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

[SmithCorona]

I'm not sure. The current X5M is great but doesn't feel as triumphant an engineering project as the previous gens. Certainly not as engaging, though entirely capable.

I don't anticipate the future one feeling anything more than a very competent and fast SUV, almost like it's powered by a gas turbine.

I'm happy with my fully specced F90 LCI, which should last me ten years. But this is the end of the M magic, and the AMG magic, all of the magic, really. The end of a family car being engineered into a genuine halo car. Future generations won't ever experiance the same lust that we grew up with for these models, which is rooted back in the prohibition era.

[CG2020UK]

survivalist said:

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.

The main cost on a car like this will be depreciation. The cost savings offered by running on electric vs petrol are negligible.

All cars depreciate. Just because you lose money on depreciation I don’t see why you wouldn’t try and limit losing money another way.

You are probably looking at your mileage costs being 30% less with PHEV vs ICE based on my experience. Be the difference between this being the per mile equivalent of a 20mpg car or 60mpg car long term. Could get more difference if you went a proper EV tariff.

In the real world that’s the difference for me personally of me spending my current £210 a month on fuel or dropping to £70. Certainly not negligible saving £140 a month. On £100k it’s basically just short of a 2.5% free pay bump. Or pays my gym membership for the month.

Think of it this way if it was your mortage and you had a choice between paying an extra £140 a month on interest or not what would you do.

[Terminator X]

Hybrid system is 900 pounds weight.

TX.

[raspy]

Terminator X said:

Hybrid system is 900 pounds weight.

TX.

WHERE the extra weight gets placed is crucial ->

"'A totally electric M5 would have been weighty. But the new M5 is hugely heavy anyway: at 2,435kg for the saloon it’s in the ballpark of Bentleys and Range Rovers. Is van Meel worried by the bloat?

'For us, it makes sense to ‘go the whole way’ and get the full advantage [of electrification] rather than accept setbacks. 'Yes the [PHEV] system adds 400kg of weight, but a normal hybrid system already adds 150-200kg.

'We wrote down the consequences of the weight and worked out where we need to be to have a different window of performance,' he said. 'In motor racing, ballast is added to the floor of the car [to even up] balance of performance. That’s where we added our ‘ballast’ – the battery is in the floor with a lower centre of gravity [than the previous M5].'"

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/tech/new-bmw-m5-m...

[DMZ]

Well… there are a good few examples of recent high performance hybrids that didn’t add much weight, more like 50kg. Like the new 911.

BMW probably has other constraints like wanting to reuse as much as possible so bolting a V8 onto an existing hybrid setup is the way to go but I doubt it was an engineering driven decision. They also had to start with an already bloated car that is designed to be an EV so makes sense to roll with it.

[GT9]

DMZ said:

Well… there are a good few examples of recent high performance hybrids that didn’t add much weight, more like 50kg. Like the new 911.

BMW probably has other constraints like wanting to reuse as much as possible so bolting a V8 onto an existing hybrid setup is the way to go but I doubt it was an engineering driven decision. They also had to start with an already bloated car that is designed to be an EV so makes sense to roll with it.

The short longitudinal dimension of the V8 helps.
If the car can put in a respectable 'ring lap and the WLTP numbers are where they need to be, they'll most likely sell all the cars they can make and job's a good'un.

[Penguinracer]

So where do we think is the sweet spot in the M5's evolution?

(1) E28;
(2) E34;
(3) E39;
(4) E60;
(5) F10;
(6) F90;
(7) G90

The journalists often choose the E39 - not oot heavy, last manual & 400 bhp V8 with decent torque (368 lb/ft).
The E28 was the first and by far the lights (1410 kg).
The E34 was the last hand-built M5 , the last 6-cylinder and the one for which I have a soft spot.

[rottenegg]

2.5 tonnes, wowzers

Does make you wonder how much of that weight is the body shell and comfort orientated frippery given Bugatti's Tourbillon is 2 tonnes with a V16, 3 motors and a battery. I'm sure BMW must have the money to make a saloon version of the i8 to keep the weight down.

Penguinracer said:

So where do we think is the sweet spot in the M5's evolution?

(1) E28;
(2) E34;
(3) E39;
(4) E60;
(5) F10;
(6) F90;
(7) G90

The journalists often choose the E39 - not oot heavy, last manual & 400 bhp V8 with decent torque (368 lb/ft).
The E28 was the first and by far the lights (1410 kg).
The E34 was the last hand-built M5 , the last 6-cylinder and the one for which I have a soft spot.

E39 for me. That and the E46 M3 CSL are the most proportionally and visually perfect M cars ever made, in my humble one.

I would probably have to have an E60 as well for that amazing engine, but it would be the ugly duckling weekend only car.

[Penguinracer]

The weight of the G90 must be raising a few eyebrows.

If we're trying to move to more efficient transport you'd think weight saving would be a good place to start.

I suppose it's too expensive to dramatically decrease weight and still meet current safety legislation.

I think we're living in a weird era...we're all concerned about emissions & efficiency but are running around in 3 ton 700 bhp SUV's - something about this just doesn't make sense...even for a performance car enthusiast.

It's as if with the EV legislation & fleet emissions requirements the EU & govt authorities are saying...if it's EV, the dinner bill is on me...and the manufacturers are ordering the lobster!

[GT9]

Penguinracer said:

The weight of the G90 must be raising a few eyebrows.

If we're trying to move to more efficient transport you'd think weight saving would be a good place to start.

I suppose it's too expensive to dramatically decrease weight and still meet current safety legislation.

I think we're living in a weird era...we're all concerned about emissions & efficiency but are running around in 3 ton 700 bhp SUV's - something about this just doesn't make sense...even for a performance car enthusiast.

It's as if with the EV legislation & fleet emissions requirements the EU & govt authorities are saying...if it's EV, the dinner bill is on me...and the manufacturers are ordering the lobster!

Well ok, if you insist.

The very first thing you will have to do though is go to church, go to the witchdoctor, go to whomever you can to help cure this fixation on kerb mass.

After that, produce the same graphic as per earlier in the thread, but instead of kerb mass, plot the history of the M5 and the mpg values.

Mpg and lifetime carbon footprint are far, far more closely aligned than kerb mass.

You will of course have to wait for the G90's value, but I can guarantee it will be higher than the c. 25 mpg of the F90.

Sure, someone will be along straight away to claim a higher value for the F90.

I'm talking about real world averages, actual, independently measured mpg.

Now, this is where it needs a little foresight to predict what the first pure EV M5 will achieve.

Luckily we can use the i5 as a yardstick.

The i5 consistently delivers well over 100 mpg, regardless of how you drive it.

This is an equivalent tank to wheel efficiency, referencing the energy stored in petrol vs the energy stored in the battery.

It's actually up to 150 mpg in some cases.

Sure, in winter, it drops, but that's hardly a strong argument when the improvement in economy is so massively improved when the engine is ditched altogether.

A sacrilegious statement no doubt, but, hey, at some point telling it like it is becomes necessary.

OK, so what's the catch.

Surely the battery production footprint is a massive problem...

And what about all the fossil fuel used to produce the electricity to charge it...

True, both of those things need to be accounted for.

And they definitely have, which is all described in lovely detail in the link I posted earlier, here it is again.

https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites...

Look at figure 4, showing lifetime the carbon footprint comparisons, and by the way, the UK's electricity mix already sits between the EU28 mix and the 'net zero' footprint shown in green, which is almost horizontal during the usage phase.

And that's comparing a 520i with the EV, not an M5...

One of the really attractive things about EVs is that pushing the performance up is more a matter of production cost than mpg cost.

Try as we might, that will never be the case for cars with engines.

With the 'net zero' mix for electricity, you could drive your M5 as fast as you like and as far as you like, and guess what, the carbon footprint will be about the same as a librarian in their base-spec non M-Sport i5 on 16 inch wheels, driving it 1000 miles a year.

Maybe a tiny bit more for the monster wheels that will be on the first pure EV M5.

Now come on, that has to be music to a speed freak's ears.

[howardhughes]

E28, E34, E39. The Zenith of the M5. Nothing will ever come close. Not even a 4000hp electric M5

[SmithCorona]

howardhughes said:

E28, E34, E39. The Zenith of the M5. Nothing will ever come close. Not even a 4000hp electric M5

There has never been a "bad" M5. From my limited experience with an E34, it's fine, but not great, same with the E60.

Of course, the E39 is peak - style and feel. But the F90 is by far the most impressive and capable. I do think the G90 will be an excellent car, not that I have any desire for one.

Perversely, my favourite is the F10.

[Terminator X]

@GT9 how do they / you work out mpg for an EV as it doesn't have any gallons?

TX.

[GT9]

Terminator X said:

@GT9 how do they / you work out mpg for an EV as it doesn't have any gallons?

TX.

It's a comparison of the energy stored in the petrol and the energy stored in the battery.
Energy = power x time.
Energy is measured in Joules or in the case of a battery, kWh.
3.6 MJ = 1 kWh.
Petrol contains around 33 MJ per litre or just over 9 kWh, convert that to imperial gallons and it's about 42 kWh per gallon.
As you probably know, EV efficiency is measured in miles per kWh.
42 mpg is therefore about the same as 1 mile per kWh when comparing an EV to a petrol car.
Most people round it to 40 mpg as that's the correct comparison for diesel, and to all intents, it is diesel cars that are mostly being replaced by EVs at this stage.
That's for the tank-to-wheel comparison (TTW).
There is of course the well-to-tank component as well (WTT).
To include that, petrol consumption increases by about 25% and the EV consumption of fossil fuel is captured by looking at the grid's carbon intensity, which accounts for all fossil fuel used to produce the electricity, including the WTT component.

If an EV is getting 3 miles per kWh, as many do, then that's a nominal 120 mpg.

I apologise if it's an overly complicated description, and I also realise there is suspicion from some that there is a hidden fossil fuel cost to EVs that these comparisons ignore.

What I can say is that this topic is incredibly heavily scrutinised by all vested interests, and has been for, literally, decades.
I can't find the smoking gun, as long as the battery's production footprint is included, then the EV numbers are good.
Here is an example for the i5, if you scroll down to the Energy Consumption section, you will see a description of 'vehicle fuel equivalent', for this car it says 154 mpg.

https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1906/BMW-i5-eDrive4...

A separate way to look at is to calculate the kWh content of a typical fuel tank when it's full, I think it's 68 litres on the F90 M5.
That's over 600 kWh.
Compare that to the i5's battery of just over 80 kWh capacity and what we have is a petrol car that uses many more times as much energy to travel not a lot further than the EV, at least in summer.

Which makes the electric car say 4 to 6 times more efficient TTW than previous F90 M5, and therefore its mpg equivalent is 4 to 6 times higher.
What we don't yet know is what a pure EV M5 will achieve in terms of equivalent mpg, I don't thank it's going to be quite as good as an i5 40, but it won't be that far off.
This is the thing I was trying to convey earlier, adding performance to an ICE means a bigger engine and a permanent substantial drop in mpg.
When you added more power to an EV, and the battery size remains the same, there is very little drop in equivalent mpg for the more powerful car if driven in the same way as the less powerful variant.
Only if you start spanking the car, will you see an impact on range.
Basically with EV, you can have cake and eat it, which is a bitter pill to swallow for ICE diehards, including me.
It's just that I got past that a long time ago.

Edited to add the i5 M60's info:
https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1907/BMW-i5-M60-xDr...

Equivalent mpg drops from 154 mpg to 141 mpg, yet the power rating has increased from 335 bhp to 593 bhp...

Edited by GT9 on Sunday 30th June 08:29

[CG2020UK]

GT9 said:

It's a comparison of the energy stored in the petrol and the energy stored in the battery.
Energy = power x time.
Energy is measured in Joules or in the case of a battery, kWh.
3.6 MJ = 1 kWh.
Petrol contains around 33 MJ per litre or just over 9 kWh, convert that to imperial gallons and it's about 42 kWh per gallon.
As you probably know, EV efficiency is measured in miles per kWh.
42 mpg is therefore about the same as 1 mile per kWh when comparing an EV to a petrol car.
Most people round it to 40 mpg as that's the correct comparison for diesel, and to all intents, it is diesel cars that are mostly being replaced by EVs at this stage.
That's for the tank-to-wheel comparison (TTW).
There is of course the well-to-tank component as well (WTT).
To include that, petrol consumption increases by about 25% and the EV consumption of fossil fuel is captured by looking at the grid's carbon intensity, which accounts for all fossil fuel used to produce the electricity, including the WTT component.

If an EV is getting 3 miles per kWh, as many do, then that's a nominal 120 mpg.

I apologise if it's an overly complicated description, and I also realise there is suspicion from some that there is a hidden fossil fuel cost to EVs that these comparisons ignore.

What I can say is that this topic is incredibly heavily scrutinised by all vested interests, and has been for, literally, decades.
I can't find the smoking gun, as long as the battery's production footprint is included, then the EV numbers are good.
Here is an example for the i5, if you scroll down to the Energy Consumption section, you will see a description of 'vehicle fuel equivalent', for this car it says 154 mpg.

https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1906/BMW-i5-eDrive4...

A separate way to look at is to calculate the kWh content of a typical fuel tank when it's full, I think it's 68 litres on the F90 M5.
That's over 600 kWh.
Compare that to the i5's battery of just over 80 kWh capacity and what we have is a petrol car that uses many more times as much energy to travel not a lot further than the EV, at least in summer.

Which makes the electric car say 4 to 6 times more efficient TTW than previous F90 M5, and therefore its mpg equivalent is 4 to 6 times higher.
What we don't yet know is what a pure EV M5 will achieve in terms of equivalent mpg, I don't thank it's going to be quite as good as an i5 40, but it won't be that far off.
This is the thing I was trying to convey earlier, adding performance to an ICE means a bigger engine and a permanent substantial drop in mpg.
When you added more power to an EV, and the battery size remains the same, there is very little drop in equivalent mpg for the more powerful car if driven in the same way as the less powerful variant.
Only if you start spanking the car, will you see an impact on range.
Basically with EV, you can have cake and eat it, which is a bitter pill to swallow for ICE diehards, including me.
It's just that I got past that a long time ago.

Edited to add the i5 M60's info:
https://ev-database.org/uk/car/1907/BMW-i5-M60-xDr...

Equivalent mpg drops from 154 mpg to 141 mpg, yet the power rating has increased from 335 bhp to 593 bhp...

Edited by GT9 on Sunday 30th June 08:29

I think the MPG figures on EVs at times can be very misleading and hides what is currently a very massive range.

It is very plausible that depending on peoples circumstances and how they use their EV you could end up with an EV that costs the same to fuel per mile as just a normal ICE car. Or use super chargers and could end up more costly.

I always try to convert per mile costs to mpg as it makes it easier for the majority on here to understand.

For example if you have a BMW I5 M60 doing 3mi/kwh but you can’t charge at home and use public super chargers similar to ICE cars and what will probably happen for mass EV adoption you won’t be getting per mile cost similar to those sky high mpgs.

Sign up to Tesla’s supercharger network for £9 a month (imagine doing that for your local petrol station!) you might be 50p a KWh. That’s 16.6p a mile or the same as 40mpg at 145p/L. Go BP with their silly ultrafast rate 83p a kWh it’s 27.6p a mile or 24mpg. Add on the inevitable government need to recover lost revenue lost at the pump in a few years and long term electric might not be the cheap per mile nirvana we currently are experiencing.

[GT9]

CG2020UK said:

I think the MPG figures on EVs at times can be very misleading and hides what is currently a very massive range.

Yes, public charging is expensive.

The discussion was about carbon footprint and the impact that the the amount of fossil fuel burned to travel a certain distance has (directly) on the lifetime carbon footprint.

Not for the first time, you've then changed to context to public charging cost.

The cost of public charging is a more a function of the ROI that the organisations providing it are looking for, not carbon footprint.

[Forester1965]

Perhaps controversially the discussion should be about the obese BMW rather than yet another tedious slanging match about EV versus history.

[GT9]

Forester1965 said:

Perhaps controversially the discussion should be about the obese BMW rather than yet another tedious slanging match about EV versus history.

Apologies for boring you.
We seem to just go around the houses on this issue of obesity/weight/mass.
The kerb weight is part and parcel of decarbonisation, I can't make it not so.
Neither can anyone else.
Right now, at this stage in 'the transition away from fossil fuels' that much of the world has collectively signed up to, if you don't have access to home charging, don't buy a flipping EV.
And guess, what, you don't have to buy an EV if you don't want to, and that will be the case for many decades (unless the Green Party win the election).
Ok, if you insist your car must by shiny and new above all else, then you've got less time than that.
The whole point of all of this is decarbonisation.
Hybridisation is a stepping stone on the pathway to full EV.
If that pathway irks, then post up your alternatives.
I only ask that you methodically demonstrate how such an alternative can either get anywhere near matching the full EV pathway in reducing a car's lifetime carbon footprint.
However, if you are based in the UK, let me tell you now, you've got zero chance of being able to do that.
About the closest you might get would be to present a case where existing cars and fuel infrastructure are left completely as is, and we find a way to cost-effectively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it.
Hardly a sustainable solution though is it?
And it you are going to start banging the hydrogen and e-fuel drums, please, just remember they both have to start life as renewable electricity for them to be an actual decarbonisation solution.

[Forester1965]

Actually I just think we should stop making cars continually bigger and bigger. The new 5 is bigger than an e32 7. Nobody in the 1990s thought to themselves, "I wish my family weren't so squashed up in my 7 Series".

[GT9]

Forester1965 said:

Actually I just think we should stop making cars continually bigger and bigger.

Yet at the same time we expect creature comforts, safety, refinement, performance, economy and lower emissions.
There has to come a point where any poster interested in cars and their design has to realise that these things only come with added mass, the mass is not added for sts and giggles.
People are also getting heavier, maybe we should stop looking for reasons why it's always someone else's fault that cars are getting heavier.
We buy these cars, we use them, we expect certain things in a new car, we are the ones making them heavier.