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.

lol, right...didn't BMW.Sauber just drop KERS from their F1 cars?

KERS has no use as far as fuel economy goes, but for shear fun factor added to the car you can't go wrong. Especially if you can choose when to activate it.

the reasons for the removing of kers were the extra weight and the higher center of gravity. i highly doubt that these points matter that much in a 2t sedan.

BMW you are doing just what I expected which was putting a twin turbo on the an already BEAST of a engine. KUDOS to BMW instead of putting that twin turbo V8 in it this is alot more sensible. this wil be the most powerful M5 ever and probably the fatsest production sedan competing with the CLS 63. I wouldnt be suprised if that thing is pushong close to 650hp and 590ftlbs torque.

NOW we need the M7 which the BMW world has been waiting for.
ALSO the 7er coupe or the 8 series......

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

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

You guys are as knowledgable as a doorknob.

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.

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

here's a better video mister "professor":

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

LMAO

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...

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

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

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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

If "lust for" = more sales, then in looks like Japanese companies still have the upper hand.

BMW should make a car that can come even close to competing with the Nissan GTR before he can "keep it real"

"...then in looks like Japanese companies still have the upper hand."

it's funny that some people still don't understand that there might be a relation between prices and sales

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

if you compare cars within their categories then yeah, which ever sells more is more desirable. Of course you can't compare a lambo to a camry. But a Lexus vs. a Mercedes comparison is right on.

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.

"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)

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

lol whatever makes it to the consumer marketplace from f1 is and will always be a watered down cheaper version of what they come up with in f1. They aren't about to stick the latest prototype engine or kers system into a production car. So I would argue that no it doesn't have to be perfected in F1, just that the production version of it will be heavier and far cheaper to make while being 20% or however much less efficient.

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.

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...

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...

TurboSpyder, if Stalin wouldn't kill 90% of generals just before the war and put many engineers and designers in camps than Russians will beat them even earlier.

would beat them even earlier

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!

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.

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


Wow, is it me, or does anyone else here think that:

Huu76 = major moron

check out the japanese and german export ratios. than tell us which country matters more in today's world.

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.

Well, for all intensive purposes, Japan is still trying to recover from its bankruptcy, it's been 2 decades since.

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.

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.