View Single Post
      01-07-2008, 03:57 AM   #77
T Bone
Brigadier General
T Bone's Avatar
145
Rep
4,021
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by e36jakeo View Post
However, the M5's torque curve is FAR from flat. It rises dramatically at around 6000 and thus its peak torque is pretty impressive, esp. compared to the M3's. In achieving this top-end performance BMW sacrificed both low end and mid-range torque(where is makes much less than its old 5 liter V8 in the previous M5) and FUEL ECONOMY.

Although you'd think folks who can afford a $80K+ sedan would not care about the poor fuel economy, I know M5 owners complain about the lack of range when they average 12 MPG (EPA 11/17) in normal driving. With a 16 gallon tank many can't even go 200 miles before needing to fill up.

I think BMW was aware of this and chose to provide the M3 with a more usable torque curve and make it a more fuel efficient powerplant.

We can leave the gas-guzzling, high-end torque curve to the CSL.

There is more room in the V10 - like 80 hp more room.

You shouldn't confuse M5 / M6 owners kidding about fuel economy.....it is an inside joke, almost a badge of pride. The biggest complaint from the M5 / M6 guys is the size of the fuel tank. If they put a 90 or 100 liter tank, everyone is happy.

I am still on the side that BMW made the wrong compromise in delivering a flat torque curve instead of giving more power in the high rev part of the engine.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari