally finished the breakin of my 550i and the 360 ft/lbs of torque is incredible. My e46 M3 was fast, but it didn't plaster me to the back of my seat from a full throttle acceleration the way the 550 does.

znod

If I have 500 HP, then I want about the same in torque and not to have to get up to high-ish RPM to make significant progress toward max. This link pretty much illustrates what I like to have in torque in relation to HP; see the tables towards the end of the article. Check out the B5 and the Merc. I can't imagine a 550i feeling that fast, but, OK, if you say so. But, then I'm used to a Z06 with drag radials.

znod

Ok, I read somewhat carefully. The staff of evo is trying to pick the "driver's car" of the year. After switching cars for a number of days, they apparently did rank-order voting to decide on the finishing order. They loved the M3 and, as indicated, did not care much for the M6 for the reasons I mentioned early among possibly others. They did not appear to be drunk, but if they were, then they apparently were equally drunk in all the cars.

Simple1

I'm not going to comment on how much torque is needed or not in a car but if the m5 & m6 can go from zero to 60 in 4.1 seconds (road & track) I really could care less about how much torque is missing. I mean that is super fast for cars almost weighing in @ 4000lbs and yes the sound of that engine, like sex on wheels, lol

znod

Actually, the best seen so far for a US model is 4.2--which, of course, still is very good. There is no issue that both the M5 and M6 can do quite well in straight-line acceleration. The only issue I have raised is whether the M5 and M6 have a somewhat uncomfortable amount of low-end torque. I really don't know because I have never driven one. But, note that R&T also hinted about the issue mentioning the V10's "soft bottom end of the powerband combined with the lack of a a real high-rpm rush. With the M's, the rush comes on after 3,000 rpm ... thereby making the cars deceptively fast." Incidentally, R&T mentioned that LC works well (my interpretation), but that the system shuts down after several runs because the clutch heats.

All I have ever said previously is that I think that I might find the M5's low-end torque to be somewhat disappointing. Many take such a statement as being an offense against God, motherhood, and apple pie. Apparently, at least one or more of the evo drivers felt that the M6 lacked in low-end torque. And, the R&T test indicated the same thing. C&D did not comment on this issue, but C&D was not happy with the SMG in auto mode. It really isn't the end of the world if the M5 and M6 have a somewhat minor fault in the eyes of some drivers--as some M5/M6 defenders apparently believe (not necessarily including you--as I don't know the extent of your feelings on this matter).

cidair

Just to clarify my somewhat blunt expression yesterday.

This is what I jumped about when I read your post: " lack of low end torque (among other things it mentioned its "peaky V-10"), floaty feeling, jelly-like brakes, excess weight, runaway-train sensation "

None of these comments do really fit the M5 IMO. Instead I think it has - excellent handling, ok weight for a luxury sedan, superb brakes ( you can have the front tires scream at 200 km/h, I?ve tried it! ), very good low end torque.
As for " runaway train ", maybe right when it comes to acceleration, but if I get that feeling when hitting the accelerator, I just ease it off a little!! Maybe they forgot that?

And last to the never ending story of E55 vs. M5 TORQUE. If you love huge amount of low end torque, that makes the car fly from zero rpm, the E55 or equals are the car for you. But sadly there it ends for the E55.
The M5 also flies away from low rpm, but in a slightly other manner.

E55 or M5? It depends what you want from your luxury sedan. They are both great cars in VERY different ways IMO. Ofcourse there is the Brabus V12S with 730 hp and 1080 Nm! 354000 euro price tag!

znod

Right, some choose one, and others choose the other. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am not choosing right now since I am not sure which I would choose. Actually, it probably would be the Alpina if there was a dealer in town. I wonder if BMW services Alpinas; I doubt it.