Upcoming Bmw M5 will carry more than 600 hp and possibly F1-inspired KERS system

KERS?!? Yes indeed, BMW. Go right ahead and use technology that has shown to have no use whatsoever.

— tango (View Profile)

Posted on 6/27/2009 7:38:52 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Well...the good news is this....PERFORMANCE IS ALIVE!!!!!

— kuvakas1 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/27/2009 7:59:07 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

LOL riiight, they're "naturally superior". Just like the Third Reich and Waffen SS were "naturally superior" and hence did not have to worry about anything Russians or Americans did. But somehow they ended up getting their asses HANDED TO THEM on both the western and eastern fronts. Even the Russians (primitive barbarians how germans called them) made a superior tank, the T-34, that DESTROYED german Tiger tank.

But hey, keep at it with your racist BS and don't learn anything from History.

ps. It shows much more about your lack of brain cells than anything else

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/27/2009 10:20:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -9   

You guys are as knowledgable as a doorknob.

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 9:40:21 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 18   

As a history professor, I find DinamoR's lack of knowledge about this subject (World War II) disturbing. Then again, I can understand him perfectly since he probably studies(ed) at an American school where important details are left out. Remember, history is written by the victors, isn't it?

All I have to say is that Nazi Germany, from a military and tactical point of view did extremely well against the combined might of the Americans, Russians, British and their allies.

Point number two is: the Russian T-34/43 was outclassed by the German Tiger and Panther tanks in terms of firepower and armor. When used defensively, the Tiger and Panther tanks destroyed T-34's by the dozen. The T-34 was more agile and mobile thanks to less weight and a diesel engine, which provided great range compared to the gasoline Maybach engines found in the heavy German tanks. The advantage of the T-34 was also that it was available in large numbers as it was a cheap and simple product whereas the Germans tended to get too complicated with their tanks. Tigers and Panthers were expensive to produce and available in low numbers. Quantity has a quality of its own, doesn't it? Hence the T-34 could even out the firepower difference through massed attacks.

By the way. You'll be interested in knowing that the Panther tank, a German product, was rated by military experts as probably the best tank in the world well into the mid-1950s. Some early 1945 models in service with the Wehrmacht even had infrared nightvision systems.

— Bill (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 3:04:13 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 10   

For a "history professor" you sure don't know anything!

It doesn't matter if the tiger tank had better armor and more firepower. T34 beat it. There were many more variable than armor and firepower. Maybe you should learn what they were dumbass if you're going to pretend to be a professor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA-Sv1Ndso


haha you're a dumbass

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 3:44:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -10   

here's a better video mister "professor":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE&feature=channel

LMAO

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 3:46:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -10   

Those videos you posted are an opinion. They make use of information to form that opinion.

Nowhere in my post do I claim that the Tiger or Panther are better than the T-34/43. I mentioned some facts about these tanks and how tactical doctrine can bring out the best in them. The T-34/43 was used to good effect in massed attacks where it speed and manoeuvrability could compensate for its rather weak gun. The Tiger and Panther were effective in defensive positions or in close tank-to-tank combat. They would never have functioned in the attacking role because of their poor low speeds, especially on rough terrain. Don't forget that the quality of the tank crew was also very important and in general the Germans had better trained tank crews than the Soviets. As I said earlier, quantity has a quality of its own and the Soviet tactic of massed attacks with their tanks eventually would wear down the small but well-trained German tank soldiers.

And as I said, many military historians and experts rated the Panther as the most advanced tank in existence well into the mid-1950s. Do some research if you don't believe me.

The real "dumbass" here is you. Poor kid...

— Bill (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 4:09:14 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 10   

Both of the "Mitchel(l)'s above me really need to get a life and stop trying to incite flame wars.

— Bill (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 4:20:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 8   

Opinion my ass. Every military historian agrees that the T34 was the best tank during WW2. The only ones who don't agree are ultra right wing pro-nazi figlets. And noone cares what they have to say these days

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 4:42:19 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -9   

The tiger tank being "advanced" has nothing to do with how good it is or isn't. It was a useless tank. Any historian with a brain will tell you that. Developing that tank consumed HUGE amounts of resources, and in a battle field it simply could not keep up with the much more simple, mobile, more reliable T34. And since WW2 was largely about mass production, the "advancement" of the Tiger tank was its own undoing. What's the point of having a hugely advanced mashine if a much more simple one can run circles around it?

— DinamoR (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 4:48:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -8   

You are correct about the Tiger and Panther using scare raw materials that Germany didn't have access to during the latter stages of World War II. However, calling these tanks "useless" is a mistake. The Panther actually was the more effective tank overall than the Tiger and most historians question what would have happened had Germany focused only on the Panther, not the Tiger. Again, the Panther used strategically important materials but at the same time it was an effective weapon that delivered the results the German High Command wanted. It could attack and defend at the same time whereas the Tiger was better suited to defensive tactics (but in certain situations was an ideal attacking vehicle).

Again, in the defensive role these tanks were basically mobile fortresses. Most Allied tanks, including Russian models, were easily picked off by a well-trained Tiger or Panther crew. And I already stated that the Germans had a very high quality tank force. The Allies, including the Russians, suffered generally heavy casualties when in direct combat with Tigers and Panthers and supporting German anti-tank infantry or artillery (PAK 40 etc.).

Most historians agree that the T-34 was the best balanced tank of World War II combining mobility, firepower and range in an effective package. Easy to manufacture and maintain it was cost-effective to produce. That's all true. The Panther, however, was very mobile for a heavy tank and had better firepower than the T-34/43 and its engineering and construction was to inspire tank design in the post-World War II period: American, Russian - you name it.

World War II was also about economics true, and I posed the question what would have happened had the Germans focused solely on the Panther instead of the Tiger, Nashorn and other tank products that consumed valuable strategic materials.

— Bill (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 5:09:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7   

"BMW doesn't need to worry about anything Lexus or any other Japanese car. They can never be compared because German cars are naturally superior."

The guy said German Cars are naturally superior and is his opinion. WTH is so racist about it?

You guys are WAYYYYYYY to sensitive and are WAYYYYYy off topic.

On a side note, I do not know the history of his posts and am just judging the aforementioned one.

P.S. Lets get back to cars since this is autospies and not a history blog.

— kablaam (View Profile)

Posted on 6/29/2009 12:59:12 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 7   

Bill, that's a little funny, how can you compare medium weight T-34 tank to heavy Panther and super heavy Tiger tanks and say that Panther/Tiger were better tanks becouse they had better armour and firepower, it was an inherent advantage of heavier tanks to have more steel used for armour, it's obvious that T-34 was outclassed by Tiger/Panther in armour since they were a lot heavier tanks than T-34. It seems like you are trying to find something which would be better in German tanks and you must end up on thick armour. Soviets also had KV series tanks which worked as defensive tanks and halted German invasion on Soviet Union, Germans hadn't anything to destroy theirs armour, the JS series heavy tanks, succesors of the KV had even better armour protection and 122mm cannons. Could you tell how Panther engineering inspired later constructions, as I know it was Panther design that was heavily inspired by T-34. What's more German tanks had serious reliability problems. And in the case of Tiger, putting a lot of steel for armour isn't actually very technologically advanced and smart, it's rather opposite of good engineering, Russian design was a lot smarter-slop the armour for better protection and simuatelously for weight saving.

— abcd (View Profile)

Posted on 6/30/2009 11:14:20 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

He's just keepin it real, Germans make more appealing cars than the Japanese. Euro makes cars people lust for, Asia offers conservative autos.

— dt32886 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 12:04:49 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 10   

SanJose: more sales means more people lust for a particular car? Following that logic, a Camry is more desirable than, say, a Lamborghini Murcielago.

— Dustbuster (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 3:16:55 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 8   

Herro you are clearly a moron. How about bmw putting "inferior" turbos on when bmw lovers always bragged about superior naturally aspirated engines. They've put them on because they couldn't keep up with "inferior" competition.

— AUTO_UNION (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 10:02:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

"How about bmw putting "inferior" turbos
on..."

stop making yourself look like a fool

engine of the year awards

2008 Winners
Best New Engine: BMW 2-litre Diesel Twin Turbo (123D)
2.5-litre to 3-litre: BMW 3-litre Twin Turbo (135, 335, X6)
1.4-litre to 1.8-litre: BMW-PSA 1.6-litre Turbo

2007 Winners
Best New Engine: BMW 3-litre Twin Turbo (335i)
1.4-litre to 1.8-litre: BMW-PSA 1.6-litre Turbo (MINI Cooper S, Peugeot 207)

— 100octane (View Profile)

Posted on 6/29/2009 2:17:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Herro

But the technology should be perfected in F1 and that hasn't happened yet. The cost, weight, reliability and safety problems of KERS outweigh the advantages. Once the technology is perfected in F1 then only it will be ready for production cars.

BMW doesn't even have the best KERS, Ferrari and Mclaren both made a better and reliable system.
btw i think next M5 most likely will have the TT V8 of X5M and X6M.

JUGNU

— JUGNU (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 10:29:40 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Knowing BMW, the next M5 will have the exact same engine as the X5M/X6M

I highly doubt they will be bothered to develop a new engine when the 4.4l TT engine is new.

— M53R (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 12:50:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5   

Do you remember when Mercedes said: "Horsepower war is over"?....Then they said that they are woring in AMG V8 engines natural aspirated smaller (5.0) and with around 600hp and a performance tuned version of 700hp?. This war goes on...Both will continue improving, however the winer will be the one offering power plus economy...

— Yonder7 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 1:01:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

In the german car magazine "Auto-Bild" was a message concerning the KERS-system in upcoming M-models. They said, that BMW has stopped the development of this system for the next M3 in 2012. So I don´t think, BMW will use KERS in the next M5...

— tom43 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 1:32:33 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Years ago, I saw a documentary about the tank battle at Kursk and they interviewed a Russian tanker and he said that the Tigers could knock out a T34 at great distance and at much closer distances the shells from the T34 would bounce off the Tigers "like a candle". IIRC, the Tiger crews also had headset communications with one another and got information from observer planes flying over the battlefield whereas the Russians didn't even have radio communications with one another. Germany would have done very well in WWII if the only enemy it had to fight was Russia.

— TurboSpyder (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 8:02:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

My next car.

BMW had to give me a really good reason to get the next one.

A V8 twin-turbo wasn't enough. A V10 twin-turbo is enough...and then some!

— weaponX (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 8:23:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

yep way better than that 580 horsepower twin turbo 5.0 V10 used on the RS6

KERS is nothing more that a long way of saying hybrid.

— chewy (View Profile)

Posted on 6/28/2009 11:49:49 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Bill,
History Professor, that's convenient. I would've guessed more highschool history teacher from your generalized comments.

Atleast the Russian tanks could start during the winter. As well, Germany secretly rearmed over a span of 15 years so they had more hardware than most of the allies combined in 1939. Hitler's research also looked much more superior because they were heavily funded for the purpose of war, also, they were geared to land based weapons. Do you recall Germany's navy being feared for anything beyond the # of uboats they had? Germany's technology was no superior to the Allies in WWI because everybody was on the same page.
The British and French tanks developed during the war had more armor than the Panzer IVs could penetrate (i.e. Mark II). Guess German technology wasn't so superior once everybody else had time to catch up.

Anyway, the new M5 will have more power than anyone on this site will ever be able to handle. Its funny how BMW used to pride itself on being able to make the best naturally aspirated engines, now they just go with the less expensive turbo route.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/29/2009 11:12:49 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

The Mark II was an existing design the British had that could hold off a Panzer IV until the Americans (yes, those apparent morons) brought over the M4 tank which was just as powerful and fast as the Panzer IVs, and later quickly upgraded to take on whatever upgrads the Germans had.

The original Panzers were outgunned by the apparently useless T-34s at the outset of Barbarossa. T-34s were so useless the Germans had to order bigger guns for the Panzer inorder to be able to take them on directly.

The "German Superiority" mentality is probably why their country doesn't really much matter in today's world.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/29/2009 11:29:07 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

JA ja...Tiger = 4 Sherman, Problem was that there were always 5 shermans..that was another "why" they did not win the war. But that won't matter here....those cars are my favorites, That's final.

— Yonder7 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/29/2009 1:28:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

100octane,
Look at each of their national debts and come talk to me then. Germany's going bankrupt because Europeans in general expect the gov't to do everything for them.

Willis,
The world revolves around the Pacific now, Europe is just a collection of welfare states living off of borrowed time. The Russians, in their delapidated condition could still walk right over Europe (if it wasn't for uncle same) but they find it easier to crush Europe with oil and gas.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/29/2009 4:25:13 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3   

Uhh, Huu - The BMW Bi-turbo system with Variable Vanes and all those expensive little computers is not a cheaper alternative to natural aspiration.

For heavens-sake, it is going to be a V10 Bi-turbo and not a V8 Bi-turbo. It is possible to have extremely high revving and fun to drive turbo cars too - Go drive some European Touring and Rally Cars. Also, I would love to have the high RPM sound of a bimmer engine and then a Wastegate Whoosh when I change the gear - iLike!

And the Germans and Japanese were very powerful, requiring the rest of the world to stop them, well a quarter was the British Empire itself.

— Lamborghini_vs_Ferrari_Racer (View Profile)

Posted on 6/30/2009 3:16:45 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

bmw making a NEW high-performance engine without turbo's would be news, turbocharging cars improves fuel economy. Power is there as well, but there are drawbacks such as lag. Lexus did it with the LF-A's engine, around 500-600 horsepower without turbos on a 4.8 or 4.9 litre V-10? That's less displacement than the current M5 engine which is a 5 litre. Bavarian Motor Werks hmm, lets see some ingenuity from them instead of turbocharging.

— freshseth83 (View Profile)

Posted on 6/30/2009 4:16:56 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1