BMW M5
29 March 2010, 10:03 PM
#31
I suppose being a 10 cylinder, high revving engine in a heavy car it was never going to be a paragon of economy, lot of internal friction I would imagine compared to a turbo six like the Porsche and with its torque being deliver comparatively high up the rev range, coupled with an F1 style engine note I suspect it encourages you to use some revs and doresnt encourage wafting like forced induction engines.
Might all be ballcocks that, just my interpretation of why it has such epically tragic economy, even by 500 bhp standards.
Might all be ballcocks that, just my interpretation of why it has such epically tragic economy, even by 500 bhp standards.
29 March 2010, 10:27 PM
#32
29 March 2010, 10:51 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: South London
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't see the point of driving big engined performance cars around town any more. Country lanes is where there should be driven, or track.
29 March 2010, 11:19 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: East london.....with my head under my bonnet.
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most M5 owners aren't that hard up surely?! Or do you mean just in general mate? (scoobys. evo's. etc)
Most M5's that roll in to my workshop, have owners that, when you ring them to say the need new discs, pads, rear tyres @ £2500 all in, just say "yeah, no problem." without batting an eyelid!
That sort of money makes my bum hole squeeze up just thinking about it!!
Most M5's that roll in to my workshop, have owners that, when you ring them to say the need new discs, pads, rear tyres @ £2500 all in, just say "yeah, no problem." without batting an eyelid!
That sort of money makes my bum hole squeeze up just thinking about it!!
30 March 2010, 07:19 AM
#39
Most M5 owners aren't that hard up surely?! Or do you mean just in general mate? (scoobys. evo's. etc)
Most M5's that roll in to my workshop, have owners that, when you ring them to say the need new discs, pads, rear tyres @ £2500 all in, just say "yeah, no problem." without batting an eyelid!
Most M5's that roll in to my workshop, have owners that, when you ring them to say the need new discs, pads, rear tyres @ £2500 all in, just say "yeah, no problem." without batting an eyelid!
Like I've said "if you can run one, get one "....you only live once(that goes for GT3s, Lambos, Ferraris etc etc )
I would buy another one without batting an eye lid, but the new f10 M5 is so 7 series in shapewise.....not really warming to its , so i change to the E90 M3(regrated its after a week ...really missed my M5 ) .
i was even thinking of p/xing my M3 for a 1 year old M5 as Bmw has stopped production of the e60 M5 .
oh yes its will get 25-26 mpg on motorway run( but only if to stick to the speed limits
)
Last edited by bighead; 30 March 2010 at 07:22 AM.
30 March 2010, 08:35 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as mentioned, surely it's the range that's a killer rather than the cost? I know a few people not short of a bob or two who avoid mega thirsty/small fuel tank cars because it seriously slows them down stopping all the time for fuel. And to me, the M5 is a long distance cruiser as well as back road blaster.
Would still love an M5 Touring but my fuel bill would triple!
Would still love an M5 Touring but my fuel bill would triple!
30 March 2010, 08:38 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: South London
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very true ....or they won't be M5 owners for long
Like I've said "if you can run one, get one "....you only live once(that goes for GT3s, Lambos, Ferraris etc etc )
I would buy another one without batting an eye lid, but the new f10 M5 is so 7 series in shapewise.....not really warming to its , so i change to the E90 M3(regrated its after a week ...really missed my M5 ) .
i was even thinking of p/xing my M3 for a 1 year old M5 as Bmw has stopped production of the e60 M5 .
oh yes its will get 25-26 mpg on motorway run( but only if to stick to the speed limits )
Like I've said "if you can run one, get one "....you only live once(that goes for GT3s, Lambos, Ferraris etc etc )
I would buy another one without batting an eye lid, but the new f10 M5 is so 7 series in shapewise.....not really warming to its , so i change to the E90 M3(regrated its after a week ...really missed my M5 ) .
i was even thinking of p/xing my M3 for a 1 year old M5 as Bmw has stopped production of the e60 M5 .
oh yes its will get 25-26 mpg on motorway run( but only if to stick to the speed limits
)
30 March 2010, 08:56 AM
#43
But as mentioned, surely it's the range that's a killer rather than the cost? I know a few people not short of a bob or two who avoid mega thirsty/small fuel tank cars because it seriously slows them down stopping all the time for fuel. And to me, the M5 is a long distance cruiser as well as back road blaster.
Would still love an M5 Touring but my fuel bill would triple!
Would still love an M5 Touring but my fuel bill would triple!
30 March 2010, 09:55 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Mattee is quite right, the touring range of the car is poor, its one of the cars achilles heels. I feel like I'm forever at the pumps. I have never really seen 25mpg even on the motorway. It can just be done with a rock steady 80mph cruise. The thing is its on the motorway this thing really comes alive in terms of its power, after being stuck in town traffic 80% of the time if I'm on the motorway the temptation to give it some welly is too great.
This is one of those cars that feels as though it would accelerate just as fast from 60-120mph as it does from 0-60mph, there is no let up.
TX, I don't think peeps are selling up because of the fuel as such, people will be selling as those who bought early are getting bored and want something new. I'd quite like a change but after the M5 its difficult to find something that will replace it.
In an ideal world I'd have a BMW 740d for the family stuff and a 997tt for myself, but that ain't going to happen!
This is one of those cars that feels as though it would accelerate just as fast from 60-120mph as it does from 0-60mph, there is no let up.
TX, I don't think peeps are selling up because of the fuel as such, people will be selling as those who bought early are getting bored and want something new. I'd quite like a change but after the M5 its difficult to find something that will replace it.
In an ideal world I'd have a BMW 740d for the family stuff and a 997tt for myself, but that ain't going to happen!
30 March 2010, 10:57 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do Audi not make something equally fast that's better on fuel? I am surprised that with all the technology that the M5 is so poor on fuel?
i.e. variable cams, ( and I assume direct injection) and potential for long gears with the 7 speed?
I guess being heavy too doesnt help as J4acko says.
i.e. variable cams, ( and I assume direct injection) and potential for long gears with the 7 speed?
I guess being heavy too doesnt help as J4acko says.
Last edited by skinters; 30 March 2010 at 10:58 AM.
30 March 2010, 11:38 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'll stick with the old 'tinkered' saab 9k (pretending I even have the option) 60-100mph is quicker than the M5 and it still does 31mpg.
(of course if I had the money, I'd have the M5 in a heartbeat - epic car)
And yes - I see that the RS6 is just a monster in every way- including weight. So no better there. And the RS4 is a league below the M5.
(of course if I had the money, I'd have the M5 in a heartbeat - epic car)
And yes - I see that the RS6 is just a monster in every way- including weight. So no better there. And the RS4 is a league below the M5.
30 March 2010, 11:38 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key is lightness...
...you can have car of similar or better pace that will give 28mpg on the motorway and an average of 22mpg overall.
No extra weight and no extra frictional losses due to superfluous four wheel drive
...you can have car of similar or better pace that will give 28mpg on the motorway and an average of 22mpg overall.
No extra weight and no extra frictional losses due to superfluous four wheel drive
30 March 2010, 12:17 PM
#52
I know a guy who had an M6 for three years, loved it and was sorry to see it go but doesnt miss the fuel bills and was glad to part company with his licence intact, such was the performance, even with restraint, now to be see in a Copper S and very happy with it, it does things the BMW couldnt, sometimes it isnt always better/worse, just different that floats your boat.
30 March 2010, 01:05 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: South London
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see your point but I dont see the M5 as a weekend toy really, wonderful though it is I think if I had another car the weekend one wouldnt be a 5 series of any description.
I know a guy who had an M6 for three years, loved it and was sorry to see it go but doesnt miss the fuel bills and was glad to part company with his licence intact, such was the performance, even with restraint, now to be see in a Copper S and very happy with it, it does things the BMW couldnt, sometimes it isnt always better/worse, just different that floats your boat.
I know a guy who had an M6 for three years, loved it and was sorry to see it go but doesnt miss the fuel bills and was glad to part company with his licence intact, such was the performance, even with restraint, now to be see in a Copper S and very happy with it, it does things the BMW couldnt, sometimes it isnt always better/worse, just different that floats your boat.
I use a Suzuki Swift Sport as my daily driver...
30 March 2010, 07:28 PM
#57
the RS6 is thirstier than the M5......my business partner's sister has a 08 plate , she says the M5 is a better car , but Audi has better build quality, a bigger poke than the M5, then the m5 handling better then the RS6, but if you "chip" the RS6 its will become a monster of a car , to do that to an M5 , its will cost £30k plus , the yanks are big on modiflying the M5, not so much so in UK 
30 March 2010, 10:39 PM
#58
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do 1500m a month (must be the average) then at 9mpg & £1.23 a litre (£5.58 a gallon), it'll cost you (167g x £5.58) £930 p/m ... affordable 
TX.
TX.
But as mentioned, surely it's the range that's a killer rather than the cost? I know a few people not short of a bob or two who avoid mega thirsty/small fuel tank cars because it seriously slows them down stopping all the time for fuel. And to me, the M5 is a long distance cruiser as well as back road blaster.
Would still love an M5 Touring but my fuel bill would triple!
Would still love an M5 Touring but my fuel bill would triple!
Last edited by Terminator X; 31 March 2010 at 12:18 AM. Reason: typo
31 March 2010, 10:10 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
weight makes v little difference in motorway driving -- it is mainly drag (mechanical and aerodynamic) that affects mpg when cruising (not in a ghey way btw)