RE: 2025 BMW M5 prototype (G90) | PH Review

[dinkel]

GT9 said:

Quickmoose said:

I really don't see that as progress in any way at all. that's THREE tonnes of resource/material.

(...)
Fine, but let's cut the crap, it means a much higher lifetime carbon footprint than doing it without burning stuff.
Higher now, and even higher in the future.

Wait: where did all the ten year old EV cars go?

Coming from a dude driving a 2006 and a 2002 car... probably forever, because they are maintainable until the end of times.

And > in 1992 I said it: let's consume all the oil there is and take time to invent something better for the next leap in transportation.

What happened?

[BigChiefmuffinAgain]

For the price of one of these, you might as well buy a lightly used version of the now previous gen M5 CS. Far lighter, faster, better drive and will hold its value far, far better than this

[CLK-GTR]

GT9 said:

Every time I see this type of comment I wonder if I should point out (yet again) that, in this case, the previous M5 would require around 20 tons of petrol to cover 125,000 miles.
TWENTYYYY not THREEEEE!
How is it that we are so willing to overlook the cumulative mass of fossil fuel as if it's irrelevant?
Is it because inconvenient truths are not allowed on PH, or is it a genuine inability to understand how something accumulates?
And by the way, 20 tons of petrol = 60 tons of CO2 at the exhaust pipe.
Call it 80 tons once you factor in the fuel extraction and production process.
The simple fact of the matter is that 60-70 of those tons are simply excess CO2 due to waste heat in the car's engine or heat that is lost in producing the fuel.
Waste heat in our cars is likely to be the single biggest contributor to each of our carbon footprints, and yet we ignore it entirely.
Why?
Because kerb weight, because feel, because burble?
Fine, but let's cut the crap, it means a much higher lifetime carbon footprint than doing it without burning stuff.
Higher now, and even higher in the future.

Nobody is buying an M5 for any of that. It's a flagship product that will be sold in such small numbers as to make the environmental impact irrelevant. If you want green go and buy an i5. That's not what this is for.

[cidered77]

i know a lot of this is forced on OEMs by regulation, and targets. I also unlike your typical middle aged man cliche do happen to think "burning less energy" is a pretty good idea..... but despite all that, surely there is still some culpability on those OEMs for taking cars that should command absolute Athena-poster levels of desire to.... cars like these.

20 something me desperately wanted 40 something me be to be in a position to own an M5, because 20 something me had the B39 as his reference point.

40 something me would rather walk than welcome all 2.5 tons of this onto the drive.

I didn't stop loving cars, else I wouldn't be wasting my lunch break reading a car forum...!

[AMRicardo]

GT9 said:

Every time I see this type of comment I wonder if I should point out (yet again) that, in this case, the previous M5 would require around 20 tons of petrol to cover 125,000 miles.
TWENTYYYY not THREEEEE!
How is it that we are so willing to overlook the cumulative mass of fossil fuel as if it's irrelevant?
Is it because inconvenient truths are not allowed on PH, or is it a genuine inability to understand how something accumulates?
And by the way, 20 tons of petrol = 60 tons of CO2 at the exhaust pipe.
Call it 80 tons once you factor in the fuel extraction and production process.
The simple fact of the matter is that 60-70 of those tons are simply excess CO2 due to waste heat in the car's engine or heat that is lost in producing the fuel.
Waste heat in our cars is likely to be the single biggest contributor to each of our carbon footprints, and yet we ignore it entirely.
Why?
Because kerb weight, because feel, because burble?
Fine, but let's cut the crap, it means a much higher lifetime carbon footprint than doing it without burning stuff.
Higher now, and even higher in the future.

20 tons of carbon you say? Ok let me buy 20 tons of the UK ETS today for £45.70 a ton. That would be £914 for 125,000 miles. I drive around 12,500 miles a year so that’s £91.40 to offset that fuel each year for a decade.

Now I’d love to see the real full lifecycle emissions of this monstrosity. Both how much fuel it will actually save and the consumables it will use lugging that heft over those 125,000 miles and the carbon footprint of its manufacture. HPAL nickel from Indonesia, cobalt from the DRC, lithium spodumene from Chile all processed in China.

[Harry_523]

AMRicardo said:

20 tons of carbon you say? Ok let me buy 20 tons of the UK ETS today for £45.70 a ton. That would be £914 for 125,000 miles. I drive around 12,500 miles a year so that’s £91.40 to offset that fuel each year for a decade.

Now I’d love to see the real full lifecycle emissions of this monstrosity. Both how much fuel it will actually save and the consumables it will use lugging that heft over those 125,000 miles and the carbon footprint of its manufacture. HPAL nickel from Indonesia, cobalt from the DRC, lithium spodumene from Chile all processed in China.

There isnt a huge amount of data about Life cycle emissions from cars but volvo and polestar have some info.

For comparison,
Ice vs Bev XC40
to manufacture: 17 tonnes vs 25 tonnes, 4 tonnes of which is battery
To scrap: both 2 tonnes. Not sure what they assumed for battery disposal

so its quite likely a PHEV would offset its increase in embedded CO2 if recharged regularly

[WPA]

I know the M5 has always been understated but apart from the exhausts that just looks like a base 5 series.

Is it truly an M car. just seems too heavy and not special enough to me.

[GT9]

AMRicardo said:

20 tons of carbon you say? Ok let me buy 20 tons of the UK ETS today for £45.70 a ton. That would be £914 for 125,000 miles. I drive around 12,500 miles a year so that’s £91.40 to offset that fuel each year for a decade.

Now I’d love to see the real full lifecycle emissions of this monstrosity. Both how much fuel it will actually save and the consumables it will use lugging that heft over those 125,000 miles and the carbon footprint of its manufacture. HPAL nickel from Indonesia, cobalt from the DRC, lithium spodumene from Chile all processed in China.

Read it again.
20 tons of petrol.
80 tons of carbon.
I have to say though, if you can't really register the difference between 20 tons of carbon and 80 tons, what does that say about someone expressing strong opinions about environmental aspects?
You will never win the environmental argument for burning that amount of fossil fuel vs electric propulsion fed form a majority of renewable sources, over the same distance.
Vehicle/battery production included.
I actually agree that hybrids are, more often than not, the worst of both worlds, and I don't see this car having much relevance over the course of history.
What I'm a bit bored of is this fixation on kerb mass as if that's where it ends environmentally.
I'm sorry, but can't get all hot under the collar about minerals that are mined once and recycled for hundreds of years vs burning fuel.

[Nomme de Plum]

stuart100 said:

GT9 said:

Quickmoose said:

I really don't see that as progress in any way at all. that's THREE tonnes of resource/material.

Every time I see this type of comment I wonder if I should point out (yet again) that, in this case, the previous M5 would require around 20 tons of petrol to cover 125,000 miles.
TWENTYYYY not THREEEEE!
How is it that we are so willing to overlook the cumulative mass of fossil fuel as if it's irrelevant?
Is it because inconvenient truths are not allowed on PH, or is it a genuine inability to understand how something accumulates?
And by the way, 20 tons of petrol = 60 tons of CO2 at the exhaust pipe.
Call it 80 tons once you factor in the fuel extraction and production process.
The simple fact of the matter is that 60-70 of those tons are simply excess CO2 due to waste heat in the car's engine or heat that is lost in producing the fuel.
Waste heat in our cars is likely to be the single biggest contributor to each of our carbon footprints, and yet we ignore it entirely.
Why?
Because kerb weight, because feel, because burble?
Fine, but let's cut the crap, it means a much higher lifetime carbon footprint than doing it without burning stuff.
Higher now, and even higher in the future.

But burning petrol is our hobby? If you go on the Batteryheads.com website you will probably get a more receptive response.

If you want to be permitted to continue with your hobby I respectfully suggest you get fully on board with EVs for daily use which will allow continued use of classic and fun cars.

Of course if you are 50 or over it won’t matter anyway and you will be able to run ICEs for as long as you have a licence.

[GT9]

Harry_523 said:

There isn't a huge amount of data about Life cycle emissions from cars but volvo and polestar have some info.

Unless of course you know where to look...
Here is an example from BMW themselves.
https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites...
I could link to hundreds more of these, plus the UK Government's recent independent study for all powertrains and vehicle types used in the UK.
I won't do that though, for fear of being pigeon-holed as an ecoloon.

[Harry_523]

GT9 said:

Harry_523 said:

There isn't a huge amount of data about Life cycle emissions from cars but volvo and polestar have some info.

Unless of course you know where to look...
Here is an example from BMW themselves.
https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites...
I could link to hundreds more of these, plus the UK Government's recent independent study for all powertrains and vehicle types used in the UK.
I won't do that though, for fear of being pigeon-holed as an ecoloon.

I stand corrected! People on here can stop speculating now then and use actual data

[cerb4.5lee]

GT9 said:

I won't do that though, for fear of being pigeon-holed as an ecoloon.

I'd invite you around to mine for a pint, although the house has oil fired central heating, an open fire, plus a small coal burner and also a woodburner. You'd have an absolute meltdown I'd imagine!

Not to mention that I have 3 petrol cars and 1 diesel car as well.

I've already been on 2 abroad holidays this year, and 2 more are also booked for later in the year...I bet you hate me!!

[GT9]

cerb4.5lee said:

I'd invite you around to mine for a pint, although the house has oil fired central heating, an open fire, plus a small coal burner and also a woodburner. You'd have an absolute meltdown I'd imagine!

Not to mention that I have 3 petrol cars and 1 diesel car as well.

I've already been on 2 abroad holidays this year, and 2 more are also booked for later in the year...I bet you hate me!!

The only way I'm getting there is in one of my V8s.
We both want the same thing, to keep interesting petrol cars going forever, if possible.
Where we diverge is in how to achieve that.
I firmly believe that we will have to let out most of the bathwater to save the baby.
The M5 is a conundrum.
Yes, it really should be on the list of interesting petrol cars that get to stay in production.
There is not a lot I can do about it though.
This version sits on the fence, and despite the fact I actually like the way it looks, I won't ever love it like the previous versions.
I'm confident the next one, assuming it's pure EV, will be pretty special to drive, in its own way.

[CKY]

Nomme de Plum said:

If you want to be permitted to continue with your hobby I respectfully suggest you get fully on board with EVs for daily use which will allow continued use of classic and fun cars.

Of course if you are 50 or over it won’t matter anyway and you will be able to run ICEs for as long as you have a licence.

So, according to yourself, I should not walk to travel around my locale but should in fact go out and drop £300-600 per month on some electric white goods-mode of transport to save the planet? Hysterical!

I'll respectfully offer you to get in the bin along with your EVs, i'll keep my 6 pre-2005 cars (even the youngest of which has now been in use long enough to offset the average EV's lifetime emissions). As you suggest, being over-50 and burdened with a surplus of 'leisure time' I might go and get the E Type out in time for the rush hour, give the EV drivers a cloud of unburnt fuel and Castrol R to enjoy tasting on their drives home.

[cerb4.5lee]

GT9 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I'd invite you around to mine for a pint, although the house has oil fired central heating, an open fire, plus a small coal burner and also a woodburner. You'd have an absolute meltdown I'd imagine!

Not to mention that I have 3 petrol cars and 1 diesel car as well.

I've already been on 2 abroad holidays this year, and 2 more are also booked for later in the year...I bet you hate me!!

The only way I'm getting there is in one of my V8s.
We both want the same thing, to keep interesting petrol cars going forever, if possible.
Where we diverge is in how to achieve that.
I firmly believe that we will have to let out most of the bathwater to save the baby.
The M5 is a conundrum.
Yes, it really should be on the list of interesting petrol cars that get to stay in production.
There is not a lot I can do about it though.
This version sits on the fence, and despite the fact I actually like the way it looks, I won't ever love it like the previous versions.
I'm confident the next one, assuming it's pure EV, will be pretty special to drive, in its own way.

[honda_exige]

I think it would've garnered a lot more enthusiasm if they'd gone the Bugatti route.

Dump the Turbo's, shove a NA high revving V8 or V10 in there and use the weight saved by junking several hundred KGs of turbo, intercooler, coolant etc to have even bigger electric motors/battery for torque infill and even greater EV range but still ultimately come out with a more engaging car. The weight would be moved lower and more rearward and you have better handling to boot.

[GT9]

honda_exige said:

I think it would've garnered a lot more enthusiasm if they'd gone the Bugatti route.

Dump the Turbo's, shove a NA high revving V8 or V10 in there and use the weight saved by junking several hundred KGs of turbo, intercooler, coolant etc to have even bigger electric motors/battery for torque infill and even greater EV range but still ultimately come out with a more engaging car. The weight would be moved lower and more rearward and you have better handling to boot.

Now we are talking!
Unfortunately, I don't think we'd like the price they'd have to sell it at, unless it was a loss leader.
If it was up to me, I'd just ban forced induction on all new ICEs, including diesel.
That would allow N/A petrol ICEs to continue be built, with a mandatory minimum cylinder count for all new ICEs going forward.
What I think would happen is that the boring ICEs would die out naturally.
EVs would take over from the boring/diesel stuff and if someone really want a new 6/8/10/12/16 cylinder naturally-aspirated petrol ICE, they pay a premium for that.
Existing petrol cars continue along as normal, preserved by good maintenance from owners that want to keep them going.

[Terminator X]

GT9 said:

Harry_523 said:

There isn't a huge amount of data about Life cycle emissions from cars but volvo and polestar have some info.

Unless of course you know where to look...
Here is an example from BMW themselves.
https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites...
I could link to hundreds more of these, plus the UK Government's recent independent study for all powertrains and vehicle types used in the UK.
I won't do that though, for fear of being pigeon-holed as an ecoloon.

Too late

TX.

[stuart100]

Nomme de Plum said:

stuart100 said:

GT9 said:

Quickmoose said:

I really don't see that as progress in any way at all. that's THREE tonnes of resource/material.

Every time I see this type of comment I wonder if I should point out (yet again) that, in this case, the previous M5 would require around 20 tons of petrol to cover 125,000 miles.
TWENTYYYY not THREEEEE!
How is it that we are so willing to overlook the cumulative mass of fossil fuel as if it's irrelevant?
Is it because inconvenient truths are not allowed on PH, or is it a genuine inability to understand how something accumulates?
And by the way, 20 tons of petrol = 60 tons of CO2 at the exhaust pipe.
Call it 80 tons once you factor in the fuel extraction and production process.
The simple fact of the matter is that 60-70 of those tons are simply excess CO2 due to waste heat in the car's engine or heat that is lost in producing the fuel.
Waste heat in our cars is likely to be the single biggest contributor to each of our carbon footprints, and yet we ignore it entirely.
Why?
Because kerb weight, because feel, because burble?
Fine, but let's cut the crap, it means a much higher lifetime carbon footprint than doing it without burning stuff.
Higher now, and even higher in the future.

But burning petrol is our hobby? If you go on the Batteryheads.com website you will probably get a more receptive response.

If you want to be permitted to continue with your hobby I respectfully suggest you get fully on board with EVs for daily use which will allow continued use of classic and fun cars.

Of course if you are 50 or over it won’t matter anyway and you will be able to run ICEs for as long as you have a licence.

Thank you Nomme. I am not really sure we need to get on board with EVs. A lot of people aren't. Thankfully I am nearing 50 so I will continue with ICE for as long as possible.

[Nomme de Plum]

CKY said:

Nomme de Plum said:

If you want to be permitted to continue with your hobby I respectfully suggest you get fully on board with EVs for daily use which will allow continued use of classic and fun cars.

Of course if you are 50 or over it won’t matter anyway and you will be able to run ICEs for as long as you have a licence.

So, according to yourself, I should not walk to travel around my locale but should in fact go out and drop £300-600 per month on some electric white goods-mode of transport to save the planet? Hysterical!

I'll respectfully offer you to get in the bin along with your EVs, i'll keep my 6 pre-2005 cars (even the youngest of which has now been in use long enough to offset the average EV's lifetime emissions). As you suggest, being over-50 and burdened with a surplus of 'leisure time' I might go and get the E Type out in time for the rush hour, give the EV drivers a cloud of unburnt fuel and Castrol R to enjoy tasting on their drives home.

You seem not to comprehend what has already been decided and legislated. It is not going to change excepting Labour did intimate they may reinstate the 2030 date but suspect they will have their plate full so won’t.

As for your E type lovely though it maybe it is outperformed by any modern ICEs and now a few of the EVs available.

It is the future of day to day motoring whether you like it or not.

You can keep your old car btw until the government decides otherwise. As I said if you’re over 50 you can let this change pass you by.

BTW every day to day normal ICE is white goods bought by the millions of motorists that treat them as such.

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Wednesday 26th June 16:26