RE: 2025 BMW M5 prototype (G90) | PH Review
Discussion
Forester1965 said:
I'm talking about dimensions. A TV stuck on the dashboard and 27 airbags doesn't mean the car needs to be much bigger. They get bigger because every generation has to be seen to be 'better' and no car company won a marketing competition by saying "buy the new smaller 5 Series".
Why do people buy big cars with lots of bells and whistles including sometimes things like electronically controlled massaging heated and cooling seats?Surely by your logic they would buy a smaller model. Families managed getting about in Ford Cortinas and other manufacturers equivalents but cars then needed much more maintenance had few safety features and people were much slimmer. Add crash zones, airbags a host of electronic safety features and the car by necessity gets bigger and heavier.
It is the consumer that demands these features and was probably first evident with the Japanese better featured cars largely destroyed the British motor industry back in the 70s and 80s. Typically American cars were better featured back in the 50s and many of their cars are massive in comparison to European products. I'm currently with my Daughter in Iowa being driven around in a near 2.8T 5.2m long Chevrolet behemoth. It's not even the biggest SuV they build.
Forester1965 said:
I'm talking about dimensions. A TV stuck on the dashboard and 27 airbags doesn't mean the car needs to be much bigger.
We will have to agree to disagree then, mass and volume are intrinsically linked.Distances required to let airbags inflate at high speeds, heavier passengers, more substantial mountings/frames for seats and restraints, thicker pillars to support the roof structure, minimum storage volume in gloveboxes and centre consoles, it just goes on and on. The volume goes up just like the mass, it's unavoidable.
Then the suspension needs beefing up, the brakes get bigger and heavier, so do the wheels and tyres.
Turbochargers, intercoolers and gear ratios and the likes are added to improve efficiency, more cooling required, more noise and vibration suppression required, it all adds mass and volume.
Composite and other lightweight materials are expensive, but not only that, there is nowhere near the global capacity to manufacture what is heading towards 100 million cars a year from these more exotic materials.
All very depressing I know for those extolling the virtues of light weight.
To be honest, the die is cast and the next generation of powertrain technology has largely removed the importance of weight to fuel/energy consumption.
In all honesty, posters who are fixated on kerb mass really need to find a new hobbyhorse.
Either that or put your money where your mouth is and buy a lower volume lightweight special.
Or buy a second hand car.
I'm not sure what to say, are you really taking family of 4 or 5 in comfort on a holiday with all the luggage in a Corsa, or even just to the airport?
Sorry to drag it back to carbon footprint.
The F90 M5 has a lifetime footprint around 90-100 tons of CO2 for a 200,000 km life.
The i5 M60 can already bring this down to under 20 tons for the same distance, if charged renewably.
The difference is so stark, I guess it's scarcely believable.
Are BMW making it up as they go?
Is the 15-page document from BMW I linked to earlier fiction?
Or maybe its just so uncomfortable for the ICE that no-one wants to talk about it.
Alternatively, all of a sudden it's no longer about the environment, or that CO2 is a hoax, and what really matters is lithium mining, despite the obvious environmental challenges and risks of oil and gas extraction.
Why does kerb weight or vehicle size matter?
And specifically why does it matter if it's not about the environment.
Is it feel or 'racecar', because that started going out the door years ago.
Despite the intentions of downsizing the engine, I'd argue that turbocharging did more to kill the idea of lightweight cars than just about anything, either by introducing diesels into the equation or because it allowed for more weight to be carried or, importantly, accelerated, with less penalty on mpg.
Sorry to drag it back to carbon footprint.
The F90 M5 has a lifetime footprint around 90-100 tons of CO2 for a 200,000 km life.
The i5 M60 can already bring this down to under 20 tons for the same distance, if charged renewably.
The difference is so stark, I guess it's scarcely believable.
Are BMW making it up as they go?
Is the 15-page document from BMW I linked to earlier fiction?
Or maybe its just so uncomfortable for the ICE that no-one wants to talk about it.
Alternatively, all of a sudden it's no longer about the environment, or that CO2 is a hoax, and what really matters is lithium mining, despite the obvious environmental challenges and risks of oil and gas extraction.
Why does kerb weight or vehicle size matter?
And specifically why does it matter if it's not about the environment.
Is it feel or 'racecar', because that started going out the door years ago.
Despite the intentions of downsizing the engine, I'd argue that turbocharging did more to kill the idea of lightweight cars than just about anything, either by introducing diesels into the equation or because it allowed for more weight to be carried or, importantly, accelerated, with less penalty on mpg.
Edited by GT9 on Sunday 30th June 16:58
GT9 said:
I'm not sure what to say, are you really taking family of 4 or 5 in comfort on a holiday with all the luggage in a Corsa, or even just to the airport?
Sorry to drag it back to carbon footprint.
The F90 M5 has a lifetime footprint around 90-100 tons of CO2 for a 200,000 km life.
The i5 M60 can already bring this down to under 20 tons for the same distance, if charged renewably.
The difference is so stark, I guess it's scarcely believable.
Are BMW making it up as they go?
Is the 15-page document from BMW I linked to earlier fiction?
Or maybe its just so uncomfortable for the ICE that no-one wants to talk about it.
Alternatively, all of a sudden it's no longer about the environment, or that CO2 is a hoax, and what really matters is lithium mining, despite the obvious environmental challenges and risks of oil and gas extraction.
Why does kerb weight or vehicle size matter?
And specifically why does it matter if it's not about the environment.
Is it feel or 'racecar', because that started going out the door years ago.
Despite the intentions of downsizing the engine, I'd argue that turbocharging did more to kill the idea of lightweight cars than just about anything, either by introducing diesels into the equation or because it allowed for more weight to be carried or, importantly, accelerated, with less penalty on mpg.
It's quite ironic that it was the performance car enthusiasts the fuelled the use of these turbos and applauded the turbo powered Mitsubishis, Subarus and Nissans with their 4WD and large laggy turbos. Those turbos squished the air which then needed cooling (Boyle's and Ideal gas laws or some such thing if my schoolboy physics memory hasn't let me down. Sorry to drag it back to carbon footprint.
The F90 M5 has a lifetime footprint around 90-100 tons of CO2 for a 200,000 km life.
The i5 M60 can already bring this down to under 20 tons for the same distance, if charged renewably.
The difference is so stark, I guess it's scarcely believable.
Are BMW making it up as they go?
Is the 15-page document from BMW I linked to earlier fiction?
Or maybe its just so uncomfortable for the ICE that no-one wants to talk about it.
Alternatively, all of a sudden it's no longer about the environment, or that CO2 is a hoax, and what really matters is lithium mining, despite the obvious environmental challenges and risks of oil and gas extraction.
Why does kerb weight or vehicle size matter?
And specifically why does it matter if it's not about the environment.
Is it feel or 'racecar', because that started going out the door years ago.
Despite the intentions of downsizing the engine, I'd argue that turbocharging did more to kill the idea of lightweight cars than just about anything, either by introducing diesels into the equation or because it allowed for more weight to be carried or, importantly, accelerated, with less penalty on mpg.
Edited by GT9 on Sunday 30th June 16:58
All these bits added weight and of course additional engine loads so components upgraded (heavier) accordingly.
We reap what we sow as they say.
Completely missing the point. The previous 5 Series was big enough (LxWxH) to do all the things the new one is tasked to do. They didn't *need* to make it larger. The new M5 has less luggage room than the old one.
This constant creep in dimensions is nonsensical marketing driven nonsense.
This constant creep in dimensions is nonsensical marketing driven nonsense.
GT9 said:
Forester1965 said:
I'm talking about dimensions. A TV stuck on the dashboard and 27 airbags doesn't mean the car needs to be much bigger.
We will have to agree to disagree then, mass and volume are intrinsically linked.Distances required to let airbags inflate at high speeds, heavier passengers, more substantial mountings/frames for seats and restraints, thicker pillars to support the roof structure, minimum storage volume in gloveboxes and centre consoles, it just goes on and on. The volume goes up just like the mass, it's unavoidable.
Then the suspension needs beefing up, the brakes get bigger and heavier, so do the wheels and tyres.
Turbochargers, intercoolers and gear ratios and the likes are added to improve efficiency, more cooling required, more noise and vibration suppression required, it all adds mass and volume.
Composite and other lightweight materials are expensive, but not only that, there is nowhere near the global capacity to manufacture what is heading towards 100 million cars a year from these more exotic materials.
All very depressing I know for those extolling the virtues of light weight.
To be honest, the die is cast and the next generation of powertrain technology has largely removed the importance of weight to fuel/energy consumption.
In all honesty, posters who are fixated on kerb mass really need to find a new hobbyhorse.
Either that or put your money where your mouth is and buy a lower volume lightweight special.
Or buy a second hand car.
TX.
Terminator X said:
There is no excuse for cars being heavier than 1500-1800kg anything else is massive excess. I don't believe that people want heavier and heavier cars, they just buy whatever is in front of them. Do you think M5 owners have said to BMW make my car 500kg heavier
TX.
Did you read my post, the F90 M5 has a lifetime carbon footprint of about 100 tons.TX.
The EV version will be 20 tons.
The proportion of people who care about the kerb weight shrinks every day and will soon be close to zero.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you are living in the past and clearly the whole environmental thing has passed you by.
BMW don't have that choice.
GT9 said:
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.
I view miles per gallon (as I’m sure the vast majority of people who drive) as a way to work out the cost of a journey eg: car X costs me less to fuel than car Y because it has a lower mpg.
I’ve balanced it out for anyone with a very much neutral position. Checking my posting history I’m certainly positive on EV and bang on as neutral as it comes.
At the very least I’ve maybe helped someone calculate a cost per mile between EV and ICE which might come in useful as the M5 will certainly appeal to a wide range. Wouldn’t want anyone having a shock thinking they are always having 150mpg fuel bills
GT9 said:
Terminator X said:
There is no excuse for cars being heavier than 1500-1800kg anything else is massive excess. I don't believe that people want heavier and heavier cars, they just buy whatever is in front of them. Do you think M5 owners have said to BMW make my car 500kg heavier
TX.
Did you read my post, the F90 M5 has a lifetime carbon footprint of about 100 tons.TX.
The EV version will be 20 tons.
The proportion of people who care about the kerb weight shrinks every day and will soon be close to zero.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you are living in the past and clearly the whole environmental thing has passed you by.
BMW don't have that choice.
GT9 said:
We buy these cars, we use them, we expect certain things in a new car, we are the ones making them heavier.
As for the "the whole environmental thing" correct I don't buy into you must purchase a brand new 2.5t EV to save the planet.TX.
Terminator X said:
As for the "the whole environmental thing" correct I don't buy into you must purchase a brand new 2.5t EV to save the planet.
TX.
I was more referring to the binding commitments your/my government has made, the ZEV mandate that is now in force and how BMW or any other manufacturer can work with that.TX.
Do you accept that a renewably charged 2.5 ton M car without an engine has a lifetime carbon footprint about 5 times lower than the one with the V8?
Forester1965 said:
You can't seriously make an environmental case for any 700hp 2.5t saloon. Doesn't matter whether it's powered by angel feathers or Brent crude. It's a wholly unnecessary trinket in the grand scheme of things (the existence of which I wholly approve of).
It's a simple yes or no question.Are BMW lying or is it 5 times lower?
People who want to spend £100k on a super saloon generally don't care about carbon footprint. They might in the sense it purveys an image about themselves but not the reality of it. Hence 'who cares'.
As for weight/dimensions, that does matter because excess of either means more emissions and use of physical resources than necessary.
If we *really* cared about the planetary issue or our immediate environment we'd be limited to cars only as large and powerful as absolutely necessary to do the job effectively.
Arguing about the environmental nicities of a huge and unnecessary super saloon is the definition of nonsense.
As for weight/dimensions, that does matter because excess of either means more emissions and use of physical resources than necessary.
If we *really* cared about the planetary issue or our immediate environment we'd be limited to cars only as large and powerful as absolutely necessary to do the job effectively.
Arguing about the environmental nicities of a huge and unnecessary super saloon is the definition of nonsense.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff