Edmunds: 2012 BMW M5 First Drive

[Galaxy]

But that is precisely what all these gears are for these days; to keep them up in the rev range when needed.

Whether shifting or not turbo lag will be less with more revs.

Aggressive throttle mapping can mask/screen lag to some extent.

A CVT does a good job of keeping an engine in it's rev range. The problem is that with a lot of engines the rev range comes with a buzzzzzzzzzzz.

[sportyaccordy]

But that is precisely what all these gears are for these days; to keep them up in the rev range when needed.

Whether shifting or not turbo lag will be less with more revs.

Aggressive throttle mapping can mask/screen lag to some extent.

Lets take a couple of things into consideration here

Even w/o the turbochargers the M5 has a high compression 5 liter V8, I believe with VVT and DI. So just w/that on the low end it is covered. Plus it has Valvetronic, which means it is not seeing the expected pumping losses of a big V8 (but also is capped at a low rev limit- again, anti-///M but w/e)

Then to add to that, yes it is turbocharged, but it's not turbocharged like a T88 Supra on an OBX log manifold. This thing is like "quadra scroll", optimized to eliminate lag and maximize response, with engine management to match.

Then to add to that, it has a DSG proven to be responsive in the M3, with a focus on, in low load driving anyway, BMW's new commitment to efficiency.

I'm certain engine management has been optimized as well, compensating for the gearing effect on boost. For Christ's sake, you can get a $200 ECU for a Honda Civic that has boost/gear management, and they actually work pretty well too. To think BMW hasn't taken such effects into consideration is asinine.

I hate hate hate the fact that BMW is moving to an all turbocharged lineup... it literally makes me sick to my stomach... but the reality is this thing is the real deal, as far as delivering on its efficiency promises. They've literally taken every available step to maximize efficiency & response, in that order. And again if the old 528i with the comparatively wheezy I6 can cruise <2000RPM, I'm sure this can as well- as that is what we are talking about here, cruising.

[Raza]

I hate hate hate the fact that BMW is moving to an all turbocharged lineup... it literally makes me sick to my stomach...

[GoCougs]

Lets take a couple of things into consideration here

Even w/o the turbochargers the M5 has a high compression 5 liter V8, I believe with VVT and DI. So just w/that on the low end it is covered. Plus it has Valvetronic, which means it is not seeing the expected pumping losses of a big V8 (but also is capped at a low rev limit- again, anti-///M but w/e)

Then to add to that, yes it is turbocharged, but it's not turbocharged like a T88 Supra on an OBX log manifold. This thing is like "quadra scroll", optimized to eliminate lag and maximize response, with engine management to match.

Then to add to that, it has a DSG proven to be responsive in the M3, with a focus on, in low load driving anyway, BMW's new commitment to efficiency.

I'm certain engine management has been optimized as well, compensating for the gearing effect on boost. For Christ's sake, you can get a $200 ECU for a Honda Civic that has boost/gear management, and they actually work pretty well too. To think BMW hasn't taken such effects into consideration is asinine.

I hate hate hate the fact that BMW is moving to an all turbocharged lineup... it literally makes me sick to my stomach... but the reality is this thing is the real deal, as far as delivering on its efficiency promises. They've literally taken every available step to maximize efficiency & response, in that order. And again if the old 528i with the comparatively wheezy I6 can cruise <2000RPM, I'm sure this can as well- as that is what we are talking about here, cruising.

Again, YOUR premise is "cruising" and efficiency - if that is your tune perhaps think about starting a sub thread. I'm talking solely response. 500 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm is mostly useless in this car for reasons mentioned ad naseum.

[sportyaccordy]

Mostly useless aside from 90% of normal driving... yes, very useless indeed

[GoCougs]

Mostly useless aside from 90% of normal driving... yes, very useless indeed

What kind of "normal driving" needs 500 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm?

[CJ]

What kind of "normal driving" needs 500 lb-ft @ 1,500 rpm?

No normal driving needs 500 lb-ft ever.  I've done fine with 135 lb-ft.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Why on earth is the usefulness of a 500HP M5 being discussed?

[SVT666]

Why on earth is the usefulness of a 500HP M5 being discussed?

I don't know.  Excess is what the M5 is all about.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I don't know.  Excess is what the M5 is all about.

Cougs started it.

[GoCougs]

My previous post in this thread -> I am the Alpha and the Omega.

[sportyaccordy]

I don't know.  Excess is what the M5 is all about.

Gonna sound like a vacuum cleaner

[Raza]

Gonna sound like a vacuum cleaner

Camry engine, at best. 

[hotrodalex]

People who use the inverse of Hooke's law as a proxy for units of torque.

Nice straw man.

It's a failed response anyway. Your wording is quite off - you're saying that people who say "ft/lbs" are the ones who complain about too much torque. So either I complain about the torque (which is completely false), or you use "ft/lbs" instead of the more-correct lb-ft. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

(BTW, ft/lbs is an acceptable term in most places, except in scientific speak. Since this is an internet forum, I think it's okay. The world is not going to end.)

Not that this post even matters one bit. It's an undeniable fact that anyone who complains about having too much torque at too low an RPM is an absolute moron. 

[Raza]

I say torques.  As in one torque, two torques, red torque, blue torque.  Blue torques are the fastest kind of torques. 

[GoCougs]

Nice straw man.

It's a failed response anyway. Your wording is quite off - you're saying that people who say "ft/lbs" are the ones who complain about too much torque. So either I complain about the torque (which is completely false), or you use "ft/lbs" instead of the more-correct lb-ft. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

(BTW, ft/lbs is an acceptable term in most places, except in scientific speak. Since this is an internet forum, I think it's okay. The world is not going to end.)

Not that this post even matters one bit. It's an undeniable fact that anyone who complains about having too much torque at too low an RPM is an absolute moron. 

Wrong should never be "acceptable."

[hotrodalex]

Wrong should never be "acceptable."

Guess you better get your shovel out then, because there are a lot of unacceptable people out there that you need to take care of.

Funny thing is, you're included in that, since you're wrong about 500 lb-ft of torque being useless. 

Were you one of those people who didn't want to upgrade to an automobile back in the early 1900s because "I don't need no stinkin' car! My horse makes enough power for me, dammit! 12 horsepower don't help me none in everyday travel!"?

[MrH]

Wrong should never be "acceptable."

You've be "unacceptable" this entire thread!  Irony at its finest.

[GoCougs]

Guess you better get your shovel out then, because there are a lot of unacceptable people out there that you need to take care of.

Funny thing is, you're included in that, since you're wrong about 500 lb-ft of torque being useless. 

Were you one of those people who didn't want to upgrade to an automobile back in the early 1900s because "I don't need no stinkin' car! My horse makes enough power for me, dammit! 12 horsepower don't help me none in everyday travel!"?

Again, stating torque units as ft/lbs is incorrect. That lots of people do elsewhere is irrelevant. They're all wrong. Just so you know, you'll never find such a technically naive if not ignorant enthusiast group as car enthusiasts; torque vs. horsepower, ft/lbs vs. lb-ft, chassis dyno vs. engine dyno, CAI power boost, syn oil godliness, etc., it's a wasteland of myth and misinformation.

Just because enthusiasts like cars, can buy cars, can drive cars, and can modify cars, doesn't automatically translate into understanding or being able to explain how all that happens. And again, if you don't understand the POV that 500 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm in the M5 is mostly useless you're skirting with this group. Which group do you want to be in?

[hotrodalex]

Again, stating torque units as ft/lbs is incorrect. That lots of people do elsewhere is irrelevant. They're all wrong. Just so you know, you'll never find such a technically naive if not ignorant enthusiast group as car enthusiasts; torque vs. horsepower, ft/lbs vs. lb-ft, chassis dyno vs. engine dyno, CAI power boost, syn oil godliness, etc., it's a wasteland of myth and misinformation.

Just because enthusiasts like cars, can buy cars, can drive cars, and can modify cars, doesn't automatically translate into understanding or being able to explain how all that happens. And again, if you don't understand the POV that 500 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm in the M5 is mostly useless you're skirting with this group. Which group do you want to be in?

I want to be in the group that can enjoy an awesome engine without finding retarded excuses for why it's dumb or pointless.