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

[JoosyJoos]

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.

As noted already, you're viewing this quote through a myopic lens.

That is a well known quote. Quoted in almost any racing book you will find on the shelves. Specifically that is a quote from Ross Bentley--- you can look him up if you're not a car nut. Keep the insults out of it unless you can back up your statements or contribute something positive to the thread.

[Gunz335xi]

The F10 M5 and CTS-V have virtually the same HP, but the CTS-V will out-torque any production M5 ever made. That's what counts on the road. I don't even like Caddy's and would take an M5 any day, but we're talking about a $30K PREMIUM over the domestic. The M5 is the total package -- and that's why it should have 600 bhp and 570 lb./ft.

[sparkyg]

I will say driving tests from owners and reviewers will be interesting for sure.

Look forward to hearing those.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by JoosyJoos

As noted already, you're viewing this quote through a myopic lens.

That is a well known quote. Quoted in almost any racing book you will find on the shelves. Specifically that is a quote from Ross Bentley--- you can look him up if you're not a car nut. Keep the insults out of it unless you can back up your statements or contribute something positive to the thread.

BMWPower06 is right guys, and Enzo & Ross are wrong, sorry for this.

The engine only delivers torque as output of interest and power is just a calculated theoretical parameter (Tq x rpm). The acceleration is completely proportional with the torque. OK, so why is BMWPower06 right in his statement then since this seems to prove Enzo's position?

BMWPower06 includes the transmission line and the reduction (gear/bridge-diff/wheels) and then the game changes. When you have an engine capable of producing high power = much torque at high rpm, you can install a SHORT tranmission to cover the speed range. With a slow running (cfr. big displacement diesel), you need a LONG transmission to cover the same speed range. So when engine 1 tops at 300Nm@2000 rpm and is out of steam at 4000rpm, its transmission is twice "as long" as an engine delivering 300Nm@4000rpm running uptill 8000rpm. Notice that the POWER of engine 2 is double as high as the one of engine 1.

Now it all comes together with the last physical law: Output on the wheels is output of the engine multiplied with the overall reduction of the entire transmission line. So a SHORT transmission (high rpm at lower speeds) multiplies the engine torque more than a LONG transmission (low RPM at high speeds). The conversion is pure proportional so in the former case: both engines deliver 300Nm, but the one with the SHORT transmission has DOUBLE the wheel torque and hence double the force to fit in Newtons law= Acceleration = force / mass. And this is the main reason a F1 is this bloody fast: it has low torque (helping in keeping the mass low) but revs over 18000rpm, allowing a fantastic output multiplication in the transmission line to cover the speed range required. So you're both right concerning F1, high power is the nominator and low mass in the denominator both are not contradicting each other but both components are equally important and fundamental.

Simple: this new M5 would accelerate identical with an engine delivering 1360Nm and a cut off at 3600rpm instead of 680Nm with cut off at 7200rpm. Assuming the mass of the car remains the same. Notice that the power is in both case equal at 560hp, the torque however is massively different. So Enzo and Ross are wrong and BMWPower06 is right! :-)

[KoenG]

This new M5 is just brilliant!

The 4,4seconds to 62mph only reveals partially the massive boost it will deliver since RWD is no longer capable transforming all this violence in lateral traction. The 62-124mph acceleration of just 8,6 seconds is more speaking and relevant I guess. Also the in gear acceleration is impressive: 80-120km/h in 4th and 5th are just staggering.

Has somebody noticed the frugality of the engine? It even consumes less than the 550i! The E60M5 consumed 22 liters/100km in city conditions and the F10 only 14, which is even 10% less than my E39 530i that not even contains half this engine! WOW

When I check UK prices, the price is 35%more than the 550i, which also seems to place the M5 underneath the E63AMG. Seems a good position to me and all this could mean that the running costs have improved on this beauty.

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by 1BMW4fun

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

Oh yeah... And a 295-30/20 tire will cost like 500$ a piece

[PaulBailey@ltbmw]

Incredible engine bay

[TS335i]

I'd luv to put the 528i bumper caps and badges on this thing and have the ultimate sleeper...

[MDivPower]

one hot machine this is!!!

[Quattro98]

Originally Posted by Matt01

FOR SALE-

one good wife, one good daughter and one good cat....

Price; one new BMW M5

[Davin]

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 agree with everything you've said. Unless the next M3 is an evolutionary step up from the current one and is offered as a sedan, this is what i'm going to get

[GOLFFRR]

how can you not like this!

[mclarenxj220]

GORGEOUS! http://f10.5post.com/goodiesforyou/m.../P90078361.jpg

[biglare]

I'm mixed on the initial viewing. I need to see this in person to confirm or deny my thoughts.

[qwaszxxx]

I wonder what they've done to the steering. Drove the new X3, steering felt the closer to my grandma's old Buick. They wouldn't have added a mechanical power steering unit to the M, would they?

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by qwaszxxx

I wonder what they've done to the steering. Drove the new X3, steering felt the closer to my grandma's old Buick. They wouldn't have added a mechanical power steering unit to the M, would they?

Read the press release, it is a hydraulic system, not electric.

[Mako]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Read the press release, it is a hydraulic system, not electric.

well Car and Driver is reporting its an "M Adjusted" electric steering system.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by Mako

well Car and Driver is reporting its an "M Adjusted" electric steering system.

They should read the press release a little better. From page 20:

"Steering: Hydraulic rack-and-pinion steering with M-Specific Servotronic function".

[GordonGecko]

I don't like it. (Well not particularly anyway)...

Does that make me a bad person?

[L4ces]

Thanks for your input!

[Jaylyons1]

Originally Posted by siwon66

THIS and SO MUCH MORE!!

Oh my... 560hp w/ 28.5 mpg? SOLD!! I want to drive one now!

[Byzandula]

Originally Posted by Jaylyons1

THIS and SO MUCH MORE!!

Oh my... 560hp w/ 28.5 mpg? SOLD!! I want to drive one now!

Let's wait and see what the "real" mpg numbers are. 28.5 MUST be a thing of fiction. This M5 is one of the best looking versions of the car. I love all of the revisions and I wish I wouldn't have to take on another mortgage in order to own one. Fantastic car!!!