M5 Officially Official: The BMW M5 F10.

[DblPen]

I don't believe the E60 M5 will do 205mph, or even anywhere close. The fact that even the F10 M5 cannot do 205mph suggests that is the case.

The major factors in top speed are horsepower, drag coefficient, and gearing. Weight becomes less important. When you look at the cars that don't do 205mph, do you seriously think it's logical that the E60 M5 could make it?

R8 V10 plus (197mph)
SLS AMG (197mph)
Porsche Turbo S (196mph)
Ferrari 458 Italia (202mph)
Lamborghini Gallardo 570-4 Superleggara (202mph)

When you see the cars that CAN'T do 205mph, do you seriously think the E60 M5 can?!!

i dont know man, i really dont i just remember reading about it. And i think there was m drivers pack for e60 m5 which limits the car to 190mph(or was it 180)? If so 205 is not so far fetched and even if it cant do that, 190+ is still pretty good

 

[Hofmeister]

The Phaeton W12 could go to 180 mph unlimited so 205 mph doesn't seem to out of reach for the far lighter, slightly more powerful, more aerodynamically efficient E60 M5. Anyway, why would BMW lie ( especially at the thought of being sued )??

 

[Dauer]

There are videos where the M5 and M6 are doing 200-205 mph on the speedo
Don't know if they are standard

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Betty Swollocks]

The Phaeton W12 could go to 180 mph unlimited so 205 mph doesn't seem to out of reach for the far lighter, slightly more powerful, more aerodynamically efficient E60 M5. Anyway, why would BMW lie ( especially at the thought of being sued )??

BMW's official top speed for the E60 M5 is 155mph (more if opting for the Driver's Package, but still nowhere near 205mph), so who's going to sue them?

You answered your own statement earlier. It doesn't make any sense that the more powerful F10 M5 would be slower than the E60 M5, most likely because it isn't true. Just using common sense tells you a 507hp four-door saloon which is unaerodynamic is not going to be faster than the various cars I've mentioned.

Do you seriously think the E60 M5 is faster than the 570hp Ferrari 458?

There are videos where the M5 and M6 are doing 200-205 mph on the speedo
Don't know if they are standard

Exactly. Don't know if they're standard. Besides which, an indicated 200mph could well be 180mph as speedos are allowed to overead by up to 10%.

 

[DblPen]

maybe v8 reaches its redline faster compared to v10 which has substantialy longer rev range, so e60c an reach higher speeds? i dont if that makes any sense, since you have to take gearing in to question, im just asking.
Plus it has been said in numerous shows and journals that m5 can reach 205mph, ofcourse its not a proof, but i doubt they would run around saying it if it was such a nonsense

 

[Zafiro]

maybe v8 reaches its redline faster compared to v10 which has substantialy longer rev range, so e60c an reach higher speeds? i dont if that makes any sense, since you have to take gearing in to question, im just asking.
Plus it has been said in numerous shows and journals that m5 can reach 205mph, ofcourse its not a proof, but i doubt they would run around saying it if it was such a nonsense

Carmakers lie about fuel consumption maybe they lie about topspeeds too

 

[DblPen]

Carmakers lie about fuel consumption maybe they lie about topspeeds too

bigger top speed doesnt make you pay bigger taxes

 

[Betty Swollocks]

maybe v8 reaches its redline faster compared to v10 which has substantialy longer rev range, so e60c an reach higher speeds? i dont if that makes any sense, since you have to take gearing in to question, im just asking.

Even if the gearing was optimised, I think the E60 M5 would run out of puff before it got to 200mph. It's very unaerodynamic for those kinds of speeds.

I know it's possible to work out the theoretical top speed of a car based on gearing, drag coefficient and power. If somebody knows the formula and the key figures, they'd be able to work it out.

Plus it has been said in numerous shows and journals that m5 can reach 205mph, ofcourse its not a proof, but i doubt they would run around saying it if it was such a nonsense

I think they would.

 

[Zafiro]

focus on the tech

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Giannis]

At first I saw this:



Then I saw this:



And I wondered: How many days will it take a skilled mechanic to change the spark plugs?

 

[DeDe]

As far as I can remember there was an official BMW-graph on the gearing/power-output of the E60 M5 and according to that graph the car's theoretical topspeed was 325 km/h - that's a bit optimistic IMO.
The M6 managed 309 km/h at Nardo with a slightly worse drag (Cw0,30 vs 0,29 according to Sport Auto's Supertest), so the M5's maximum should be around 315 km/h.

 

[Guibo]

I don't believe the E60 M5 will do 205mph, or even anywhere close. The fact that even the F10 M5 cannot do 205mph suggests that is the case.

The major factors in top speed are horsepower, drag coefficient, and gearing. Weight becomes less important. When you look at the cars that don't do 205mph, do you seriously think it's logical that the E60 M5 could make it?

R8 V10 plus (197mph)
SLS AMG (197mph)
Porsche Turbo S (196mph)
Ferrari 458 Italia (202mph)
Lamborghini Gallardo 570-4 Superleggara (202mph)

When you see the cars that CAN'T do 205mph, do you seriously think the E60 M5 can?!!

Drag coefficient is almost nothing without area. Total drag is more important. The E60's (0.68) is much lower than the SLS's (0.78).
Turbo S is better, but it makes peak power at much lower revs; it can't run out to 8200 rpm, and its top gear seems too tall (2.13:1 vs 3.0:1).
458 tops out at around 8600 rpm in top, where it's making ~420Nm, according to the supertest powergraph. The E60 at 8200 rpm is making ~475 Nm.
LP570-4's 6th gear is too tall, running a 2.4:1 ratio, where the E60's is 3.0:1. So it must run in 5th, but is drag limited to that speed; even if runs near redline, it's at a torque disadvantage to the M5, with only 420 Nm. Its total drag is also worse, at 0.71.
R8 V10 also has a too-tall gearing issue in top, and its drag coefficient of 0.729 is worse too. It also makes less torque at redline (420 Nm).
The E60 also has narrower tires (less rolling resistance) than many of these cars, which might help it reach redline in 7th whereas some other cars might come short. Some of these other cars are running stickier compounds too, and that might make it tougher along with the drag.
Against the F10, the newer car has higher total drag (0.73), and its 7th gear is way too tall (a 2.11:1 ratio), so it must run in 6th. But even 6th may be too tall, a 2.64:1 ratio. Even if it could run to redline in 6th, the M5 outrevs it by over 1000 rpm.

EDIT: Actually, by online top speed calculators, the E60 wouldn't be at the 8250 rpm limiter at 205 mph in 7th. It would be 7750, bang on its peak power point, and ~470 Nm.

 

[DblPen]

Drag coefficient is almost nothing without area. Total drag is more important. The E60's (0.68) is much lower than the SLS's (0.78).
Turbo S is better, but it makes peak power at much lower revs; it can't run out to 8200 rpm, and its top gear seems too tall (2.13:1 vs 3.0:1).
458 tops out at around 8600 rpm in top, where it's making ~420Nm, according to the supertest powergraph. The E60 at 8200 rpm is making ~475 Nm.
LP570-4's 6th gear is too tall, running a 2.4:1 ratio, where the E60's is 3.0:1. So it must run in 5th, but is drag limited to that speed; even if runs near redline, it's at a torque disadvantage to the M5, with only 420 Nm.
R8 V10 also has a too-tall gearing issue in top, and its drag coefficient of 0.729 is worse too. It also makes less torque at redline (420 Nm).
The E60 also has narrower tires (less rolling resistance) than many of these cars, which might help it reach redline in 7th whereas some other cars might come short. Some of these other cars are running stickier compounds too, and that might make it tougher along with the drag.
Against the F10, the newer car has higher total drag (0.73), and its 7th gear is way too tall (a 2.11:1 ratio), so it must run in 6th. But even 6th may be too tall, a 2.64:1 ratio. Even if it could run to redline in 6th, the M5 outrevs it by over 1000 rpm.

EDIT: Actually, by online top speed calculators, the E60 wouldn't be at the 8250 rpm limiter at 205 mph in 7th. It would be 7750, which is bang on with its power peak. At that rpm, it produces 500 Nm, not 475.

wow, nice post, dont know if its true or not, but nice read

 

[Betty Swollocks]

wow, nice post, dont know if its true or not, but nice read

Ha ha!!

The E60 M5 cannot do 205mph. Period.

 

[Dauer]

The E60 M5 cannot do 205mph. Period.

Well, that's settled then.
No need to discuss it further.

 

[Guibo]

Ha ha!!

The E60 M5 cannot do 205mph. Period.

How is that post any different from what you've posted before?
Are you implying the numbers are made up? You can check them here:
http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/sport-auto-supertest-bmw-m5-f10-m5-e60.46374/

If you imply there is no value to total drag force, then why would Sport Auto (as well as C&D) list frontal areas and even do the CdxA calculation?

You provided examples of other cars as why the M5 cannot reach such a speed. This would have merit if they had the same gearing, powertrain, and drag characteristics. But they don't (as grossly displayed by the SLS's total drag). You claimed the M5 was "very unaerodynamic," when in reality it is more aerodynamic than many of them, with less total drag force than them as well. If you look at the power and gearing graphs of the M5s, you'd see the F10's gearing is way too tall to overcome drag and resistance forces. We can figure as much since the F10 is designed with a heavier emphasis toward fuel efficiency, and even its 6th gear is too tall to hit peak; we observe that it hits top speed right at the moment its torque plateau starts to plunge. This is probably no coincidence. Whether the F10 can't reach such a speed has little bearing on whether the E60 might.

 

[Hofmeister]

Ha ha!!

The E60 M5 cannot do 205mph. Period.

Does it just piss you off that your R8 might, just might be slower than an old M5? Because thats the only way I can see why you continually refuse to consider at the facts presented by other, obviously well-informed members.

 

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Underwhelming. The 2013 BMW M5 is underwhelming.
We're shocked. No, we're disappointed. Is this really an M5 we don't love? An M5 we wouldn't sell our kids in order to buy? An M5 we don't just want to drive all day to go nowhere?
It is. It absolutely is.
Honestly, we never thought this day would come. We never thought there'd ever be an M5 we wouldn't kill to own. But here we are, behind the wheel of the all-new turbocharged 560-horsepower M5, undeniably one of the world's fastest and most capable sedans, and we are underwhelmed.

It's All About the Engine
Part of the problem is the BMW's new turbocharged engine.
The heart of the new fifth-generation M5 is a direct-injected 4.4-liter twin-turbo V8 borrowed from the
Gearbox gripes aside, 60 mph goes by in a blink at just 4.5 seconds (4.3 seconds with a
While transitional response hasn't improved, overall grip has, the M5 generating 0.93g around the skid pad versus the previous car's 0.88g and the Caddy's 0.92. Telling, though, was the way the M5 massively rolled over on its outside front tire, despite the suspension being set to its stiffest mode.
Real Brakes
Even if the 2013 BMW M5 is no longer pinpoint precise, it's still forgiving at the limit. In spite of the sedan's new veil of isolation, the M5 works with you rather than against. Whether you're drifting it around a track or ripping down a sinewy back road, getting it very wrong and backing this sedan off the road would be difficult.
And as a daily commuter, the Comfort suspension setting should be plush enough for most on the highway and around town, although we certainly wouldn't label it as cushy.
BMW scrapped the M5's sliding caliper front brakes for a set of six-piston fixed calipers clamping down on 15.7-inch rotors at the front and 15.6-inch rotors at the rear (still with sliding calipers).
They do an admirable job of hauling down the M5's sizable mass, with a best stop of 111 feet from 60 mph. If we're quibbling, that's a foot longer than the last M5, and the new M5's distances were rather erratic, the worst stop a lengthy 117 feet. But pedal feel is superbly firm.
Stealthy, Inside and Out
The cabin is typical upmarket BMW, meaning fairly bland stylingwise but incredibly well made. The front sport seats are surprisingly wide, yet still offer appropriate lateral support and such a high level of comfort that you never even think about whether they're comfortable or not.
Our test car was loaded and expensive. Just about every luxury and safety feature you can imagine had been thrown into the well-crafted cabin, including soft-close automatic doors, a power trunk and a power rear sunshade, all part of the $5,500 Executive package.
All in, this a six-figure car. With options our test car went out the door at $107,695. The 2013 BMW M5 starts at $91,795, including $895 destination and a $1,000 gas-guzzler tax. That's just a grand more than the base price of a 2013
If this were an M7 not an M5, no doubt we'd be telling you this is the world's greatest 7 Series — which is exactly what it feels like. But while the new M5 might not be the ultra-precise weapon we had envisioned, it's still a super capable, ultra-fast machine with exotic-car thrust in the upper revs. And it's perfectly comfortable and subtle for everyday use.
But it basically comes down to this: Somehow the white coats in Munich made the 2013 BMW M5 more powerful and quicker and they've given it more grip, but they forgot something — the emotion. Where's the excitement? Where's the visceral thrill? Where's the M5's sinister evil twin?

http://www.insideline.com/bmw/m5/2013/2013-bmw-m5-full-test-and-video.html

Oh, that's right, it's down the street at the Cadillac dealer. It's called the CTS-V.

 

[deity]

Call me stupid/ignorant or whatever, but I just hate american car journalism. Most biased people in the world, and always looking to make a headline. Not saying that euro magazines don't, but I just hate the way the C&D/Inside Line people do it.

 

[Sunny]

Call me stupid/ignorant or whatever, but I just hate american car journalism. Most biased people in the world, and always looking to make a headline. Not saying that euro magazines don't, but I just hate the way the C&D/Inside Line people do it.

I think a lot can be said about quality or the lack of it in American car journalism, but bias is not a charge I would level at it. I find American journalists (and the wider American population in general) more open minded to foreign cars than Europeans or the Japanese. Just see relatively how well cars from all countries do here vs other markets.