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

[Nomme de Plum]

stuart100 said:

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.

If the mandated EV sales percentages are achieved there will still only be 15.75M EVs in 2035 so less than 50%. It will take a further 8-10 years to reach 100%.

I would not be surprised to see the government reinstate the fuel escalator sometime post 2030 both to raise revenue and nudge people in the legislated direction.

[myhandle]

I see that in the BMW lucky dip grille choice they have gone with the weird melted black lump of the previous M5 Competition rather than the two much better alternatives, the traditional BMW grille of the previous M5 CS or the aggressive M3 style. Apart from that - why do they mess up the BMW grille on M5s and make them look like old Kias? - it’s probably great and still has a V8, so not much not to like.

[myhandle]

salmanorguk said:

This thing is so awful looking that for the same amount of money I'd much rather spend £3K on the, better looking, Lancia Thesis and the remaining £107k trying to shoehorn a Ferrari V8 into it.

Edited by salmanorguk on Wednesday 26th June 02:02

Thesis 8.39 Turbo, love it!

[Maccmike8]

Too much of everything. Weight, size, power.
Brings me back to a previous argument for investing in lightness and not EV. Benefits everywhere incl environmental.

[pcws1979]

The fad of every other new performance car being a PHEV is an annoying one, manufacturers are chasing easy ways to make more powerful cars whilst making them 10+% heavier. How much range do you have in full hybrid mode before you have drained the battery and are just relying on the combustion engine I wonder?

[emix]

Heavier, slower, uglier and more expensive? Not the most appealing proposition. I might have gotten over the heavier and slower if it at least looked right, but this generation of the 5 series looks terrible to me.

[Nomme de Plum]

Maccmike8 said:

Too much of everything. Weight, size, power.
Brings me back to a previous argument for investing in lightness and not EV. Benefits everywhere incl environmental.

Whilst lighter is better it does not automatically correlate to environmental benefits. That is a wishfull view not one based on engineering and science.

[pheonix478]

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.

I get what you're saying, especially in an era of kinetic energy recovery but the initial environmental 'cost' of production, exotic edge cases aside, is going to be quite well correlated to weight and that obviously forms a very significant proportion of the lifetime environmental impact.

[GT9]

pheonix478 said:

I get what you're saying, especially in an era of kinetic energy recovery but the initial environmental 'cost' of production, exotic edge cases aside, is going to be quite well correlated to weight and that obviously forms a very significant proportion of the lifetime environmental impact.

Sure, but it's the weight of what you cumulatively burn and not what you carry to burn it with that really matters.
If you can avoid burning, you avoid waste heat.
That fact never goes away.
As per my earlier post, waste heat, either in the production of fuel, or from the engine when you burn that fuel, or even from the friction brakes is contributing 4 out of every 5 tons of a conventional car's CO2 footprint during the usage phase.
Only the last ton is doing any useful work to accelerate the car, to keep pushing it through the air and to overcome rolling resistance of the tyres.
In that respect, about half goes to drag, and half goes to weight, so if the car is twice as heavy but half as draggy, it's a zero sum game.
Less draggy means less cooling apertures for waste heat...
Adding mass to the car to save many multiples of that mass outside the car is the unfortunate crux of the scientific argument.
The planet wins, the driver doesn't like it.
Unless of course they can learn to live with the different taste of cheese after it has been moved.

[Nomme de Plum]

pheonix478 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.

I get what you're saying, especially in an era of kinetic energy recovery but the initial environmental 'cost' of production, exotic edge cases aside, is going to be quite well correlated to weight and that obviously forms a very significant proportion of the lifetime environmental impact.

Yes but the EV is still much better over its lifetime and this advantage only gets better as we decarbonise our energy production.

The details have been published on this forum numerous times and explained by those that work and have real expertise in the field.

I must admit I don't really get the hybrid thing for this M5 and IMO they would have been better to stick with pure ICE until ready with a bespoke design EV version in say 3-5years time. Having said that the only 5 I owned was a diesel touring about 15 years ago.

[Forester1965]

Just a parody of itself now. Would rather have an E34 and the change in the bank.

[VR6 Eug]

In times of BMW mingers, that's really good butch looking car, but 2.4 tons is to heavy to be a proper drivers car.

[Magikarp]

Or just get a proper bloody hobby and not waste your time mithering on a website “winning” arguments.

[Clivey]

Magikarp said:

Or just get a proper bloody hobby and not waste your time mithering on a website “winning” arguments.

[Murph7355]

pcws1979 said:

The fad of every other new performance car being a PHEV is an annoying one, manufacturers are chasing easy ways to make more powerful cars whilst making them 10+% heavier. How much range do you have in full hybrid mode before you have drained the battery and are just relying on the combustion engine I wonder?

Doesn't the article says BMW reckon 40-45 miles? Which probably means 35ish in real life.

PHEVs are the worst of all worlds unless your daily use is comfortably covered by the real life range AND you need to tow they just add weight with no real benefit.

[Yomamaisasnowblower]

cidered77 said:

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...!

This comment totally nailed it for me. Being in the same age range I grew up with posters of the E28, E34, E39 and even the E60 dreaming one day I'll own the latest version which would probably be even more epic. Fast forward 20 odd years and I am just not interested - fat, ugly and totally lacking character. Might need to buy the F90 whilst I still can. Gutting.

[FiveHundredBHP]

The M5 team must be embarassed by this. 2.4 tonnes is just ludicrous. A triumph of Top Trumps design-mentality over common sense and good taste.

[Terminator X]

Nomme de Plum said:

stuart100 said:

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.

If the mandated EV sales percentages are achieved there will still only be 15.75M EVs in 2035 so less than 50%. It will take a further 8-10 years to reach 100%.

I would not be surprised to see the government reinstate the fuel escalator sometime post 2030 both to raise revenue and nudge people in the legislated direction.

Lol tax possibly the poorest in the land, no chance.

TX.

[CG2020UK]

Murph7355 said:

PHEVs are the worst of all worlds unless your daily use is comfortably covered by the real life range AND you need to tow they just add weight with no real benefit.

Personally find it the best of both worlds.

No lifestyle change required and you get the benefit of both.

For daily driving which is what PHEV and EV do I’d be a lot more concerned about aerodynamics than weight. However a PHEV should still typically be lighter anyhow between comparable cars eg: 330e PHEV 1895kg vs I4 EV 2125kg. XC90 PHEV 2297kg vs EX90 EV 2779kg.

PHEV is great for daily drivers as you get more power, cheaper mileage costs, can preheat, charge at home and no range issues. People also seem to be choosing EVs at quite the rate compared to EV.

[mclwanB]

Schermerhorn said:

Unlikely we will see a similar jump for the next generation

The footprint will stay the same and battery capacity and size will probably improve. The F10 > F90 > G90 aren't that far apart in size. Similar to the VW Golf Mk5 to current Mk8 Golf....

The only way it jumps massively in kerb is if it goes totally electric and promises a mega range.

Might have been some sarcasm in the original comment.

A 500kg jump in a generation must be a world record, at least for a non SUV...