e60m5: subtle turning of the tide.

[lemming]

i read carefully the Roundel writeup (which is phenomenal) by Klaus Schnitzer.

the engine lacks valvetronic because that system is useless at high rpm's and lacks active steering and active handling (...."less weight, fewer complications, and lower costs").

"I have been assured by M engineers that in the comfort setting, the M5 rides even better than the 5 Ser5ies sedan it's based on. My time in the M5 was limited, so I can't give a complete picture of the three suspension modes on a variety of surfaces....But, ultimately, who buys an M5 for comfort?"

(i think we addressed this already. "ghey" = comfort setting on any M car)

"During development, four- and six-piston calipers were tried, but the in-house brakes proved to be more capable and cost-effective, and much quieter -in all, a more user-friendly arrangement."

(read into that. so basically noise and cost matter more than consistent braking, lap after lap?)

3870pounds.

what is most notable about the Table at the end of the article is where the aston vanquish, the m5, the 612 scag and the CL65 AMG are compared in terms of cost, weight, acceleration and deceleration.

the m5 was the second fastest (behind the cl65 amg) but mediocre in braking. the data reinforce my assessment that too much cost and too much "noise" analysis plays into how BMW sets up the OEM brakes.

[dan]

Originally Posted by lemming

"During development, four- and six-piston calipers were tried, but the in-house brakes proved to be more capable and cost-effective, and much quieter -in all, a more user-friendly arrangement."

(read into that. so basically noise and cost matter more than consistent braking, lap after lap?)

did you miss the part where they said the in-house brakes were more capable?

[lemming]

Originally Posted by bonoboy

did you miss the part where they said the in-house brakes were more capable?

i guess i would put more faith in that if it didn't have the two caveats in the same sentence?

and the braking of the three other comparison cars (which were all heavier) was equal/mostly better?

my main point all along is that i suppose it's okay to have decent brakes on non-M cars, but why not put more money into pad compounds and the brakes themselves on M cars? why, for example, do you have to wait for an M club sport competition M3 to get bigger rotors with cross-drilled holes? why is it found in OneLap competitions that the M3 brakes and M5 brakes are horrible?

[Roadstergal]

Originally Posted by lemming

i guess i would put more faith in that if it didn't have the two caveats in the same sentence?

What caveats?

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Roadstergal

What caveats?

the noise & cost.

i don't think those should figure into an M car.

capable? i'll take their word for it. but cost and noise? get real.

[Roadstergal]

Originally Posted by lemming

the noise & cost.

Those weren't caveats.

the in-house brakes proved to be more capable and cost-effective, and much quieter -in all, a more user-friendly arrangement.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Roadstergal

Those weren't caveats.

i am going to take the M group engineer's word on this one.

what else can i say? it's an 8 minute car.

i'm still dubious, but i feel better that they actually did the analysis and compared it to 4 & 6 piston brake setups. maybe i'm more cynical than you are, but i don't think the author would have brought up noise and cost unless the engineers mentioned them. read the article for the context and see what you think.

[Roadstergal]

Originally Posted by lemming

read the article for the context and see what you think.

I toss the Roundel. I find it as entertaining as watching paint dry. I wish there were a Roundel delete option for BMWCCA membership.

From the quote you gave, the author found three advantages to the current brake setup. If the engineers differ, post the quote.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Roadstergal

I toss the Roundel. I find it as entertaining as watching paint dry. I wish there were a Roundel delete option for BMWCCA membership.

From the quote you gave, the author found three advantages to the current brake setup. If the engineers differ, post the quote.

it's pretty easy to read the quote that i posted and to interpret as i did. what more do you need?

honestly. i don't think cost and noise should even be an issue for BRAKES on an M vehicle. and that the car does not stop better than cars outweighing it proves my point. it's simple. i have a point. i have the data that backs up my point and the data are not generated by BMW specifically so it isn't biased.

[Roadstergal]

Originally Posted by lemming

it's pretty easy to read the quote that i posted and to interpret as i did.

But that wasn't a valid way of interpreting it.

Originally Posted by lemming

i have the data that backs up my point and the data are not generated by BMW specifically so it isn't biased.

Where?


I'll concede the point if there is data to support it, but the only data I've seen is the regular 5-series comparison. There, the only complaint about the brakes is that, after lengthy hard use, the brakes fade a bit. That's to be expected with street compounds - you seem to expect them to put track pads on them from the get-go, but why put pads that don't stop well when cold on a street car?