babylou

[QUOTE=RX-Hachi]Whether you think they are worthy or not, the natural competitors to the M5 are the E55 AMG and the RS6. Someone who can afford cars in that league would not be shopping for the CTS-V.
/QUOTE]

Bull. I chose a Caddy CTS-V and I could buy a Duesenberg if I wanted too. I also am partial to Miatas.

Japan8

^^ is part of my issue about pricing themselves out of the market. The M5 is not something like a Maybach. It's not a super luxo sedan for the really rich. It was a reasonably priced high performance sedan for those who want a little more than the tamer 5 Series sedans offer. Like said above... for someone who'd buy a Porsche, but wants or needs room for the wife and kids. $100k just seems to be pricing them out of this market. The Porsche lover could get his Porsche AND get a well-performing sedan for that much money.

Ike

[QUOTE=babylou]You're right, Hachi was wrong. Just because someone can afford a better car doesn't mean they will purchase said better car... My brother in law traded in his 993 Turbo S for a freaking STS (yawn), traded that in for a S500 (yawn), and is now waiting for his 760 to be delivered. Proof that money can't buy good taste, nor will it allow a tightwad to live a little (he's worth about 40 million).

Not saying you don't have good taste Babylou, the CTS-V was not a bad choice over the previous M5.

RX-Hachi

[QUOTE=babylou]Let me correct my statement. There's a diffrence in being to able to afford a car vs. actually wanting to buy one.

If you actually did seriously pick the CTS-V over the M5 after test driving both, good for you, nothing wrong with that. But for most people who intend to spend $80K-$100K on a super sedan, the Caddy usually isn't on the short list.

My point was about the natural competitors to the M5, not about whether one can afford one or not.

(And Ike is always wrong about everything.)

BlueEyes

It seems to me that people are picking "natural comepetitors" based solely on price and straight line performance. I have driven the previous M5, RS6, and a bunch of AMG crap. The M5, to me, is a different type of super sedan. It seems to strive for balance, while the others do not. The AMG's don't even make an attempt to pretend they do.

I would call all the cars mentioned, other than the Maseratti, alternatives, not competitors.

I have said it many times while talking about similarly priced cars. If you only have 100k to go car shopping, you would be a fool to buy one car to try to do everything. Will the M5 and similar alternatives see buyers like that, sure, there are a bunch of foolish people running around. The people this car is marketed towards have enough money for more than 1 car, and certainly more than 1 $100k car.

Japan8

... but the previous M5's didn't seem to be marketed towards those kinds of people. All BMW's seemed to have taken quite a step up in price, especially the M5. Has BMW priced themselves out of what was a significant portion of the M5's market? At $60-70k... I'd consider one. At $100k... not even if I could afford to buy 3 and a Ferrari.

Im_DANomite

iTrader: (1)

the reason for the mark up in prices is because of all the new technology. iDrive, part aluminum chasis, aluminum suspension components, fiber optics, more control modules, active stability control, active steering, EDC, HUD, Harmon Kardon with Logic 7, blue tooth technology, BMW assist, comfort access, magnesium blocks, SMG, run flat tires, condition based services, active cruise control, etc. etc. when it comes to technology, BMW is always a step ahead of most manufacturers. therefore, they have every reason to increase the price on their models.

BMW is only going to get bigger. the new V8 powered M3, a supposed V8 powered Z4 (M4), turbocharging, diesel, hydrogen, etc.

it's not just BMW that's jacking up prices...look at all the other manufacturers. times are changing.

the E39 M5 wasn't all that much different from the regular E39 5 series. the E39 540i 6 spd. was/is one hell of a ride. the M5 has some cosmetic changes, but it just looked like a 540i on steriods. the same goes with the current E60 M5/550i/545i. performance wise, the M cars always rocked...that's obvious. the E46 M3 and the E36 Z coupe/roadster were the only M cars that looked totally different from their regular looking models. they had the crucial fender flares and wide staggered rims.

i think you guys are missing the point that the $95k price tag on the new M5 isn't just performance numbers. it includes the material the car is made of, the maintenance and new car warranty that comes with it, the luxury accessores (blue tooth ready, suede headlining, auto side wing support, HUD, etc.). at the price the M5 comes with, you're not just getting a car...you're getting full support from BMW.

some people can afford cars like the M5, great for them. but how many of them really care about how fast it can go around a turn, how many of them actually know how the little power button boosts another 100 hp? they don't...they buy it b/c of the BMW name and the reputation they will get for driving a 500HP luxury sedan. it's funny, i bumped into an old highschool friend looking to buy an E46 M3 cabrio. she's a year younger than me (21) and doesn't know a damn thing about the M3. all she knows is that it is the highest model 3 series you can get and it's fast. what a waste of a beautiful machine....

like japan 8 said...if i had $100k to spend, i would definately buy several decent cars and enjoy every single one of them. actually...i'd just get a R33 Skyline GT-R

babylou

Except for the weight reduction technologies I consider the rest of those things as making an automobile a step behind the others. To me the perfect devices are the simple, reliable, low cost, perfectly operating ones; In engineering parlance we call that an "elegant design". This is why I am looking for another nice '99-'00 Miata or maybe even a '93.

Japan8

I agree withyou completely. Electronic junk for the sake of electronic junk is dumb. And BMW sure as hell is doing that. It increases cost, WEIGHT, complexity and unreliablity (because of those factors). Like i said before. BMW can take their SMG transmission and shove it. Same with iDrive and ALL of its related features. All of that aluminum? Don't need it... only had to use it because the damn car is an overweight barge. That problem is fixed by doing better at the drawing board. The V10? Sweet... yes. Was all the techno gadgets on it necessary? Nope. The Viper V10 drops serious power without it. Fiber optics in a car?! A baaaad idea. No one who works in IT would ever suggest using things like WinXP on the critical systems... like the Space Shuttle or car ECU. Guess why? Like I said... techno junk for techno junk's sake isn't a good idea.

Personally... I like the way it used to be with the M5. I like it being a 540 on steroids. The e46 M3... well it is a beautiful car, but I did wonder if BMW wasn't going a bit overboard though. But at least it's price is still affordable. This $96k stuff is seriously BS. For a freaking hot rod 5 Series BMW... not in this life.

BlueEyes

The viper V10? it's a piece of ****. Seriously, 8.3 litres to get 500 hp. That's a joke. BMW's V10 has already won many awards, and will continue to do so. The vipers won't win any. Infact, the more I think about the viper, the more I think it's crapola.

A street V10 revving to 8000 rpm and having a full warranty is a dream come true. I also think SMG III, if it's any better than II, will be a great system, but that's just me.

DreRX8

The Viper V10 isn't making any attempts to win any awards--it is American horsepower in one of its rawest forms. The last M5 was the perfect BMW in my eyes--I'm not for all this techno stuff either--at the end of the day I can't get past the M5s hideous looks to even boggle my mind with its window sticker.

Japan8

The BMW V10 is just a big Honda VTEC engine. Looks at it's powerband... not much on the low-end. Cars like Alpina (sp?) with their tuned 5 Series V8 drop the similar hp numbers and actually performance numbers too. but they make more power on the low-end due to it being s/c.

The SMG III... I said before and I will again... BMW can shove it. I don't do SMG. Double H and clutch thank you. Don't need SMG in a M5... you ain't gonna track it. It ain't a Ferrari... you ain't gonna race it. The clutches are light, so stop whining. Especially in this overweight M5, SMG is just another techno gadget.... one that I particularly don't care for.

The BMW V10 is a techno marvel. But like I said... probably overkill and we'll see how reliable all that proves to be.

The Viper... it's the old American adage... ain't no replacement for displacement. Although I do agree... even GM does better with the LS engines.

Speaking of which... the LS V8's are the perfect example of what I am (apparantly) not explaining well about the BMW V10. The LS is compact, powerful, fuel efficient, simple and reliable. Not to mention it costs less. Who cares if it is "low tech." It does the job and does the job well. Again... techno gadgets for the sake of techno gadgets.

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

Well said.

Even Farley agrees.

RX-Hachi

A well equipped 550i will run about $60K these days. Don't forget the prices being thrown around for the M5 in this discussion are inflated with dealer mark ups. I know BMWs, especially M cars, cost quite a bit more in Japan. But in the US, one can buy a basic M5 (which is very well equipped) for $82K. Not too bad. Sure there are those foolish enough or just rich enough to pay the inflated $100K now, but wait a year or so and perhaps they can even be had below MSRP ($81,895).

babylou

The new Chevy LS7 V8 weighs less, is more compact, has the same power, better torque, is more fuel efficient and probably 1/2 the cost of the BMW V10. Elegant engineering versus technocrap.

BlueEyes

it's hardly technocrap. It's an impressive feat of engineering. If everything was engineered elegantly, there would be little progress. Invention, innovation and progress require "technocrap". If it's not your cup of tea, which it appears it isn't, thats fine. But don't call it crap.

therm8

The only reason the BMW V10 won engine of the year is because BMW made it. The LS7 is a much more spectacular feat of engineering. I mean come on there's more innovation in that "old tech" pushrod than the V10 easy. BMW just used established ohc tech and made a V10 out of it. The LS7 pushes the pushrod limit higher than it's ever been. But it was made in America, by GM so therefore can't touch the German engine...<---------sarcasm, btw

RX-Hachi

Since Danomite seems slow in posting the pics, I'll give you guys something more to drool over. From an EVO forum, a lucky father and son:

BlueEyes

They're both great engines, no doubt. I am just more impresed with a screaming V10.

Anyhow, I have been trying to find the weights of both the LS7 and the M5 engine, since babylou mentioned the LS7 is lighter. I can't find that info anywhere. Anyone have a resource? As well, anyone know of an engine website that details the specifices of variouls engines. More in depth than just power and displacement?

BlueEyes

https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=83
https://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php...8&postcount=84

therm8

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...8&forum_id=101

best I can do...

about halfway down the page...

450lbs with some accessories.

on a side note, I saw a post on one of the forums about GR motorsports (i think) making headers that gained 30hp/30something tq, untuned. Apparently the Z06 has 2.5in exhaust...

Phat Ham

The peak torque number comes at a relatively high rpm, but the torque curve is pretty flat. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who says it lacks low end torque.

There are plenty of e39 m5 owners who track their cars, and I'm sure the same will happen with the e60 m5. I tracked and autocrossed my 540 and had a blast. The e39 handles surprisingly well for its size, and the e60 is supposed to be a fair bit better. the e39 had problems with premature clutch wear. In order to keep the car comfortable to drive they used a softer clutch than they should have. BMW's solution to the problem in the new car was to get rid of the clutch pedal altogether.

The SMG tranny in the m5 was designed from the ground up as an SMG tranny. Since they didn't have to worry about shift pattern they put the lowest gears in the strongest parts of the transmission. If they tried to make a traditional manual out of it the shift pattern would be too ridiculous for people to use.

From a performance standpoint (which is what M cars are supposed to be about), SMG is simply just a better transmission. It shifts faster and is more consistent.

That said, I'd also rather have a third pedal.

DreRX8

I don't have a problem with SMG units (except in the Z4)--in fact I'd probably prefer one in this application as it is a better tranny than a standard manual--a standard stick is more fun though.

RX-Hachi

Oops missed those. Dan wasn't too slow, this discussion just moved too fast. And all about a car that most of you aren't likely to own anytime soon.

Im_DANomite

iTrader: (1)

i totally see both sides of this discussion. but i'll tell you one thing...i work on BMW's for a living, but i will NEVER buy one....EVER.

the E39 M5 ran similar track times to the E46 M3 (forget where i heard this from...you guys can clarify for me). our beloved RX8 ran similar track times to the E46 M3. yea...we definately have the best car out on the market right now woot!