RE: 2025 BMW M5 prototype (G90) | PH Review
Discussion
cerb4.5lee said:
Aids0G said:
How often in the last 10 years has a new performance car at this level been launched that is slower and has a poorer power to weight ratio than its predecessor?
I don't think it happens very often as you say. It makes me really appreciate my F82 M4 to be honest, because when that launched back in 2014, it was not only faster than the previous generation E92 M3, but it was also lighter too.
I remember driving ab uncle's C6 RS6; very fast in the straight line but the weight was very noticeable when braking or cornering...and that's a lightweight compared to this!
It's less awkward looking than the standard 5, but it's really not a good looking car. The colour is great though.
I do feel that it is an awkward car fro, where it sits with regards to power trains. Whilst the headline power figure looks impressive, the impact is lessened by the huge jump in weight. So what does the hybrid system really bring for a flaghsip performance version of the 5? It would have been better as ICE or EV.
I do feel that it is an awkward car fro, where it sits with regards to power trains. Whilst the headline power figure looks impressive, the impact is lessened by the huge jump in weight. So what does the hybrid system really bring for a flaghsip performance version of the 5? It would have been better as ICE or EV.
Hmm, not sure about this one.
Not getting me excited like previous M5 releases did.
They have used the same colour combo for press shots as they had for some of the M3/M4 ones. I feel they should have used a different combo.
Also - it shows the magnitude of the E60 M5 almost 20 years ago, where it could do 205 mph.
Question - just for my understanding, as I may have missed something - why are these new, mega power cars struggling to hit 200 mph (out of the box, anyway)?
Not getting me excited like previous M5 releases did.
They have used the same colour combo for press shots as they had for some of the M3/M4 ones. I feel they should have used a different combo.
Also - it shows the magnitude of the E60 M5 almost 20 years ago, where it could do 205 mph.
Question - just for my understanding, as I may have missed something - why are these new, mega power cars struggling to hit 200 mph (out of the box, anyway)?
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.
Well, I like it and will use it as a luxury saloon with a bit of go in it.
It's not to be a track weapon and, if it ever was, ceased to be a long time ago.
Very pleased with the pricing. In the luxury 4/5 seater segment, when the decent spec Maserati GT new is over £160k, £110ish seems very reasonable!
It's not to be a track weapon and, if it ever was, ceased to be a long time ago.
Very pleased with the pricing. In the luxury 4/5 seater segment, when the decent spec Maserati GT new is over £160k, £110ish seems very reasonable!
I like the big bulging arch extensions and the interior looks. Exterior is quite fussy and there's alot going on. Looks a bit awkward, like the G80 M3. However, like the M3, I think this will be a grower over time.
There's no escaping that near 2 and a half tonne kerb weight though. I guess that's adding electric assistance for you via batteries. I suspect the more important questions is, does it feel that heavy to drive?
There's no escaping that near 2 and a half tonne kerb weight though. I guess that's adding electric assistance for you via batteries. I suspect the more important questions is, does it feel that heavy to drive?
We have 2 cars which weigh 2.5 tonnes.
My Range Rover L405 & her Mercedes EQC.
Despite the performance of the EQC it 100% feels it’s weight.
I’m actually intrigued to see how BMW have disguised the bulk.
The idea of one car to do it all seems increasingly silly.
I would take a SUV or estate for daily & a true sports car for fun every time.
My Range Rover L405 & her Mercedes EQC.
Despite the performance of the EQC it 100% feels it’s weight.
I’m actually intrigued to see how BMW have disguised the bulk.
The idea of one car to do it all seems increasingly silly.
I would take a SUV or estate for daily & a true sports car for fun every time.
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.
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.
Don’t anyone tell him how sausages are made! 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.
I have worked on Container Ships that burned 250 tonnes a day of fuel oil.
A transatlantic flight burns about 10 tonnes.
For the pleasure and convenience of using an E39 M5 for 125000 miles 20 tonnes is nothing.
Edited by Stick Legs on Wednesday 26th June 11:45
Wills2 said:
To be fair it's a completely different kind of hybrid (and perhaps one that BMW should have done rather than the plug in) but I'm not sure substantially faster stands up for the 911 either, lets face it they are up against the law of diminishing returns.
I think your diminishing returns point is very salient to where we are today with high performance cars.There was a conversation on here about how some big fat EV Audi would be faster than some big fat ICE Audi because it was 0.3 seconds quicker to 62MPH or some such, but I really think we're at the point now where the headline figures just don't matter once you're on the road because they're all so very fast and you need really very high speeds to see any difference and most people absolutely do not have any desire to do that on the road.
You're talking about a car lengths difference over a quarter mile with those 911s, at that point I think it's time to stop jerking off over Top Trumps figures and pick cars on other merits.
Stick Legs said:
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.
Don’t anyone tell him how sausages are made! 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.
I have worked on Container Ships that burned 250 tonnes a day of fuel oil.
A transatlantic flight burns about 10 tonnes.
For the pleasure and convenience of using an E39 M5 for 125000 miles 20 tonnes is nothing.
Edited by Stick Legs on Wednesday 26th June 11:45
Anyway
We've had 1.5-2 tonne things that use 20 tonnes of stuff in it's life time
Now we have damn near 3 tonne things using the same 20 tonnes of stuff to the same job...
When these things hit anopther thing or try and go round corners... it's worse not better.
So like for like, not progress.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff