Whilst I am a self profesed BMW Fanboy, I am also in the camp that has no problem with an AWD M5 model alongside the RWD, because I understand there would be a sound business case for it, but...
It would frustrate me that people may consider the AWD version to be the better car to drive, because it recorded better numbers on the track, it would overlook the driving experience.. which is where I would disagree that details such as the driven wheels are not arbitrary.. and where a rock solid edict may be a good thing.. it's all about character, and a certain degree of heritage/pedigree. I would be gutted if those two things were lost because there was a 0.2 second difference around Hockenheim (for example).
Like I say.. I have no problem with an AWD M5 as a car.. I think you and I argued in the X6M thread a while ago about what made an M car... somebody said you have to draw the line somewhere, and I disagreed (in the context of the X M's).. but now I think BMW are approaching that line a little too readily. Philosophical comfort zone or not... brand values are brand values... making an X6 and then making an M version is one thing... but messing with a tried and tested formula is another.
I saw this post other day and meant to get back to it, but couldn't quite figure out how to explain myself clearly without a wall of text, so trying the best I can...
Well as niky said in his post, its simply too early to tell if the M5 xdrive (or whatever the hell they call it) will live up to the standards people expect.
I think assuming that it will be worse to drive because it is AWD and faster is the same mistake as assuming it will be
better to drive because of the same reasons.
First, there is no precedent for such an M car (to be offered with two drivetrains) so you can't look at past examples.
Second, I believe that the criteria for making a good M car (any performance car, really) is not tied to specific hardware, but rather behavior.
For example, an M car should have excellent throttle response. In the past, the best way to achieve this was with a particular combination of hardware. A high-reving naturally aspirated motor with individual throttle bodies for rapid and precise airflow control. But if you can accomplish the same thing with a turbo motor and pick up extra qualities like better fuel economy and more torque while keeping the downsides to a minimum, then why not?
That's what I mean when I think some people are too hung up on the details and can't see the forest for the trees.
Brand values are based around results; the end product and how it well it accomplishes its mission. Not necessarily
how it accomplishes it. How the M5 puts power down is not nearly as important as
how it makes you feel.
I also have some examples of M staying traditional when the technology doesn't let them achieve what they set out to do. M cars still don't use run-flats because M doesn't feel they give proper feedback. In the Z4 M, my last BMW, they retained hydraulic power steering instead of an electric rack for the same reason. So I think the people there are still capable of making good choices in the face of technology moving forward.
And let us, for the sake of argument, say the xdrive version of the car isn't as good as the RWD one. Does this make it a bad car? Is the athlete who takes home the silver medal a bad athlete because someone else won the gold? I think in the end, it only needs to be better than the competition... and by many accounts, the RS6 is not a hard target to hit.
I also have some ambivalence about 'fun to drive' as an objective and subjective property, but that's really for another discussion...
M
