New M5...Weak Output Numbers ?!?!

I just got my new "Automobile" magazine today and they are going over upcoming cars and they had the new M5. Here is what they are saying : 500 hp 369 lb.-ft. of torque 8300 rpm redline 6 speed manual or SMG 0-60 in 4.5 seconds (probably factory conservative) While that is 31 more hp than the E55, it is a whopping 147 lb.ft. torque LESS than the E55. I hope this is a typo. That is only 1 lb./ft more torque than the current M5. If this is the final figure that is disappointing.

uh....aren't you on the wrong forum?!?!

As a competitor of the 996/997 I thought many people might be interested in this info. In terms of price point, and what was straight line performance (at least the old M5 vs. the 996) they were similar.

thanks for the info fanman!

The MB is supercharged and gives more power lower down and a lot more torque. The M5 is naturally aspirated and revs higher - very different engine building strategies.

Sweanders is right on spot, the MB is supercharged, tons of torque at the expense of sporty fast climbing reving engine and sporty character. Superchargers are a efficient and cheap way of getting HP and tons of torque down low for efforless calm crusing which is what the MB are for. The M5 is a n/a V10 and did you look at that rev limit? imagine 500HP at 8300RPM engine speeds! Much sportier performance and enjoyable, like a GT3, Gallardo or a F360. Just look at an F1, 18,000RPM and the torque of an M3.

The E55 has a sissy gearbox. I test drove an E55 while waiting for my M5 delivery. I told the salesguy, earnestly, that I thought something was wrong with the transmission, because the first to second shift was impotent where I was looking for neck snapping. He said "our demographics indicate that our customers like that sort of thing". He then suggested, I kid you not, that maybe I should visit the BMW dealer as I seemed more like a BMW type of person. At least he was perceptive on that level. In defense of MB, though, my wife drives a 4matic E320 wagon, and it does better in the snow than our Excursion. Steve 99 996 00 M5

Yeah, The MB gets only the 5-speed torque converter auto and tunned "a la MB target population" The new E60-M5 is gets a choice of 6-speed manual, a 6-speed torque converter auto, and a 7-speed SMG sequential tranny for you to play with that redline

I guess I was just expecting something like the improvement when the C32 AMG went to the new C55 AMG. A 3.2 SC'ed V6 to a 5.5L V8, and torque went from 332 lb.-ft. to 376 lb.-ft.. Even though the engine is similar sized I had figured with the extra 2 cylinders it would have put out more torque, given hp had gone up 100 hp.

Let me add something about the M5 engine. Some friends of mine raced a Dinan built M5 engine in a Picchio chassis in the Rolex series last year. They did a whole season of endurance racing on a single engine, including the Daytona 24. It is one well-built motor. Steve

Rumor has it that the numbers for the new M5 motor are under-stated, with perhaps 550 actual hp.

Carlos, How can the new M5 be available in a slushbox tranny? The BMW corporate requisite for all M-series cars is that they have a manual tranny (or the new SMG), but no torque converters allowed! (don't worry my shock and anger is not directed at you, but at BMW if this is correct!) This is the exact reason that the X5 4.6 is not an M series - they put a torque converter tranny on it.

Hmm, I have a feeling the torque number is off by 100 lbs. ft. I think it's a typo, probably should've been 469 lb. ft.

thats only what I heard. I least its their "6-speed" hydrolic torque converter that they use in the 7 series and supposed to be very good compared to pevious 5-speeds, though I'm not a fan of slush boxes either. It would be a first on a ///M car though as you mention, I don't know, maybe since some people think the SMG is to rough and not smooth enough as an auto (no me) and torque converters are so popular in the sport sedan market, specially US, that they would loose some sales not offering it. Then again, they also advertised a 9,000RPM redline, which I found hart to believe, and now its gone down to 8,300RPM already, so don't blow a fuse yet!

Actually, the e36 M3 was avaible with an auto.

In the states.. all that is coming with the M5 is a 7sp SMG.. No manual.. No auto (Thank god)

on the face of it yes. but i'd bet most drivers would have quicker times off the line than with a manual, and consistant too. you need to left-foot brake a car with a slush box to get the most from it. but make no mistake, the '04 e55 is still quick. the achilles heel being the soft suspension, imho.

That must of been only the version for the US, which was also de-tunned to 250HP, because in europe it didn't.

Steve...was that the G&W racer at VIR??? I talked to one of their guys at a PCA event and what he said about the E39 M5 engine was impressive. The whole season without a rebuild, then they sent the engine to the "sanctioning body" for a teardown comparison. I'd expect the V-10 to be rather robust, also!

FWIW...a BMW Forums perspective on the new M5... http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e60m5/ scroll down to the AutoCar(UK) article and you'll see that Torque stays the same....thus the power boost derives from upping the rev limiter.

Actually that should be about right. You can calculate HP by multiplying the torque in ft/lb by a given RPM within the curve and then divide by 5252. So if you took 369 ft/lb and multiplied by 7116 RPM (I did a reverse calc to figure that would be where the peak HP might be) and divided by 5252 you'd get about 500 HP. 469 ft/lbs at those kind of revs would be huge, nearly 635 HP. So if they really had that much torque it would have to be MUCH lower in the rev range, and considering they quote an 8300 RPM top I'd doubt that. Andrew