Talk:BMW M5

message: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes  ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button  located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.   
WikiDMc (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

message: Can anyone confirm that the B7S was actually based on the E28 M5, rather than a 'cooking' 5 series? AFAIK, Alpina usually don't 'modify' the M series cars...
You are correct.  The Alpina B7 Turbo's were not based on the BMW M cars.  However, the Alpina and BMW M's were both based on the same chassis.  Alpina also used some parts from the M's in the B7's, such as the front brakes, and differentials.  
The B7 used the BMW M30 short block as a basis for it's engine.  The M30 was a 12 valve SOHC motor.  The M5's used a twin-cam 24 valve cylinder head, and a different block.  Some of the internals (pistons, rods, etc.) were modified by Alpina, and the cylinder head was their own design and manufacture.  To this engine, Alpina also added a KKK K27 turbocharger (the same as was used in the Porsche 930 Turbos).  The turbo setup took the normally aspirated 200+ HP M30 motor to over 300 HP.
The B7 Turbo was built for a specific purpose - to be faster than Porsche and Ferrari; and it was.  When released, it was the fastest four door production car ever - its top speed was 155 MPH.  There was also a B7 Turbo Coupe, based on the BMW 6 series chassis.  There are actually three distinct series of B7's.  The B7 Turbo and B7 Turbo Coupe, which were introduced in 1978, and were based on the 3.0 L M30 motor.  These cars produced 300 HP.  The second version was the B7S Turbo and B7S Turbo Coupes.  These were the rarest of the B7's - 60 four doors, and 30 coupes were produced in 1981 & '82.  The B7S motors were based on the early 3.5L M30 motors, and produced 330 HP.  Top speed was 162 MPH.  Both the B7's and the B7S's were based on the E12 chassis (E24 for the coupes).  The final version was the B7 Turbo/1 and the B7 Turbo Coupe/1, produced between 1984 and 1988.  These were based on the E28 (& E24) chassis, and used an updated 3.5L M30 motor, which produced 330 HP.  Top speed was 168 MPH.  A final version, the B7 Turbo/2 was produced in '87 & '88, however its only modification was the addition of a catalytic converter.
For more information on Alpina's, you can go to www.alpina.de or the the Unofficial Alpina home page at www.m5board.com/alpina/.
:Thanks for the confirmation. I feel what you've posted above would make a great addition to the Alpina article. Roddyp 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpina B7S

message: Should we consider using a newer picture of an M5(does anyone here have one they can photograph?) because the one we have is harder to distinguish from other 80's BMW's than the modern M5 is from later models. Also having the "best" possible picture of the car we can get would help create a good impression of it. -- Faded_Mantis 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture used

message: Innovations: M Sport automobiles have a renowned tradition of offering blistering performance and the comfort of a luxury sedan  That's not exactly hippo language and looks like it's bee lifted from a sales brochure Escaper7 08:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version of M5: NPOV

message: It would be nice if there was a note on what went on in 2004 and 2005 - if E39 ceased 2003 and E60 started 2006.  Were no M5's produced in 2004 and 2005?  --Frank 14:00 04 December 2006 GMT
:The E60 M5 was introduced in 2005 in Europe. For North America, it was in 2006. Therefore it was only a gap year.
The E60 M5 did reach production for european models in October of 2004-an estimated 20 vehicles were sold before 2005, these vehicles were produced in anticipation of the supposed two year waiting list associated with the E60 model-these pre-built cars were delivered in both left and right hand drive to certain customers prior to the 2005 showroom availability of the car-I also believe these 20 vehicles were all sedan versions of the car as the touring model was only built at that time to order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.205.71 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What about 2004 and 2005

message: I think the prices of this vheicles and all articles on vheicles should include prices (probably standard prices) for informational purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.212.234.49 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Price information is very subjective, varies by national market and in any case what currency would it be listed in?  Not a good idea, and it's not the sort of information an encyclopaedia shuold be including. Escaper7 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices 

message: The article states "Despite the criticism of the Chris Bangle-designed chassis"
Chris Bangle had nothing to do with the chassis; he STYLED the body. These are two distinct regions of the car. The chassis is the floor pan and the suspension that bolts to it. The body is the part of the car most people see i.e. bonnet, wings, doors, roof & shell.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisR (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Chris Bangle

message: I'm wondering the neutrality of this part right here in the beginning of the E60 section
"The innovative gearbox is very responsive at the track, shifting very quickly, but for open-road driving, it's far from smooth, very jerky even in full automatic mode."
It's a bit of an ignorant statement as the car is meant to be driven as a manual, shift points and such. The computer isn't very intelligent on when to shift. On it being abrubt, Tiff Needell recommended being in S6 and lifting a slight bit when you shift which should make it a smooth shift.
On the manual section shouldn't it include the part of it being a half second slower 0 - 60 than the SMG? That is a huge difference.
Also, the undefeatable DSC is to prevent drivers from destroying the rear end with wheel hop.
Another comparison between the 6speed M5 and the old E46 M3 is as follows
M5: 13.0 @ 114 with 500 hp.
M3: 13.0 @ 108 with 333 hp. 
Car and Driver also says that the manual is 41 mph slower than the SMG.
I'm not going to add these in as I'm sure I am not neutral either, so I will just leave these bits of information here and if there is a place for them later, I'll put them in.
Exproject 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: E60 Transmission?

message: I have proposed that the two articles BMW M5 (E28) and BMW M5 (E34) be merged into this article.  My reasoning is straightforward.
*Only the E28 and E34 generations are given their own pages.  While I understand that the E28 was the "pioneer" of the M series as we know it today (the M1 being a much lower-volume vehicle), it still seems that if we are going to break up into separate generations, the E39, E60, and F10 chassis should be given their own pages as well.
*The two pages are basically the same length as the segments representing them in this article.  We are dealing with a foolish amount of redundancy here.  Either make this an "index" with small bits of info and NO detailed specs, or ditch the other articles, which is what I have suggested.
Sensible?
P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The claim for the E60 of...
0-60 mph: 4.1s, Road & Track [2/06]
...seems dubious to me, given that the 0-100km/h time is 4.7s (and 60mph = 96.56 km/h).  0.6s to go from 96.6km/h to 100km/h?  I doubt it.
WikiDMc (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly see your point. Yet the E60, as much as I truly dislike it, is a 500+BHP, 200+MPH (fully stock) capable of out-performing MOST Sports cars - regardless of age or genre. A fully broken-in E60 M5 is certainly capable of breaking even the 4.0 second barrier and oodles of owners claim to have done so. Simply stated, BMW cars are MUCH faster than the factory claims and all cars accelerate better once 50k miles have honed the piston/cylinder/crankshaft relationship. This social, real-world feedack cannot be dsmissed. My two cents. 82.24.0.22 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference link to Road & Track that supports the 4.1 second 0-60. 72Dino (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  0-60 in 4.1s? 

message: I recently changed a reference to the E60 having the first v10 "gasoline" engine in a production sedan to read "petrol" engine.  I now realise this might be a touch controversial, after seeing this discussion.
I made the change because:
* "Petrol" is used on the BMW international website (WP:TIES).
* The M5 is a German-made car, where I believe the term "petrol" is used over "gasoline" (WP:TIES).
* The BMW_5_series page uses "petrol".
I believe these are strong enough arguments to override the counter-arguments I could come up with:
* The M5 page appears to at least begin with American English Spelling (eg: utilizing) (WP:RETAIN), but not necessarily American terminology, and usage is inconsistent (utilising is used later in the article).
* As far as I can tell, more than half all M5's have been sold in the USA or Canada (WP:TIES).
WikiDMc (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Petrol" or "Gasoline" engine? 

message: "Production of the M5 continued until November 1988, well after production of the E28 chassis ended in Germany in December 1987. This continued production would eventually lead to a class action lawsuit that was settled with vouchers being given to car owners" - the article doesn't explain why there was a class action lawsuit. There's an implication that BMW originally sold it as a limited edition, but reneged on the deal, but the article says nothing about this. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on BMW M5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926145535/http://www.edmunds.com:80/bmw/m5/2010/review.html? to http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/m5/2010/review.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can anyone get a proper photo of the new M5? The photos at commons have either too much smoke or taken from a poor angle. The only perfectly angled photos are of the rear. U1Quattro (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  F90 M5 Picture 

message: The bogus and low quality photo should not be added back again and again. U1Quattro (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find the blue car photo all that objectionable, the resolution could be better, but the angle is very good, the background is uncluttered, and the car is original. The red car photo is a better resolution, however it has aftermarket grilles, the silver car photo is just bad, zoom in on a headlight and you can see why 4.1 megapixels is not found on modern cameras. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the grille being aftermarket qualifies the photo to be removed. U1Quattro (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule stating that the car cannot have aftermarket parts. I have however replaced the photo. U1Quattro (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a project convention in WP:CARPIX, I don't think aftermarket grilles are fundamentally disqualifying. I think some better photos need to be taken. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  E39 M5 Picture 

message: I am not entirely sure about the E34 being the "last M5 to feature an engine with a historical link to a BMW Motorsport racing engine.", the F10 has the S63 which was used in the M6 GT3  and if one is to count that as non historical as the motor was used after the F10 came out, the F90 uses the same motor. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That statement is no longer correct. I guess an updated version could say something like "last M5 to use an engine evolved from the 1970s DOHC racing engine". Although given that only the first 2 M5 generations (out of 7 so far) used this engine, it feels a bit like splitting hairs. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, specifying it further seems unnecessary. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  E34 motor historical link? 

message: Hello ,
Regarding this edit that you reverted, "All-wheel drive" is a much more common description than "Front-engine, all-wheel drive". Therefore I believe it is the better choice for the infobox. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: its not about commonality but about the format which is used here. Good articles like the Jaguar XJ220, Ferrari F40 etc use this layout. There are many other hinges which are common but are not used here.U1 quattro TALK 11:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template formatting or documentation is not Wikipedia policy. I agree that the engine location is a key fact for mid-engined cars, but not the M5. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  Hi . Ok, I will try to avoid excessive commas and line breaks in the infobox. Regarding the drivetrain layout, please see my previous reply. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree with that. As an ICE powered car, the layout present in the infobox should be used. Yore also eliminating information from the infobox for no reason. Even after we had a discussion on it.U1 quattro TALK 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: BMW's motorsport division has made one road car that was not front engined, I don't think readers would assume that BMW built a rear engined sports sedan. This seems somewhat unnecessary. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We should follow the standard infobox layout at all times. Rather than summarising things too much. If you both have a problem with that, start an RfC at the infobox automobile template page and obtain a consensus at what you are trying to do. Until then, I'm restoring the previous version.U1 quattro TALK 04:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pointless, infobox templates are not rules or the MOS, we need not slavishly follow something OSX added in 2013 on the urging of one other person, It would be just as legitimate for me to add "not mandatory" to the end of it. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Templates are still used. If they weren't MOS, we would have articles without them. Majority of the Toyota automobiles are Front-engine and the template lists that as an example.U1 quattro TALK 09:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not how Wikipedia operates. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Why? Do you think this information is actually useful to readers? Or do you think that the infobox documentation must be followed to the letter? Toasted Meter (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to both. You don't agree? Start an RfC. Not a hard thing to do. All FA about automobiles follow the infobox template by letter and this is what this article should do.U1 quattro TALK 09:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

text: * There is no proof supporting the claim that being front-engined is a key fact of the M5. However, the fact it is rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive is often mentioned in press coverage. Infobox documentation is not Wikipedia policy. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that this was the selling factor of the M5. If you want to use the infobox, use it in a way in which it is used on FAs and in the example given on the template or don't use it at all since its not part of the policy. Last time I checked, all infoboxes related to Toyota Vehicles and Honda Vehicles use this layout terminology instead of your summarised version even when majority of the vehicles they produce are Front-engine. There is no rule backing up the use of your version of the terminology. So like I said, if you think summarising the infobox is best, obtain consensus regarding that on the template talkpage.U1 quattro TALK 12:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

text: * According to the MOS, the purpose of the infobox is to summarise the key features of the subject. I believe that being front-engined is not a key feature of the M5. Regarding infoboxes in any other car articles, again WP:OTHERSTUFF is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Yes but it's meant to be not your made up version. You don't have any policy or anything that backs up what you're doing to infoboxes. Yore messing it up because you think it's right. It's not. FAs use the infobox mentioning the whole drivetrain layout, proper mention of the engine and other stuff. Your changes are just degrading the articles.U1 quattro TALK 05:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

text: * Here is some press coverage which looks at the drivetrain layout: 1, 2, 3, 4. None of them mention the engine location. Do you have press coverage (apart from spec sheet rundowns) that supports you claim that being front engined is a key aspect of the M5? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We simply cannot assume whether or not the reader knows if a certain drivetrain layout is "common". For example, I have asked one of my friends if he could tell me what the "default" bus drivetrain layout is. He didn't know that it is rear engine, rear wheel drive. But is it? For a Mercedes-Benz O 405 this is true. But not for an Ikarus 280, a common bus here in Hungary, which has the mid engine, mid-wheel drive layout. And what about all these International S series busses? They have a front engine and rear-wheel drive. The common reader is not a petrol head who knows that an M5 has a front engine, and that a Porsche has a rear engine. But I wouldn't be too sure about the latter. So, my opinion, just write that the car was designed with the front engine, rear-wheel drive layout. It doesn't hurt anyone, but clears things up for sure. Here's one more thing: A 1959 Porsche, with an air-cooled, 1.6 litre, fuel-injected engine, a manual five-speed dog-leg gearbox, rear-wheel drive, and a limited slip diff is so slow, that going by foot is faster. And if that is confusing, I reckon it is because most people forget that not all Porsche vehicles are cars.  Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Yes, common knowledge comes here s well as not everyone reading the article knows about cars. The template gives an example on how it should be used. It's there on the template page. If you have a problem with that then start an RfC on the template page which you have not done as of yet. You have resorted to edit reversion without seeking out clear consensus. This behavior is unacceptable. Engine location is a key aspect of the vehicle otherwise there wouldn't be any hype about the Corvette C8 like it is now. If you are that persistent about your version then obtain a consensus about it like I did about designers on the infobox and then come back.U1 quattro TALK 04:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive started a discussion about this here feel free to participate.U1 quattro TALK 04:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drivetrain layout