2012 BMW M5 (F10) - Wallpapers, Official Information, Specs, Reviews, and Videos

[Q4P]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

Exactly, if your looking for a track car, your looking at the wrong car.

This thing is a freeway missle, BEAST.

Watch the m5 testing video in Mirabas, France, they sure as anything try to pass it off as a track car, they even mention it. A wolf around the Nurgburgring; lol, watch how this heavy car gets thrown around like a tank.

[cmk227]

Originally Posted by erhanh

That is with imperial gallons.. In US gallons, it is more like 24mpg (which is still not bad).

I like the improved gas mileage but car side grill really kill it for me. $100K is a bit much for the extra horse power you are getting.

Originally Posted by sparkyg

4300 lb sports car, come on.

I think it is gonna be better than the last M5 but too fat for anything revolutionary.

Just an evolution.

Plenty of 550 owners already have a porkchop. This is the same porkchop with more power.

BMW needs to get fitter, lose the fat and then that improves all aspects of driving.

Sorry guys, its gonna be huge $$$ and the next M3 sedan will still be a better all around car.

GL to all those placing orders.

It needs to be 3800 lbs or less.

I am cancelling my order. I want to wait to 2013 and see how people like it.

Originally Posted by Mako

You're joking right? Is will compare to a panamera S. The turbo S is 0-60 in 3.2 seconds! In a class of it's own.

Looking into the Panamera S

[Needsdecaf]

This thread is full of fail comments.

[NewYearsBoy]

Its ok.... I still like the old one better.

[kjrulz]

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

? Too little torque for you in the e90 m3 but you want a CSL with even less torque?

Also again torque means nothing on a track where you can and want to keep the tach at 6k rpms and above where there is gobs of power on an s65. Torque is important in a 0-60 launch and coming out of very slow speed hairpins, and that is it.

Torque in the e90 m3 is relatively not matched up well with the rest of the car.

E46 M3 CSL will rip up an e90 M3 around a ring with just over 3,000 lb curb weight, much less horsepower and a RELATIVE amount of torque.

The E90/92 M3 was a major disappointment.


BTW, Torque is far more important that Horsepower on most tracks. When I think of a track (rather than a drag strip for ex.) I think of curves, with curves you need torque. Get familiar or get smoked...

[cs4444]

The press release says 7lb per hp.

7 * 560 = 3920lb...

On BMW spec sheets that add the weight of the driver fuel and luggage which would bring it to 4100-4200lbs.

That is still lighter than the 550i, E63, and the Panamera turbo...

[SCOTT26]

" A Bold Business mans car... That at the touch of the M Button you have a high performance sports car"

That is the quote we are sticking to. An Understated appearance that conceals the car's potential.

That is the M5 philosophy for five generations.

[Simple1]

Originally Posted by kjrulz

Torque in the e90 m3 is relatively not matched up well with the rest of the car.

E46 M3 CSL will rip up an e90 M3 around a ring with just over 3,000 lb curb weight, much less horsepower and a RELATIVE amount of torque.

The E90/92 M3 was a major disappointment.


BTW, Torque is far more important that Horsepower on most tracks. When I think of a track (rather than a drag strip for ex.) I think of curves, with curves you need torque. Get familiar or get smoked...

Hello I'm reality and I reality slaps kjrulz in the face and ask have you ever heard of f1? HP and what revs that power is produced at is more important than torque unless we would all be driving diesel trucks at the track!

[kjrulz]

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

Nothing else to add if you do not understand the relationship of torque and horsepower and which one determines performance than nothing to argue. The e90 m3 does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. Quarter mile in 12.3. And it has no torque. So how can you say torque is what matters. Even less important around a track. Torque means you can stay in higher gears more often to get good output. Low torque/high hp means you have to actively stay in lower gears/high revs to get the same good output. Both methods are fine but different strategies.

Back to the example of a 535d. 450 lb feet of torque but 272 hp and does not break 6 seconds in sprint to sixty. Now if torque is what mattered how would this be?

You understand you're exactly proving my point? You just listed sprints and 1/4 mile times...exactly where HP matters more than TQ does.

You idiots are full of fail. I completely understand the relationship b/w TQ and HP (I track at Limerock every year and I'm an engineer). So please stop embarrassing yourselves.


I never said HP wasn't important, I said TQ should be relative to the power output. The only reason the e90 m3 held well around the track is it high revving limiter. Meanwhile, when I threw a chip in my 335i I destroyed M3's @ Limerock (with less power but way more torque).

Again, I mentioned the CSL because that's what I think a true M3 should be aka a lightweight monster with ample power and RELATIVE torque. Thus why it devours a higher powered e90 M3 around a ring.


If you're never heard the following, just give up now:

"Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races." Enzo Ferrari

[727jbh]

VERY COOL!!!

[kjrulz]

Originally Posted by Simple1

Hello I'm reality and I reality slaps kjrulz in the face and ask have you ever heard of f1? HP and what revs that power is produced at is more important than torque unless we would all be driving diesel trucks at the track!

Hold your tongue...it's easy to talk online but if I see you in person I guarantee you won't be acting so tough.

[Freethy]

The lower part of the front bumper looks pretty similar to the e92 M3.

Overall not as good as i expected (in the looks department)

[TimZ]

I'm in love. Must add this in the stable along with the x5m.

I want to know what exactly was modified to the engine that's different from the s63 in the x5m. (Compression, cams, anyone??)

[tonmonde]

love, cept the shark gills.

[BimmerGuyFL]

Not to Burst anyones weight ideas about the F10 M5 but if you look at the specs of the 550i from when the car specs were released. F10 550i KG weight is 1830/1905 and the F10 M5 KG weigh is 1870/1945. Seems like the M5 won't be lighter than the F10 550i.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by kunit1994

M5 or m3 or 1m ftw, the 911 is real good, but the m5 will run u 100k plus.

The cts-v just like the c63 is just raw power, handling blows. M3 beat the c63 on track by 5 seconds on the top gear track. (not tryin to hate)

Really, you are bringing up a top gear test? Top Gear is a joke.

I have driven both cars a lot (own a C63 and friend has the M3 coupe) and I will say the M3 has better handling but I would not say the C63 handling "blows". I would have a hard time going to the M3 as well because the "raw power" is just amazing and fun for everyday stop light to stop light driving. My friend with the M3 agrees. for everyone here that thinks AMG just slaps power onto a regular Mercedes and calls it a day, that is simply not true. Its not true with Audi either, BMW may do a better job than all these companies but they still offer more than just power upgrades, these aren't american car companies (cough SRT8 cough)!

[Evolution_GT]

[southlight]

Originally Posted by TimZ

I'm in love. Must add this in the stable along with the x5m.

I want to know what exactly was modified to the engine that's different from the s63 in the x5m. (Compression, cams, anyone??)

Compared to the version in the X5 M, the F10M engine has now Valvetronic and new "innovative solenoid valve injectors." This allows BMW to run a higher compression of 10:1 vs 9.3:1 in the X5 M. As you can see from the engine shots, they've also beefed up cooling. In other words, they've done quite a bit more to the engine than the raw hp and torque stats suggest.


Best regards,
south

[kjrulz]

Originally Posted by southlight

Compared to the version in the X5 M, the F10M engine has now Valvetronic and new "innovative solenoid valve injectors." This allows BMW to run a higher compression of 10:1 vs 9.3:1 in the X5 M. As you can see from the engine shots, they've also beefed up cooling. In other words, they've done quite a bit more to the engine than the raw hp and torque stats suggest.


Best regards,
south

True, if I remember correctly the M5 has 4 intercoolers. I wonder how much further the turbos can be pushed in their efficiency range because apparently they're already at about 22 psi.

[BMWPower06]

Originally Posted by JoosyJoos

Torque wins races, availability of that torque over a greater range wins races. Peak numbers (especially horsepower) don't mean a whole lot.

This statement could not be further from the truth. Anytime I hear this, I automatically know that the person is not a complete car nut.

An F1 car has less torque than a 335i. What do you think is gonna win in a race?

A 335d has 425lbft of tq vs my M5 which has 383lbft. Which is gonna win in a race?
(The 335d even peaks at like 1200rpm whereas my car peaks at a lofty 6100rpm)

TQ has very little to do with a car assuming that it is geared properly.

[kjrulz]

Originally Posted by BMWPower06

This statement could not be further from the truth. Anytime I hear this, I automatically know that the person is not a complete car nut.

An F1 car has less torque than a 335i. What do you think is gonna win in a race?

A 335d has 425lbft of tq vs my M5 which has 383lbft. Which is gonna win in a race?
(The 335d even peaks at like 1200rpm whereas my car peaks at a lofty 6100rpm)

TQ has very little to do with a car assuming that it is geared properly.

An F1 car weighs nothing. Stupid analogies should not hold weight in an argument...By the way, that quote is from Enzo Ferrari, aka a man who knows far more than you do about cars.

[1BMW4fun]

With that much tq and availability, I have a feeling its going to be a tire eater like the AMGs.