RE: 2025 BMW M5 prototype (G90) | PH Review
Discussion
Angelo1985 said:
I must be the only guy here, who doesn’t want an M car or an AMG.
I want a BMW or a Mercedes. I’m sure you know what I mean. What do you guys think?
Definitely with you on that.I want a BMW or a Mercedes. I’m sure you know what I mean. What do you guys think?
But pretty much every BMW has “M Sport” in its trim level now, just like every Merc has “AMG” in its trim name.
Sporty means status. Big wheels, big <insert your own measure of social/personal status>.
Based on the pictures I’ve seen of the Touring and also the look and data relating to this saloon, I can safely say that I’ve had my last 5 Touring-shaped car. I’m on my 4th and I can honestly say that I’ve found each one attractive in its own way. This one holds no desirability whatsoever.
Grace and elegance has pretty much disappeared from car design, and there’s definitely none here. I get that I am no longer BMW’s target market now that they fully own Alpina (or any day now) and I’m not that old really, but has design demand really moved so far towards this sort of thing in a relatively short time?
And, to repeat many others, the weight of this boggles the mind. Is it really an SUV disguised as an estate?
And, what will the next B5 (And Touring) look like assuming that it will be based on this?
Grace and elegance has pretty much disappeared from car design, and there’s definitely none here. I get that I am no longer BMW’s target market now that they fully own Alpina (or any day now) and I’m not that old really, but has design demand really moved so far towards this sort of thing in a relatively short time?
And, to repeat many others, the weight of this boggles the mind. Is it really an SUV disguised as an estate?
And, what will the next B5 (And Touring) look like assuming that it will be based on this?
Nomme de Plum said:
Whilst lighter is better it does not automatically correlate to environmental benefits. That is a wishfull view not one based on engineering and science.
less weight =>- less road destruction
- less tyre particulate emission
- less resources to build and repair
are these not automatic or not scientific in your view
Amanitin said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Whilst lighter is better it does not automatically correlate to environmental benefits. That is a wishfull view not one based on engineering and science.
less weight =>- less road destruction
- less tyre particulate emission
- less resources to build and repair
are these not automatic or not scientific in your view
The details have already been published in these threads by real experts. They make for an interesting and clear cut read if you so wish.
GT9 said:
Almost as bad as the gobby diesel drivers, what the hell are they doing here, petrolheads only!
PistonHeads. Clue's in the name.(Rotary engine enthusiasts also tolerated, as they don't tend to be sanctimonious philistines.
)Honestly, we've even got somebody here admitting that one of the next "steps" in their grand design is forcing us to eat a more plant-based diet. What's next when it turns-out that's not enough to make Climate Communism a success?
Amanitin said:
less weight =>
- less road destruction
- less tyre particulate emission
- less resources to build and repair
are these not automatic or not scientific in your view
The topic of kerb mass vs road/tyre wear has been covered multiple times on multiple threads.- less road destruction
- less tyre particulate emission
- less resources to build and repair
are these not automatic or not scientific in your view
There are scientific relationships between the two that allow a degree of mathematical analysis of 'how much better' not just 'it must be better'.
To cut a long story short, the status quo is that HGVs and buses contribute a notional 99% of road damage and ICE cars 1%.
If all ICEs are replaced overnight with 20% heavier EVs, it becomes something like 98% vs 2%.
Practically speaking, if the transition from ICE to EV takes 25 years, and over that time the kerb mass difference is eroded by improvements to vehicle design and battery energy density, then to all intents, it is a negligible effect.
Far greater is the effect of climate change on the state of the roads, but you simply can't say that, because it kicks off a whole argument in a different direction.
As for tyre wear, the jury is still out, the Daily Mail is adamant it's worse, so is the Telegraph.
On the other hand, the large fleet operators in the UK are currently saying they have yet to see any difference with the hundreds of thousands of EVs already in use.
Who to believe?
Resources vs carbon footprint.
Here, it gets far more complex and yet we always end up with these implied or explicit claims that only kerb mass counts.
What about oil exploration and refining, what about water consumption, what about mining, what about minerals extraction, what about this, what about that.
Hardly ever does anyone register that energy is as important as mass when trying to assess global impacts of transportation.
The entire premise of electrification is to shift the balance of BOTH mass and energy consumption, at a system or planetary level, not at vehicle kerb mass level, in favour of the environment.
Unless one does this sort of thing for a living, how on earth are you going to KNOW the answer to such complexities.
Is it by becoming an expert from watching YouTube?
Is it by reading your choice of media?
That said, very few posters seem to think that a heavy hybrid is the way forward and I personally would agree with that. Either stick with petrol and keep it light or go the full EV route where kerb mass is less important at the system level. To balance up the population of cars on the road (petrol vs EV) in a meaningful timeframe, is going to require some intervention though.
The only workable intervention possible is to mandate what happens to newly manufactured cars.
Amanitin said:
less weight =>
- less road destruction
...
You'd think so, certainly in the context of HGV's this is true, but cars, not so much. Cars, despite vastly outnumbering HGV's inflict a tiny, tiny percentage of the damage to roads. Apparently the greatest impact on road surfaces is caused by the impact of gear changes... which of course EV's for the most part don't have.- less road destruction
...
pheonix478 said:
Amanitin said:
less weight =>
- less road destruction
...
You'd think so, certainly in the context of HGV's this is true, but cars, not so much. Cars, despite vastly outnumbering HGV's inflict a tiny, tiny percentage of the damage to roads. Apparently the greatest impact on road surfaces is caused by the impact of gear changes... which of course EV's for the most part don't have.- less road destruction
...
Amanitin said:
I don't dispute any of that.
However the original claim as quoted above was that lower weight brings no environmental benefits at all.
which is not true.
yes it may be a smallish number relative to a hgw or cumulative life cycle emissions.
But that's not the same statement.
Earlier M5s were lighter but much worse for the environment due to the levels of pollution emitted from the exhaust so my original statement remains true However the original claim as quoted above was that lower weight brings no environmental benefits at all.
which is not true.
yes it may be a smallish number relative to a hgw or cumulative life cycle emissions.
But that's not the same statement.
Nomme de Plum said:
Amanitin said:
I don't dispute any of that.
However the original claim as quoted above was that lower weight brings no environmental benefits at all.
which is not true.
yes it may be a smallish number relative to a hgw or cumulative life cycle emissions.
But that's not the same statement.
Earlier M5s were lighter but much worse for the environment due to the levels of pollution emitted from the exhaust so my original statement remains true However the original claim as quoted above was that lower weight brings no environmental benefits at all.
which is not true.
yes it may be a smallish number relative to a hgw or cumulative life cycle emissions.
But that's not the same statement.
TX.
Terminator X said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Amanitin said:
I don't dispute any of that.
However the original claim as quoted above was that lower weight brings no environmental benefits at all.
which is not true.
yes it may be a smallish number relative to a hgw or cumulative life cycle emissions.
But that's not the same statement.
Earlier M5s were lighter but much worse for the environment due to the levels of pollution emitted from the exhaust so my original statement remains true However the original claim as quoted above was that lower weight brings no environmental benefits at all.
which is not true.
yes it may be a smallish number relative to a hgw or cumulative life cycle emissions.
But that's not the same statement.
TX.
CG2020UK said:
stuart100 said:
I have read people with hybrid BMWs (for e.g. a 530e) that regretted it. They felt their weight and the battery didn't hold its charge well. So the ICE wound up carting around the heavy mass of the non-functioning hybrid system.
Most modern PHEVs will always hold full power in the battery so you always have power if you need it so in that regard you aren’t carting anything about. Especially when you have already saved on your cost per mile that ICE can’t get close to.Typically PHEVs are also lighter than the manufacturers comparable full EV option eg: 330e PHEV 1895kg vs I4 EV 2125kg. XC90 PHEV 2297kg vs EX90 EV 2779kg.
Pointless in an M5 or performance car but for a daily driver they are perfect. Especially the very latest eg: new 330e with 50mile battery.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff