4WD M5/4WD VS 2WD/Turbo VS N/A Thread

[Stotty]

some people need real world experience...

roflmfao

 

[Clark]

Yeah Stotty, stop pretending to have driven real sportscars.

 

[MitchZ06]

roflmfao

You're 43 and you've given me crap examples to back up what you said. Have you actually driven any high performance AWD cars? Cmon man give me something better than a MX5 or 'any Audi'....

 

[Clark]

Do you not understand the Better Handling =/= more grip thing?

Things like Elises are some of the best handling cars, yet Scooby's and Evo's can corner just as fast. Does that make them have as good handling as the Elise? No.

 

[homeforsummer]

Though this comment was pretty daft:

Turbo is always better and faster then N/A, people like boost

And I fully agree with your retort...

That's like saying people always prefer apples to oranges!

It's also a little hypocritical since only a few posts previous you said this...

The best turbo engine will never have the character of a highly-string performance natrually aspirated one.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... I think if we look at this a bit more rationally both turbo and NA (and supercharged) have their ups and downs, and indeed it's ludicrous to say that "turbo is always better" and "people like boost" like those are facts, as is saying that the best turbo engine will never have the character of an NA engine, when a lot of people prefer NA for its highly-strung nature and many people like the character of turbo engines!

And MitchZ06, Stotty is right. More mechanical grip does not necessarily equal better handling. Indeed in many cases more grip can dilute handling and spoil steering feel. Some, not all. But if pure mechanical grip automatically meant better handling then any number of depressing sedans on sale today would technically be better handling cars than something like an original Lotus Elan, which we know is complete tosh...

Have you actually driven any high performance AWD cars?

I've driven an AWD Audi TT-S at speed on a circuit. It didn't handle as well as either a MINI Cooper, nor a Mazda MX-5 that I've also driven on circuits. Yet it had more grip than either. Work that one out.

 

[Stotty]

Not sure what my (old) age has to do with it, but I gave you a perfect example of how a car can relatively low grips levels but still have incredibly rewarding handling.

If you still don't understand the difference between handling and grip there's not much more I can do.

 

[Clark]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

You got me, I guess I can't stop my passion for N/A engines, but it that statement I never said that the character of an N?A engine was better than a Turbo'd one

/trying to dig myself out

 

[MitchZ06]

You gave me 2 poor examples. For one weight is a factor, same with power. A MX5 is very light, not Lotus light (Exige...omg that thing has tons of grip) but its lighter than other RWD roadsters. But tell me this, what would you prefer, a 414hp 1500kg MX5 or a 414hp/1500 Audi R8?

 

[freedomweasel]

I'm going to "side" with Stotty on this one, having AWD doesn't mean it will handle better. One of the common complaints against AWD cars is the (lack of) feel, understeer, and other byproducts of the system that change the handling. Yes, it can add grip, but it can reduce other important parts of handling too.

I hate to quote anything from Top Gear, but James May defines handling as:

Handling is […] the ability of the machine to feed information back to our receiving apparatus so that we can act minutely on it. The higher the fidelity of the feedback, the more precisely we can use it.

 

[Clark]

I know you're not directly talking to me Mitch, but I don't understand what you're getting at with that point. The fact that a car is lighter and handles better than a heavier one makes Sotty's point invalid?

 

[homeforsummer]

You gave me 2 poor examples. For one weight is a factor, same with power. A MX5 is very light, not Lotus light (Exige...omg that thing has tons of grip) but its lighter than other RWD roadsters. But tell me this, what would you prefer, a 414hp 1500kg MX5 or a 414hp/1500 Audi R8?

Neither.

I'd like a sub-1000kg, 118bhp Mazda MX5 to enjoy the benefits of great handling at sane speeds, and a 414bhp Audi R8 to pose in and occasionally go quickly...

In fact, scrap the R8 and give me a RWD Porsche 911 any day...

 

[Stotty]

You gave me 2 poor examples. For one weight is a factor, same with power. A MX5 is very light, not Lotus light (Exige...omg that thing has tons of grip) but its lighter than other RWD roadsters. But tell me this, what would you prefer, a 414hp 1500kg MX5 or a 414hp/1500 Audi R8?

Here's a really easy one...

BMW M3 vs Audi RS5

Same power, similar weight, one RWD, one 4WD.

The M3 is consistently rated as a superior handling car to the RS5 by much better and more experienced drivers than you or I.

Which one lapped Bedford fastest? (on the same day, in the hands of the same driver)

... give me a RWD Porsche 911 any day...

You have perfect taste

 

[Mike0105]

Why would an AWD M5 option be a brilliant move for BMW? One word: Winter. Even in the UK, known for mild winters and mild summers, many RWD cars struggled to the point where owners abandoned them. BMW knows that this makes Audi a more sensible all year round option.

Owners demanded Ferrari make an AWD model and they did. I reckon BMW was in the same boat.

On the topic of turbos vs N/A, both have advantages, but 25% improvement in fuel consumption? This would have made BMW's mind up.

 

[TT3AZ]

I don't see what the big deal is to be honest.

This is going to sit alongside the RWD model and then it's up to consumers which one they buy. If it's good, and consumers like it, it will sell well and we may see it replace the RWD variant in years to come... but only if consumers vote that way with their money.

And regarding turbocharging... don't blame the manufacturers, blame the emissions targets set by the various governments. This is what's driving the move to smaller capacity turbocharged engines.

There are some benefits of turbocharging beyond lower emissions per bhp though... such as proportionally higher torque and lower fuel consumption... of course this is usually off set by poorer throttle response and sound.

It's progress guys, and you'll generally get no where fighting it.

This is what its all about, the emission and laws. As i said before, the golden erra of 90s streetcars is gone, nowdays streetcars that are powerful is very expensive, like 100 000 dollars, and above. Yeh really street....ohh i liked the 90s. One thing i like though is turbos, this whole millenium with N/A v6, v8 etc is nothing for me. I like a turbo car from factory, with possible aftermarket turbo upgrades.

"when you hear it spool, you better floor it"

 

[freedomweasel]

How is the "golden era" over? You can buy faster cars for less money today than you could 10 years ago.

 

[TT3AZ]

How is the "golden era" over? You can buy faster cars for less money today than you could 10 years ago.

Well, its not the same when it comes to streetcars. Those rx7, 300zx, supras, etc, etc, will never return. Those are epic cars.

 

[freedomweasel]

Well, its not the same when it comes to streetcars. Those rx7, 300zx, supras, etc, etc, will never return. Those are epic cars.

I'm talking about street cars. Just because the ones you like are gone doesn't mean there aren't new models to take their place. 30-40k for a new car these days gets you something entirely too fast to use all of the performance on the road and will do much better than most of the cars in the same price range a decade ago, and likely get better fuel economy and be safer and more reliable. This is progress.

I love older cars, and they won't ever be "replaced", but to say that some performance era is over is silly. We have faster cars now.

 

[MatskiMonk]

You can all argue the merits and de-merits of Turbo's and All-wheel drive till the cows come home... doesn't change the fact BMW believes there are enough people out there that will buy an xDriveM5 to make producing one worth while.

Would I buy one over a RWD M5... no, it snows for maybe one week a year in this part of the UK, and somehow I've always managed with RWD, standard tyres and no traction control... However I respect BMW's decision to offer a choice to people who's wants and needs are different to mine.

 

[Dan_]

Yep, it will certainly be an option on the M lineup. An AWD version kind of spoils the BMWness in the car, it's like if there was a touch of a filthy and disgusting X5 in my dream supersaloon. However it will boost up sales, retrieving some of the customers lost to the stellar grip in the modern Audis. I'm quite sure they will make it somewhat special to drive, but I can't help but suspect it isn't going to be as good as the RWD version, because it can't. FR cars are much more exciting ( dangerous and less useable in weather, yes yes ), but way better to drive on a curvy road.

I must say I'm sad because all the V10 madness is gone, I guess you can't realy compete with the mid-range torque of a turbocharged engine, Audi has done it and BMW is keen on securing it's valuable customer base, even if that does mean sacrificing that stellar and incredible powerplant.

 

[The Outlaw]

IMO, turbocharging is the most reasonable route for BMW to go with the M5 at this point in time, not only to be competitive in the market place but also for a number of other reasons (improved fuel economy/emissions, lower revs, more usable powerband - all aspects which make a bit more sense in a 4 door/daily driver).

The M5 is a luxury sedan with a high level of performance that can be used on the street, so turbocharging the V8 and providing a more usable powerband is the practical way to go, rather than putting in some high strung normally aspirated V10 that belongs in a more pure drivers cars...not a 4000lb 4 door sedan.

From my perspective, if you want the purest driving experience possible buy something like a GT3 or Atom...not a M5 or any 4000lb car for that matter

Edit: I will say that BMW could have put the monster S85 V10 to better use though It's a bit sad that a special edition M3 was never equipped with that monster motor.

 

[McLaren]

I really don't see what the big deal is about whether or not the car is turbocharged or if it's 4WD available. Audi's done both with the RS6, & that car is well respected.

I know, I have read reviews of the FF, it's the bit where it talks about it being unable to really ever break loose.

Um, probably because Ferrari designed it that way. I don't know how BMW will do it, but the FF is an amazing car, & should not be faulted for being 4WD. It still drives like a Ferrari according to the reviews I've read & it is built for a specific market just like the 612.

If you want to break the back tires loose, that's what the 458 is for.

 

[Dan_]

Edit: I will say that BMW could have put the monster S85 V10 to better use though It's a bit sad that a special edition M3 was never equipped with that monster motor.

A new M1 could use those spare V10s though. I'm aware there are superb mid-engined competitors to a car like the M1, however as a limited run production edition it might bring some magic back to the badge.

 

[MatskiMonk]

A new M1 could use those spare V10s though. I'm aware there are superb mid-engined competitors to a car like the M1, however as a limited run production edition it might bring some magic back to the badge.

Forget it, the V10 is dead, BMW do not need to use this power plant to generate the power and torque required for a supercar, comparing emissions and consumption of the old M5's V10 and the new M5's V8TT will show that they would be crazy to use the V10 in a new model... I understand that people want a high revving engine, but I severely doubt that BMW would compromise their green targets just to offer that.

edit: I still want to see the 760's Twin Turbo V12 used in another application .. 7,000 redline, more torque than the TTV8.. and it's got 12 cylinders

 

[niky]

An all-wheel drive M5... well... you would have been blind not to see this coming. BMW's X-Drive system has the potential, in an M5, to be fully the match of Nissan's. I'm willing to bet a turbocharged xDrive M5 could be faster around the racetrack than a GT-R... depending on the specs they finally deliver it with. Doubt it will be anywhere near as involving as the current car, but c'est la vie.

---

The V10 was always more of a marketing move than anything else. Doesn't sound nearly as soulful as a V8 or a V12... and the V10+SMG in the M5 were completely out of character with the level of luxury in the car...

BMW's new pure sports-GT is the M3. With the new 5-series going up in size and luxury, there's just no room left for a high-strung naturally aspirated M5 anymore.

-

As for turbos... I'll reserve judgement till I see the new motor in the car. BMW's twin-turbo units are surprisingly linear. Throttle response is as good as it can get given all cars nowadays, turbo or NA, have electronic throttles.

Their current twin-turbo sixes and eights feel like big, torquey naturally aspirated engines which just happen to love revs. The sound might not be there yet, but BMW knows a thing or two about engineering a good exhaust note into a turbo car.

Its more mechanical grip and more mechanical grip means better handling. Its that simple.

Traction doesn't equal mechanical grip. Tires equal mechanical grip.

You're 43 and you've given me crap examples to back up what you said. Have you actually driven any high performance AWD cars? Cmon man give me something better than a MX5 or 'any Audi'....

Yup.

I've driven STis and EVOs on the racetrack. They handle pretty niftily. (Though not quite as well as an MX-5)

And it's not because they had all-wheel drive. It's because they have monstrous grip from their tires, a chassis setting that allows you to oversteer if you want to, a center differential set to give the AWD system a rearward bias and limited slip differentials that shuffle torque around to give more power to the outside wheel.

In other words, they handle somewhat nicely because the all-wheel drive system is programmed to mimic a rear-wheel drive one.

Take away those factors and give a car nothing but the all-wheel drive system, sans the parts that make it act like a rear-wheel drive system and you have a car that is heavier than a rear wheel drive car, clumsier than a front-wheel drive car and not very much fun unless you've got a slippery surface and a good handbrake.

I'm talking about the WRX and the Ralliart here. And yes, I've driven them. Yes, I've driven them hard on the racetrack, and neither is near as enjoyable as my front-wheel drive car... except in terms of pure power.

----

The bemoaning of the death of the sportscar, IMHO, comes about a decade too late.

Yes, there was a period when we could buy no RX7s, Supras and 300ZXs. But right now we have 500 horsepower Mustangs that can actually go around a corner... 400 horsepower Camaros that can do the same... naturally aspirated Nissan Zs that are faster, better handling and better sounding than the old TTs... cheap Hyundai Genesis Coupes that give you a choice of either turbocharged potential or rorty V6 power. BMW 1-series coupes that are more capable than any M3 that came before. And more levels and variants of EVO and WRX than ever before.

Nameplates come and go, but today's enthusiasts still have great choices available to them. Sure, we're losing the RX8... and in a few years... the EVO and STI... but admit it... today's performance car customer is spoiled for choice.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you want to break the back tires loose, that's what the 458 is for.

Exactly. It's Ferrari's GT car. Can't see many 612 or 456 owners going sideways everywhere, so it's no biggie that the FF isn't RWD...

 

[Stotty]

Looks like the new 2WD M5 is a bit of an animal... fairly speedy for something weighing 2000kg!!!

And as usual for BMW... you can completely disable the traction control

 

[GT_Prologue5]

An all-wheel drive M5... well... you would have been blind not to see this coming. BMW's X-Drive system has the potential, in an M5, to be fully the match of Nissan's. I'm willing to bet a turbocharged xDrive M5 could be faster around the racetrack than a GT-R... depending on the specs they finally deliver it with. Doubt it will be anywhere near as involving as the current car, but c'est la vie.

I'm not sure it could go blow-for-blow and match the GT-R. Yes, the V8 will be a bit more powerful, but Nissan's involvement in advancing the GT-R AWD system means it's probably one of the best out there. It's one of the best cars to put the power down with, and I don't see even an AWD M5 V8TT beating it. I think that BMW's AWD may be situated for better inclement weather driving, but kind of like the Ferrari FF, have little intrusion for hot lappers.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm not sure it could go blow-for-blow and match the GT-R. Yes, the V8 will be a bit more powerful, but Nissan's involvement in advancing the GT-R AWD system means it's probably one of the best out there. It's one of the best cars to put the power down with, and I don't see even an AWD M5 V8TT beating it. I think that BMW's AWD may be situated for better inclement weather driving, but kind of like the Ferrari FF, have little intrusion for hot lappers.

I think you are severely underestimating what BMW can do with their cars. And it is kind of amusing when you consider the GT-R was built ground up to be a super car killer and its getting challenged by a Luxo-Barge super sedan built on a 5 series platform.

 

[Keef]

Better performance is awesome, but the refinement and weight of these modern BMWs is disgusting. The E39 was the last great 5-series.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Better performance is awesome, but the refinement and weight of these modern BMWs is disgusting. The E39 was the last great 5-series.

This, and the E36 was the last great 3-series.