straight6pwr said:

neither is better than an s38.  

and that v10 sounds terribad. 

in the end, i think what i want is a 4-rotor 5 series touring. is that too much to ask? 

hmmmm....... Well... since "terribad" isnt a word, your opinion is invalid about the S85.  

I wanted to think your ears are broken, but then you mention a 4-rotor so I know they kinda work. 

Jdesign said:

That is debatable.

Looks? Yes. (IMO)

Sounds? I D K 

E39 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF-ncih6-dU

E60 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfaDvuWhNE

neither is better than an s38. 

and that v10 sounds terribad. 

in the end, i think what i want is a 4-rotor 5 series touring. is that too much to ask?

Jdesign said:

That is debatable.

Looks? Yes. (IMO)

Sounds? I D K 

E39 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF-ncih6-dU

E60 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfaDvuWhNE

Did anyone else realize that e39 has 400k miles

patsbimmer1 said:

The stanceworks and the motul e28's look cool but a stock US e28 m5 just looks meh.

US M5’s are meh but a proper euro is the tits. How many E60 M5’s are gonna make it to 2-300k though? I’d argue the maintenance costs aren’t that different over the lifetime of the car. 

I’d still vote e39 as the overall best too though.

Jdesign said:

I was in complete agreement till your E28 comment. Then I stopped reading and disregarded your opinion. 

I'm used to having the unpopular opinion lol.  Neither the e28 nor the e60 is pretty but the e60 at least has some muscular architecture to it.  The stanceworks and the motul e28's look cool but a stock e28 m5 just looks meh.

patsbimmer1 said:

No argument there!  The e60 sounds WAAAAY better!  Looks uninspiring and the smg thats found in most of them is terrible.  The e60 is better in every measurable way but i'd pick an e39 every time for no good reason at all.  I'm in the minority when i say the e60 isn't the worst m5 though.  It's ugly but I think the e28 is uglier.  For the cost of ownership of the s38 i'd buy an s85 and delight in a screaming v10.

I was in complete agreement till your E28 comment. Then I stopped reading and disregarded your opinion. 

Jdesign said:

That is debatable.

Looks? Yes. (IMO)

Sounds? I D K 

E39 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF-ncih6-dU

E60 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfaDvuWhNE

No argument there!  The e60 sounds WAAAAY better!  Looks uninspiring and the smg thats found in most of them is terrible.  The e60 is better in every measurable way but i'd pick an e39 every time for no good reason at all.  I'm in the minority when i say the e60 isn't the worst m5 though.  It's ugly but I think the e28 is uglier.  For the cost of ownership of the s38 i'd buy an s85 and delight in a screaming v10.

patsbimmer1 said:

Touring or not the e39 is the best M5.

That is debatable.

Looks? Yes. (IMO)

Sounds? I D K 

E39 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF-ncih6-dU

E60 M5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfaDvuWhNE

you also couldn't get the e34 m5 touring in the U.S., but that irrelevant to which is best.

"What transmissions were offered on the E60 M5 sedan and E61 M5 Touring?

The majority of E60 M5 sedans and all E61 M5 Tourings were equipped with a third-generation Sequential M Gearbox (SMG III) with a single clutch, 11 DRIVELOGIC shift programs (5 in automatic mode, 6 in manual mode) and launch control. Unlike earlier SMG systems used in the E36 M3 (SMG I) and E46 M3 (SMG II), the 7-speed SMG III was developed from scratch to work in concert with the S85 motor and was not adapted from an existing manual gearbox. It is capable of shift times that are 20 percent faster than those of the earlier SMG II transmission. Gear ratios for the SMG III are as follows: 3.99 (1), 2.65 (2), 1.81 (3), 1.39 (4), 1.16 (5), 1.00 (6), 0.83 (7). The final drive ratio is 3.62:1.

Due to market pressure from North American customers, BMW introduced a manual transmission option for E60 M5 sedans sold in the United States and Canada beginning with September, 2006 production. The ZF Type G 6-speed manual gearbox was shared with the E60 550i and carried over to the E60 M5 with the same internal ratios: 4.05 (1), 2.40 (2), 1.58 (3), 1.19 (4), 1.00 (5), 0.87 (6). However, it retained the significantly shorter 3.62:1 final drive from the SMG-equipped M5."

-The Offical BMW Registry

http://www.bmwmregistry.com/model_faq.php?id=21

m42b32 said:

I always thought the US was the only place to get a manual trans in both the e60 and f10 M5's, but It's entirely possible I'm wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if a manual e61 m5 was never a thing (though it would certainly be glorious if someone built one!)

It's entirely possible @straight6pwr is choosing to ignore the existence of the e60 haha

That may very well be that only the u.s. got the manual, I don’t honestly know much about the e6x cars other than the e61 m5 existed at all lol.

P_Roloff said:

Not so fast. They did make an e60 M5 touring, although we never got it here in the states and I’ve seen conflicting info on whether or not you could get them with a manual. I’d have a really tough time deciding between the e61 and e34, a v10/6spd wagon sounds pretty fun, but so does a s38. 

I always thought the US was the only place to get a manual trans in both the e60 and f10 M5's, but It's entirely possible I'm wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if a manual e61 m5 was never a thing (though it would certainly be glorious if someone built one!)

It's entirely possible @straight6pwr is choosing to ignore the existence of the e60 haha

straight6pwr said:

easy: e34 m5 touring, because, well, its the only m5 touring.

Not so fast. They did make an e60 M5 touring, although we never got it here in the states and I’ve seen conflicting info on whether or not you could get them with a manual. I’d have a really tough time deciding between the e61 and e34, a v10/6spd wagon sounds pretty fun, but so does a s38.

Jdesign said:

But what about M5's?!?

I think actual fists would get throw in this "debate"

HipMF said:

The better solution IMO is to move less rocks and eat more tacos.

I'd say this should have been posted on Taco Tuesday, but then I remembered that really every day should be taco day.

i_love_cars said:

They are facts - we're talking about the difference between 2 particular motors and my premise is evolution of engineering. 

You have a preference for simplicity, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm talking purely about technical advancements over time. Also, your argument disregards the concept of scale and puts no value on it - the crane can do things at scale such that it is exponentially superior to the man with the shovel, wood and ropes. Part of the achievement is how much you can do in so little amount of time with the crane, and I would argue that the R&D and cost of time/materials and hundreds of hours to build it isn't really an argument against it given the absolute ROI you get on the backend for making the design an model a physical reality. You are arguing a poor man's ingenuity over results, based on one scenario's lack of advanced tooling ability. Engineering "achievement" the way we understand it in the world is based on what it can produce when it's done. What is the value-add, so to speak. That's why there's a hell of a lot more money to be made in STEM fields than retail stores selling ropes, shovels, and wood. 

I know we're talking about cars but since you went outside the scope of that and used an example of a man with a shovel and rope vs. a crane - space shuttles are insanely complicated and require absurd amounts of time to program and test and verify. They fly in outer fucking space in a controlled way. Highly complicated. Nothing simple about it. Are we to believe that it isn't a fact that the engineering required to make that a reality in a controlled manner isn't a high level of achievement, just because some crazy Russian could in simple terms build a home-grown rocket and shoot it willy nilly up into the sky so we call it the same thing? Because that's basically your argument. In the end, the man with a shovel and rope and wood can't even come close to building the final product that a crane can, no matter how ingenious that man is. He can accomplish some semblance of the same thing at much smaller scale, but in real terms, it won't even be close to comparable. If you were able to produce an example of an apples to apples result, then I 100% would agree that simplicity and elegance is more of an achievement in this arena. I've been in the software world for 15 years - if someone can produce the exact same results with more elegant and simple code, I will 100% back that every time as the more impressive feat. I just think the way you are arguing this is flawed. 

you both are still arguing that what makes engineering 'better' is just efficiency. that's an opinion. yes, generally when something gets re-engineered the goal is to make it more efficient, but there are alot of types of efficiency, and engineering can be about aesthetics, like HipMF states, energy efficiency, cost reduction, shifts in methodology, etc etc.

my example of the man vs. crane is not a bad analogy. it suggesting that what makes engineering 'better' is a matter of perspective, scenario, goals, etc. The man lifting stones with simple tools is using less energy and materials at the expense of time. a crane does it in less time at the expense of energy and materials. in one scenario, where materials and energy is at a premium, the man is a 'better' engineering solution. in another scenario where there is plenty of materials and energy, the crane would be 'better'.

patsbimmer1 said:

It wasn't nihilism.  You gave value to life by saying it only exhisted to create capital.  What you're saying is more of a marxist thought.

I wasn't really saying that was my point of view, I don't think that life has any objective value or meaning. The argument that was being made was that one engine was superior to another because it made more power and consumed less fuel, or that a crane was better for tipping rocks than a taco-eating human because it's technically superior solution. I believe that those are facts (provided there are enough rocks that need tipping that the crane eventually pays for it's self).

The bigger question is what is the point of an engine or tipping a 20-ton rock on it's end? If you goal is to create some economic value, then one solution can definitely be proven superior to another. However, we're not purchasing engines or tipping rocks with the intention of making a profit. Quite the opposite, it's a luxury expenditure that we pursue stricktly for it's aesthetic value, which is completely subjective.

straight6pwr said:

those are opinions, not facts.

whats more of an engineering achievement - a single man using a shovel, wood and ropes to tip a 20 ton rocks on its end, or modern crane that lifts it into place? ya, the crane is faster at completing the task, but it took millions of dollars in equipment and tools, thousands of pounds of materials, and hundreds of hours to build it first. the man just ate some tacos,  sawed some trees, and dug a hole.

in my opinion a car/motor that is simpler is more of an engineering achievement.

They are facts - we're talking about the difference between 2 particular motors and my premise is evolution of engineering. 

You have a preference for simplicity, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm talking purely about technical advancements over time. Also, your argument disregards the concept of scale and puts no value on it - the crane can do things at scale such that it is exponentially superior to the man with the shovel, wood and ropes. Part of the achievement is how much you can do in so little amount of time with the crane, and I would argue that the R&D and cost of time/materials and hundreds of hours to build it isn't really an argument against it given the absolute ROI you get on the backend for making the design an model a physical reality. You are arguing a poor man's ingenuity over results, based on one scenario's lack of advanced tooling ability. Engineering "achievement" the way we understand it in the world is based on what it can produce when it's done. What is the value-add, so to speak. That's why there's a hell of a lot more money to be made in STEM fields than retail stores selling ropes, shovels, and wood. 

I know we're talking about cars but since you went outside the scope of that and used an example of a man with a shovel and rope vs. a crane - space shuttles are insanely complicated and require absurd amounts of time to program and test and verify. They fly in outer fucking space in a controlled way. Highly complicated. Nothing simple about it. Are we to believe that it isn't a fact that the engineering required to make that a reality in a controlled manner isn't a high level of achievement, just because some crazy Russian could in simple terms build a home-grown rocket and shoot it willy nilly up into the sky so we call it the same thing? Because that's basically your argument. In the end, the man with a shovel and rope and wood can't even come close to building the final product that a crane can, no matter how ingenious that man is. He can accomplish some semblance of the same thing at much smaller scale, but in real terms, it won't even be close to comparable. If you were able to produce an example of an apples to apples result, then I 100% would agree that simplicity and elegance is more of an achievement in this arena. I've been in the software world for 15 years - if someone can produce the exact same results with more elegant and simple code, I will 100% back that every time as the more impressive feat. I just think the way you are arguing this is flawed.