Talk:BMW M5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Alpina B7S

Can anyone confirm that the B7S was actually based on the E28 M5, rather than a 'cooking' 5 series? AFAIK, Alpina usually don't 'modify' the M series cars...

You are correct. The Alpina B7 Turbo's were not based on the BMW M cars. However, the Alpina and BMW M's were both based on the same chassis. Alpina also used some parts from the M's in the B7's, such as the front brakes, and differentials.

The B7 used the BMW M30 short block as a basis for it's engine. The M30 was a 12 valve SOHC motor. The M5's used a twin-cam 24 valve cylinder head, and a different block. Some of the internals (pistons, rods, etc.) were modified by Alpina, and the cylinder head was their own design and manufacture. To this engine, Alpina also added a KKK K27 turbocharger (the same as was used in the Porsche 930 Turbos). The turbo setup took the normally aspirated 200+ HP M30 motor to over 300 HP.

The B7 Turbo was built for a specific purpose - to be faster than Porsche and Ferrari; and it was. When released, it was the fastest four door production car ever - its top speed was 155 MPH. There was also a B7 Turbo Coupe, based on the BMW 6 series chassis. There are actually three distinct series of B7's. The B7 Turbo and B7 Turbo Coupe, which were introduced in 1978, and were based on the 3.0 L M30 motor. These cars produced 300 HP. The second version was the B7S Turbo and B7S Turbo Coupes. These were the rarest of the B7's - 60 four doors, and 30 coupes were produced in 1981 & '82. The B7S motors were based on the early 3.5L M30 motors, and produced 330 HP. Top speed was 162 MPH. Both the B7's and the B7S's were based on the E12 chassis (E24 for the coupes). The final version was the B7 Turbo/1 and the B7 Turbo Coupe/1, produced between 1984 and 1988. These were based on the E28 (& E24) chassis, and used an updated 3.5L M30 motor, which produced 330 HP. Top speed was 168 MPH. A final version, the B7 Turbo/2 was produced in '87 & '88, however its only modification was the addition of a catalytic converter.

For more information on Alpina's, you can go to www.alpina.de or the the Unofficial Alpina home page at www.m5board.com/alpina/.

Thanks for the confirmation. I feel what you've posted above would make a great addition to the Alpina article. Roddyp 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manual E60 M5

I have removed the entry on the manual transmission availability for the E60 M5. While my heart jumps at the prospect of this being offered (I am currently an E39 M5 owner who demured from owning an E60 for lack of a stick) I do not believe that the statement has an validity. It has been repeatedly emphasized that, because of the unique engine design, the BMW engineers were simply unable to literally 'fit' any of their existing manual transmissions into the car and that, to do so, they would be required to produce something of such intricate design and out of such expensive composite materials that it would raise the cost by thousands and thousands of dollars -- much of this has to do with needing especially strong lower gears because of the use and abuse which is put on them.

Anyway, the bottom line is, I've heard no information to substantively contradict the above, so, unless someone can bring something credible to the table, E60 = no manual :( sorry

BMW Germany has announced they will be producing a 6 speed manual which will be exported to the US, Aus, Canada etc where demand for manuals are higher than europe

Demand for a manual M5 is higher in North America however that cannot be said for other vehicles. Note: the majority of cars in Europe have manual transmissions.

[edit] Response

I read in Car and Driver that the manual would be available (I cannot remember which issue). The reason given was that Europeans, with more exposure to F1, are comfortable with the SMG, while Americans are less so. Besides, the idea that one can fit a seven-speed transmission in a car and not squeeze in a manual of six or more speeds is laughable, especially where cost is in no way an issue. I'd suggest that the mention of the manual should stay unless someone has compelling evidence to the contrary.

[edit] M5 copyright issues

The Section on the new M5 has been copied from http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2005/08/stories/02/2.html&ei=AkULQ9KJMcvKRaj2xZYB

Apart from being just a straight copy it is not a very good text to put here anyway – it’s an opinion of a journalist and cannot be said to be neutral, so I’ve removed it.


[edit] Picture used

Should we consider using a newer picture of an M5(does anyone here have one they can photograph?) because the one we have is harder to distinguish from other 80's BMW's than the modern M5 is from later models. Also having the "best" possible picture of the car we can get would help create a good impression of it. -- Faded_Mantis 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Brought the newer picture which includes the current M5 to the top. April 07, 2006 (Sahands)


[edit] inclusion of E12 M535i

I surfed in here wondering what Wikipedia had to say about the M5. I'm torn here as I do not necessarily want to elbow my way in to an M5 page but at the same time I get very upset that the E12 M535i is not given the proper respect that it deserves in BMW Motorsport's history. I was thinking of editing the main page and adding a prelude section to the M5's history noting that the E12 M535i was the first Motorsport sedan product built by BMW. This is an important bit of information as I see it because the idea for the E28 M5 did not simply come out of thin air in 1984. There was an established history of Motorsport modification of E12's which culminated in the official E12 M535i model in 1980 and 1981.

However, I realize the E12 M535i is *NOT* an M5 and should not be badged or represented as such. Some of the vin # plaques on later E12 M535i's built in 1981 did in fact list "M5" as the model, but that is merely an interesting anomoly.

I wondered what others would think of this. I think banishing the E12 M535i to its own wikipedia page diminishes its significance in the M5 chronology.

I did make an edit to the E34 M5 section as someone had a typo in the section about the 3.8 liter powerplant incorrectly listing it as the S38b36 engine not the S38b38.

For what its worth, my objectivity and knowledge of the subject matter comes from my ownership of E12 M535i chassis #18 and I also own an 8/93 build 3.8 liter E34 M5. Your comments are welcome, but please support your opinion with facts, not speculation about the E12 M535i. Telling me that because it doesn't say "BMW M Power" on the valve cover or some such nonsense it should be excluded will not win your argument. The Motorsport history and roots of this car are well proven so please don't come back with a response attacking its right to wear the M badge because I will be vigorous with my defense citing facts and history on this model. I just had to get that off my chest, thanks. Adam


It probably doesn't belong at the beginning of the article but I don't think anyone would have a problem with you adding a "heritage" or "trivia" section at the end and briefly describing the pre-M5 history of BMW Motorsports.--BHC 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please put this in the article! Very intersting.--Frank 14:00, 04 December 2006 (GMT)


[edit] New version of M5: NPOV

Innovations: M Sport automobiles have a renowned tradition of offering blistering performance and the comfort of a luxury sedan That's not exactly enyclopedic language and looks like it's bee lifted from a sales brochure Escaper7 08:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What about 2004 and 2005

It would be nice if there was a note on what went on in 2004 and 2005 - if E39 ceased 2003 and E60 started 2006. Were no M5's produced in 2004 and 2005? --Frank 14:00 04 December 2006 GMT

The E60 M5 was introduced in 2005 in Europe. For North America, it was in 2006. Therefore it was only a gap year.

[edit] Prices

I think the prices of this vheicles and all articles on vheicles should include prices (probably standard prices) for informational purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.212.234.49 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Interesting point. But there is a problem, cars in different markets have quite different basic specifications. The UK car for example comes with a lot of the optional equipment that North American owners pay extra for, the base price of course is higher.

Then there is the sales tax (VAT) question, do you include this. Prices in Denmark appear astronomical because of local taxes.

Anyone interested in pricing a car can go to the BMW company's website in that country and get the price. It is normally under the "Build your own BMW" heading, where you may add options to the base car and see the change in prices as you do this.

Price information is very subjective, varies by national market and in any case what currency would it be listed in? Not a good idea, and it's not the sort of information an encyclopaedia shuold be including. Escaper7 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E60 Transmission?

I'm wondering the neutrality of this part right here in the beginning of the E60 section

"The innovative gearbox is very responsive at the track, shifting very quickly, but for open-road driving, it's far from smooth, very jerky even in full automatic mode."

It's a bit of an ignorant statement as the car is meant to be driven as a manual, shift points and such. The computer isn't very intelligent on when to shift. On it being abrubt, Tiff Needell recommended being in S6 and lifting a slight bit when you shift which should make it a smooth shift.

On the manual section shouldn't it include the part of it being a half second slower 0 - 60 than the SMG? That is a huge difference. Also, the undefeatable DSC is to prevent drivers from destroying the rear end with wheel hop.

Another comparison between the 6speed M5 and the old E46 M3 is as follows M5: 13.0 @ 114 with 500 hp. M3: 13.0 @ 108 with 333 hp.

Car and Driver also says that the manual is 41 mph slower than the SMG.

I'm not going to add these in as I'm sure I am not neutral either, so I will just leave these bits of information here and if there is a place for them later, I'll put them in. Exproject 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, however I jumped in and edited the entry in my capacity as a daily E60 M5 driver, I have tried to give a balanced report on the SMG in practical use mainly written for folk who have not yet tried it for themselves. I also edited the M button notes as they were not quite correct.

[edit] E60 fuel economy vs. fuel tank size

While the car does have very low fuel economy (over ~20,000 miles I have averaged 11 miles/gallon US), the main gripe is really the small fuel tank size. Range is of course a function of economy and fuel quantity. While I can (somewhat) accept the low fuel efficiency (this is after all a very heavy very powerful sedan), I blame the short range (typically 170-185 miles for me) on an insufficiently sized fuel tank. Would any of this be appropriate to include in the article?