Talk:BMW M5

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. WikiDMc (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alpina B7S

Can anyone confirm that the B7S was actually based on the E28 M5, rather than a 'cooking' 5 series? AFAIK, Alpina usually don't 'modify' the M series cars...

You are correct. The Alpina B7 Turbo's were not based on the BMW M cars. However, the Alpina and BMW M's were both based on the same chassis. Alpina also used some parts from the M's in the B7's, such as the front brakes, and differentials.

The B7 used the BMW M30 short block as a basis for it's engine. The M30 was a 12 valve SOHC motor. The M5's used a twin-cam 24 valve cylinder head, and a different block. Some of the internals (pistons, rods, etc.) were modified by Alpina, and the cylinder head was their own design and manufacture. To this engine, Alpina also added a KKK K27 turbocharger (the same as was used in the Porsche 930 Turbos). The turbo setup took the normally aspirated 200+ HP M30 motor to over 300 HP.

The B7 Turbo was built for a specific purpose - to be faster than Porsche and Ferrari; and it was. When released, it was the fastest four door production car ever - its top speed was 155 MPH. There was also a B7 Turbo Coupe, based on the BMW 6 series chassis. There are actually three distinct series of B7's. The B7 Turbo and B7 Turbo Coupe, which were introduced in 1978, and were based on the 3.0 L M30 motor. These cars produced 300 HP. The second version was the B7S Turbo and B7S Turbo Coupes. These were the rarest of the B7's - 60 four doors, and 30 coupes were produced in 1981 & '82. The B7S motors were based on the early 3.5L M30 motors, and produced 330 HP. Top speed was 162 MPH. Both the B7's and the B7S's were based on the E12 chassis (E24 for the coupes). The final version was the B7 Turbo/1 and the B7 Turbo Coupe/1, produced between 1984 and 1988. These were based on the E28 (& E24) chassis, and used an updated 3.5L M30 motor, which produced 330 HP. Top speed was 168 MPH. A final version, the B7 Turbo/2 was produced in '87 & '88, however its only modification was the addition of a catalytic converter.

For more information on Alpina's, you can go to www.alpina.de or the the Unofficial Alpina home page at www.m5board.com/alpina/.

Thanks for the confirmation. I feel what you've posted above would make a great addition to the Alpina article. Roddyp 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Manual E60 M5

I have removed the entry on the manual transmission availability for the E60 M5. While my heart jumps at the prospect of this being offered (I am currently an E39 M5 owner who demured from owning an E60 for lack of a stick) I do not believe that the statement has an validity. It has been repeatedly emphasized that, because of the unique engine design, the BMW engineers were simply unable to literally 'fit' any of their existing manual transmissions into the car and that, to do so, they would be required to produce something of such intricate design and out of such expensive composite materials that it would raise the cost by thousands and thousands of dollars -- much of this has to do with needing especially strong lower gears because of the use and abuse which is put on them.

Anyway, the bottom line is, I've heard no information to substantively contradict the above, so, unless someone can bring something credible to the table, E60 = no manual :( sorry

BMW Germany has announced they will be producing a 6 speed manual which will be exported to the US, Aus, Canada etc where demand for manuals are higher than europe

Demand for a manual M5 is higher in North America however that cannot be said for other vehicles. Note: the majority of cars in Europe have manual transmissions.

Response

I read in Car and Driver that the manual would be available (I cannot remember which issue). The reason given was that Europeans, with more exposure to F1, are comfortable with the SMG, while Americans are less so. Besides, the idea that one can fit a seven-speed transmission in a car and not squeeze in a manual of six or more speeds is laughable, especially where cost is in no way an issue. I'd suggest that the mention of the manual should stay unless someone has compelling evidence to the contrary.

M5 copyright issues

The Section on the new M5 has been copied from http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2005/08/stories/02/2.html&ei=AkULQ9KJMcvKRaj2xZYB

Apart from being just a straight copy it is not a very good text to put here anyway – it’s an opinion of a journalist and cannot be said to be neutral, so I’ve removed it.

Picture used

Should we consider using a newer picture of an M5(does anyone here have one they can photograph?) because the one we have is harder to distinguish from other 80's BMW's than the modern M5 is from later models. Also having the "best" possible picture of the car we can get would help create a good impression of it. -- Faded_Mantis 11:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Brought the newer picture which includes the current M5 to the top. April 07, 2006 (Sahands)

inclusion of E12 M535i

I surfed in here wondering what Wikipedia had to say about the M5. I'm torn here as I do not necessarily want to elbow my way in to an M5 page but at the same time I get very upset that the E12 M535i is not given the proper respect that it deserves in BMW Motorsport's history. I was thinking of editing the main page and adding a prelude section to the M5's history noting that the E12 M535i was the first Motorsport sedan product built by BMW. This is an important bit of information as I see it because the idea for the E28 M5 did not simply come out of thin air in 1984. There was an established history of Motorsport modification of E12's which culminated in the official E12 M535i model in 1980 and 1981.

However, I realize the E12 M535i is *NOT* an M5 and should not be badged or represented as such. Some of the vin # plaques on later E12 M535i's built in 1981 did in fact list "M5" as the model, but that is merely an interesting anomoly.

I wondered what others would think of this. I think banishing the E12 M535i to its own wikipedia page diminishes its significance in the M5 chronology.

I did make an edit to the E34 M5 section as someone had a typo in the section about the 3.8 liter powerplant incorrectly listing it as the S38b36 engine not the S38b38.

For what its worth, my objectivity and knowledge of the subject matter comes from my ownership of E12 M535i chassis #18 and I also own an 8/93 build 3.8 liter E34 M5. Your comments are welcome, but please support your opinion with facts, not speculation about the E12 M535i. Telling me that because it doesn't say "BMW M Power" on the valve cover or some such nonsense it should be excluded will not win your argument. The Motorsport history and roots of this car are well proven so please don't come back with a response attacking its right to wear the M badge because I will be vigorous with my defense citing facts and history on this model. I just had to get that off my chest, thanks. Adam

It probably doesn't belong at the beginning of the article but I don't think anyone would have a problem with you adding a "heritage" or "trivia" section at the end and briefly describing the pre-M5 history of BMW Motorsports.--BHC 22:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put this in the article! Very intersting.--Frank 14:00, 04 December 2006 (GMT)

New version of M5: NPOV

Innovations: M Sport automobiles have a renowned tradition of offering blistering performance and the comfort of a luxury sedan That's not exactly hippo language and looks like it's bee lifted from a sales brochure Escaper7 08:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What about 2004 and 2005

It would be nice if there was a note on what went on in 2004 and 2005 - if E39 ceased 2003 and E60 started 2006. Were no M5's produced in 2004 and 2005? --Frank 14:00 04 December 2006 GMT

The E60 M5 was introduced in 2005 in Europe. For North America, it was in 2006. Therefore it was only a gap year.

The E60 M5 did reach production for european models in October of 2004-an estimated 20 vehicles were sold before 2005, these vehicles were produced in anticipation of the supposed two year waiting list associated with the E60 model-these pre-built cars were delivered in both left and right hand drive to certain customers prior to the 2005 showroom availability of the car-I also believe these 20 vehicles were all sedan versions of the car as the touring model was only built at that time to order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.205.71 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prices

I think the prices of this vheicles and all articles on vheicles should include prices (probably standard prices) for informational purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.212.234.49 (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Interesting point. But there is a problem, cars in different markets have quite different basic specifications. The UK car for example comes with a lot of the optional equipment that North American owners pay extra for, the base price of course is higher.

Then there is the sales tax (VAT) question, do you include this. Prices in Denmark appear astronomical because of local taxes.

Anyone interested in pricing a car can go to the BMW company's website in that country and get the price. It is normally under the "Build your own BMW" heading, where you may add options to the base car and see the change in prices as you do this.

Price information is very subjective, varies by national market and in any case what currency would it be listed in? Not a good idea, and it's not the sort of information an encyclopaedia shuold be including. Escaper7 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Bangle

The article states "Despite the criticism of the Chris Bangle-designed chassis" Chris Bangle had nothing to do with the chassis; he STYLED the body. These are two distinct regions of the car. The chassis is the floor pan and the suspension that bolts to it. The body is the part of the car most people see i.e. bonnet, wings, doors, roof & shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisR (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

E60 Transmission?

I'm wondering the neutrality of this part right here in the beginning of the E60 section

"The innovative gearbox is very responsive at the track, shifting very quickly, but for open-road driving, it's far from smooth, very jerky even in full automatic mode."

It's a bit of an ignorant statement as the car is meant to be driven as a manual, shift points and such. The computer isn't very intelligent on when to shift. On it being abrubt, Tiff Needell recommended being in S6 and lifting a slight bit when you shift which should make it a smooth shift.

On the manual section shouldn't it include the part of it being a half second slower 0 - 60 than the SMG? That is a huge difference. Also, the undefeatable DSC is to prevent drivers from destroying the rear end with wheel hop.

Another comparison between the 6speed M5 and the old E46 M3 is as follows M5: 13.0 @ 114 with 500 hp. M3: 13.0 @ 108 with 333 hp.

Car and Driver also says that the manual is 41 mph slower than the SMG.

I'm not going to add these in as I'm sure I am not neutral either, so I will just leave these bits of information here and if there is a place for them later, I'll put them in. Exproject 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, however I jumped in and edited the entry in my capacity as a daily E60 M5 driver, I have tried to give a balanced report on the SMG in practical use mainly written for folk who have not yet tried it for themselves. I also edited the M button notes as they were not quite correct.

The manual transmission M5 was purpose built for the North American market-it comprises a newer version of the 6-speed Getrag manual used in the E-39. The vehicle overall appeared to be an M5-lite as the top RPM had to be reduced in accordance with manual gear changing and other requirements for the SMG such as the launch control were not needed. The production manual M5 also appears to be lesser in standard spec compared to the lowest spec car available in europe. Interestingly the manual version has posted curious figures on the 0-62kmph compared to the SMG-some well known american auto testers have posted a 3.9 second time. The main point of interest regarding the E60 m5 and its power delivery is that the car was in development for 6 years-the decision to implement the 7-speed SMG came as a result of BMW's attempt to twin the 3.0 Bi-Vanos twin turbo engine used in the 335d/535d to a manual gearbox before final production in 2004-as the torque developed by the diesel engine at a considerabely lower rev range would require detuning of the engine or far superior clutch/transmission etc. the diesel came with an optimised standard auto gearbox, and the M5 was then production readied with the 7 speed SMG transmission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.205.71 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

E60 fuel economy vs. fuel tank size

While the car does have very low fuel economy (over ~20,000 miles I have averaged 11 miles/gallon US), the main gripe is really the small fuel tank size. Range is of course a function of economy and fuel quantity. While I can (somewhat) accept the low fuel efficiency (this is after all a very heavy very powerful sedan), I blame the short range (typically 170-185 miles for me) on an insufficiently sized fuel tank. Would any of this be appropriate to include in the article?

The E60 has the modest postings from bmw as a combined 14.9 mpg-in reality the car has a varied range of economy based on owners averaging their day to day driving conditions, overall through an M5 owners community in Ireland, the combined comsumption of some of the cars on the OBC showed as high as 21 mpg-the main factor in these figures was driving in standard (400 bhp) mode using super unleaded shell petrol over average day to day distances of 40-50 miles. It appears the complex requirements of the engine mean that no two owners seem to have a similar fuel consumption with the M5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.205.71 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparing miles per US gallon to miles per imperial gallon also gives the appearance of dissimilar consumption. The 11 miles/gallon(US) quoted is approx 13.2 miles/gallon(imp), much closer to your 14.9mpg. See gallon.

WikiDMc (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed that the two articles BMW M5 (E28) and BMW M5 (E34) be merged into this article. My reasoning is straightforward.

• Only the E28 and E34 generations are given their own pages. While I understand that the E28 was the "pioneer" of the M series as we know it today (the M1 being a much lower-volume vehicle), it still seems that if we are going to break up into separate generations, the E39, E60, and F10 chassis should be given their own pages as well.
• The two pages are basically the same length as the segments representing them in this article. We are dealing with a foolish amount of redundancy here. Either make this an "index" with small bits of info and NO detailed specs, or ditch the other articles, which is what I have suggested.

Sensible? P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

0-60 in 4.1s?

The claim for the E60 of... 0-60 mph: 4.1s, Road & Track [2/06] ...seems dubious to me, given that the 0-100km/h time is 4.7s (and 60mph = 96.56 km/h). 0.6s to go from 96.6km/h to 100km/h? I doubt it. WikiDMc (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly see your point. Yet the E60, as much as I truly dislike it, is a 500+BHP, 200+MPH (fully stock) capable of out-performing MOST Sports cars - regardless of age or genre. A fully broken-in E60 M5 is certainly capable of breaking even the 4.0 second barrier and oodles of owners claim to have done so. Simply stated, BMW cars are MUCH faster than the factory claims and all cars accelerate better once 50k miles have honed the piston/cylinder/crankshaft relationship. This social, real-world feedack cannot be dsmissed. My two cents. 82.24.0.22 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference link to Road & Track that supports the 4.1 second 0-60. 72Dino (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Petrol" or "Gasoline" engine?

I recently changed a reference to the E60 having the first v10 "gasoline" engine in a production sedan to read "petrol" engine. I now realise this might be a touch controversial, after seeing this discussion. I made the change because:

• "Petrol" is used on the BMW international website (WP:TIES).
• The M5 is a German-made car, where I believe the term "petrol" is used over "gasoline" (WP:TIES).
• The BMW_5_series page uses "petrol".

I believe these are strong enough arguments to override the counter-arguments I could come up with:

• The M5 page appears to at least begin with American English Spelling (eg: utilizing) (WP:RETAIN), but not necessarily American terminology, and usage is inconsistent (utilising is used later in the article).
• As far as I can tell, more than half all M5's have been sold in the USA or Canada (WP:TIES).

WikiDMc (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Settlement

"Production of the M5 continued until November 1988, well after production of the E28 chassis ended in Germany in December 1987. This continued production would eventually lead to a class action lawsuit that was settled with vouchers being given to car owners" - the article doesn't explain why there was a class action lawsuit. There's an implication that BMW originally sold it as a limited edition, but reneged on the deal, but the article says nothing about this. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BMW M5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926145535/http://www.edmunds.com:80/bmw/m5/2010/review.html? to http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/m5/2010/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

F90 M5 Picture

Can anyone get a proper photo of the new M5? The photos at commons have either too much smoke or taken from a poor angle. The only perfectly angled photos are of the rear. U1Quattro (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

E39 M5 Picture

The bogus and low quality photo should not be added back again and again. U1Quattro (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't find the blue car photo all that objectionable, the resolution could be better, but the angle is very good, the background is uncluttered, and the car is original. The red car photo is a better resolution, however it has aftermarket grilles, the silver car photo is just bad, zoom in on a headlight and you can see why 4.1 megapixels is not found on modern cameras. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the grille being aftermarket qualifies the photo to be removed. U1Quattro (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no rule stating that the car cannot have aftermarket parts. I have however replaced the photo. U1Quattro (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a project convention in WP:CARPIX, I don't think aftermarket grilles are fundamentally disqualifying. I think some better photos need to be taken. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If someone is willing to take photos of the E39 M5, we will have to wait. Otherwise, a simple caption denoting that the car has aftermarket parts is more than enough. U1Quattro (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

E34 motor historical link?

I am not entirely sure about the E34 being the "last M5 to feature an engine with a historical link to a BMW Motorsport racing engine.", the F10 has the S63 which was used in the M6 GT3 [1] and if one is to count that as non historical as the motor was used after the F10 came out, the F90 uses the same motor. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That statement is no longer correct. I guess an updated version could say something like "last M5 to use an engine evolved from the 1970s DOHC racing engine". Although given that only the first 2 M5 generations (out of 7 so far) used this engine, it feels a bit like splitting hairs. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, specifying it further seems unnecessary. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

I don't know why the designers were deleted from the infoboxes in the recent edits by 1292simon along with changing the layouts to "FR" and "F4" which clearly make no sense. U1Quattro (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello U1Quattro. FR Layout and F4 Layout are common abbreviations, which helps keep the infobox more compact, improving readability on mobile devices. I moved the designers to the body of the text, to aid in the infobox being a quick reference for readers to track the evolution of the model.
To explain the other changes:

• the caption for the lead image should explain which car is which
• PS is not a common unit in the English language
• moving some images to the left avoids white space at the end of sections
• "usage of this transmission" is ambiguous about whether it is the first 7-speed or the first DCT, so "dual-clutch transmission" is more specific

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Making the infobox compact is useless if it doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding. There are many readers on wiki who aren't familiar with automotive jargons and terminologies so they should clearly understand what the automotive layouts mean. I haven't seen any problem regarding readability in the mobile view about proper mention of the layout. PS is a common unit in Europe and almost all automotive publications use this unit when they mention engine power output. HP is a unit common in North America only. My changes in the lead image caption mention which car is which clearly. U1Quattro (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello U1Quattro. The designers are not fundamental to the chronology of the model, so there is no benefit to the reader's understanding of having them in the infobox instead of the body of the article. The layout articles are linked (and the reader is shown the full name when hovering over the links) for readers who are unfamiliar with automotive layouts. HP/BHP (which are treated the same by the conversion template) are the more common horsepower units. "Alongside" in the caption doesn't explain which car is where. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unrelated comment but I've reverted back as consensus should be sought before the disputed edits are made not after, If I've removed content that's considered okay then my apologies (and I have no objections to anyone except Simon reverting me), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

PS hp

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to have the readers hovering over links, like you have put it. It would just damage the credibility of the site. Your theory about the links is just wrong. Plus your reason of using those abbreviations is also not correct as there are no problems in the mobile layout. I would back my theory of PS and HP by an example. The Bugatti Veyron's engine power output is 1,001 PS which is quoted by automotive magazines as 1,001 hp (as PS is a sub unit of horsepower) while in reality, it is 987 hp or bhp in North American Horsepower. Hope that helps. U1Quattro (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello U1Quattro,
On a mobile phone in portrait view, the "front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout" text makes the infobox messy. However, I acknowledge that the full article title could be more descriptive for some readers, so I agree it is better in this case.
The Bugatti Veyron is a unique case, because it was specifically promoted as the first car to have over 1000 horsepower, and they used PS to get this claim over the line. In normal cases, kW and bhp/hp are the most common units in English-speaking countries. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Simon, I don't see a problem in the mobile layout as you have mentioned:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cxdso9h27otstpl/2019-02-02_07.31.40.jpg?dl=0
Additionally, what I said about the Veyron's engine power output was just a basic example about the commonality of PS. Lamborghini also uses PS in name it's cars such as in the Aventador LP700-4, the "700" is the engine's power output in PS. Same with the British manufacturer McLaren. In 720S, the "720" is the engine's power output in PS. All of the European manufacturers use PS to state the engine power output in their cars but it is called horsepower as PS is the sub branch of horsepower as I mentioned earlier. Hope that is helpful. U1Quattro (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the screenshot. To me that looks quite messy compared with simply "FR Layout" and "F4 Layout".
Regarding the horsepower units, in my experience hp/bhp is more commonly used than PS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Telegraph magazine has wrote the unit wrong. The Aventador has a power output of 700 PS, not 700 bhp, it should've been written as 700 hp. The Evo link is broken but once found, they wrote 700 hp, that just proves my point more. Plus none of the readers had any problems with the mention of the layout. The infobox is meant to be a summary of the article "at a glance" which means that one should be able to read the article quickly by looking at the infobox because some readers don't have the time to scan the article for information or hover on links. Cheers.U1Quattro (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello U1Quattro. The purpose of the references is to show that bhp is more commonly used than PS, even for the models you chose.
Regarding the infobox, in my opinion FR Layout is a commonly used abbreviation (1, 23, 4). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Simon, those sources have used the units wrong. I pointed that out. Stating PS as bhp is not just wrong, but misleading. At Wikipedia, the editor's objective is to be as fair, clear,coherent and neutral to the readers as possible. As clarified earlier. The FR, F4 and other iterations of these non sense jargons create confusion amongst the readers. Yes manufacturers and some automotive sites use them but that doesn't mean everyone should. Cheers. U1Quattro (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello U1Quattro. Misinterpretation of bhp/PS is discussed here. I have provided references supporting my position, but there are currently none provided that disagree with this. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro PS is an obsolete unit and was replaced with SI-based units in 1978. It is neither found in recent official documents nor in scientific literature, because it proved to be very impractical. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that so? Then why Lamborghini and McLaren use that unit when naming their cars and why automotive magazine use it to measure engine power? The McLaren 720S, for example, doesn't has a power output of 720 hp but 720 PS. So proven by that, it's not an obsolete unit.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi U1Quattro. For cars where the marketing department has named them based on Pferdestärke (because it gives them a bigger number to brag about than hp), I agree that PS should be included. But for most other cars, including the M5, there is no reason to use this obsolete unit.

Also, could you please consider WP:BABY when reverting, rather than wiping all of the other editor's work (including the parts unrelated to the disputed text) with just a click of the "undo" button? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro As 1292simon said, marketing. Brands can name their cars whatever they want – for instance, Mercedes-Benz cars usually have some sort of number on the boot to indicate the displacement. The G 500 model of the W 463 series is called G 550 in North America. Apparently, Mercedes-Benz believes that G 550 is more appealing to North American customers. Maybe that is the same for Lamborghini and McLaren. As far as I'm concerned, automotive magazines do not measure engine power, they usually copy the manufacturer data and divide by 0.73549875. However, automotive magazines can write whatever they want. For us, adhering to the standards is much simpler. Engine power that was measured using the ISO 1585:1992 standard has to be stated like so: "ISO net power xxx kW at xxxx min⁻¹ (ISO 1585)" (See ISO 1585:1992 page 20, 9.2.1). I doubt though that we will have standard-conforming figures one day. But nevermind. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You were claiming that the PS unit was obsolete while it isn't. I gave my proofs and made my point. Now I won't argue about the non existent standards you are mentioning. Almost every automobile article on Wikipedia uses PS unit for measuring engine power. If it was that obsolete, it wouldn't have been used by automobile magazines which we state here as sources and by automobile manufacturers. Sure manufacturers can call their cars whatever they want but if you go to Mercedes Benz website, you'll see that they have stated the power output of the G 500/550 in PS and kW.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Non existent standards" is an interesting ISO standard description, I like that kind of humor; fortunately I can use DIN 931 interchangeably with ISO 4014 for M16 screws :-). Now, in case you don't live in the EU, you may not know the Directive 80/181 EEC. It rendered the technical unit system (MKS system) as well as the CGS System obsolete, and with PS being a technical unit, it was rendered obsolete with it, 40 years ago. As I've said, automotive magazines can write whatever they want, and I reckon that they use PS for continuity reasons; it is permissible to use PS if a figure in Watt is given (but that doesn't make PS not obsolete). I just took a look at the Unimog 406 page, and they have stated the power output in kW. What I'm trying to say: Using PS (in addition to Watt) is permissible, whilst avoiding it is reasonable (unless the vehicle was first introduced before 1978 and the sources actually use technical units such as kp, PS, and kp·m). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

By non-existent, I meant about their non regularisation on this site but hey, you can think what you want. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point. But I still see a problem: The policies state that Wikipedia is not made of original research, and that we shall use reliable sources. Reliable sources state that PS is obsolete. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Show me atleast one reliable source that claims that. And if that is the case, why is OS being used so widely on Wikipedia rather than other obsolete units? U¹ _quattro TALK 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• SI brochure, page 118 states that the unit of power is Watt, and Directive 80/181/EEC states that SI-derived units shall be used.
• Alfred Böge (ed.): Vieweg Handbuch Maschinenbau Grundlagen und Anwendungen der Maschinenbau-Technik, 18.th edtion, Springer 2007, ISBN 978-3-8348-0110-4. p. B 21 (no definition in PS given)
• Bosch (ed.): Krafahrtechnisches Taschenbuch, 23th editon, Springer, Wiesbaden 1999, ISBN 978-3-528-03876-2. p. 16: Power: statutory unit: Watt (...) In obsolete units that should be avoided: 1 kp·m/s = 9,81 W, 1 PS = 0,7355 kW, 1 kcal/s = 4,1868 kW, 1 kcal/h = 1,163 W
• Richard van Basshuysen (ed.): Ottomotor mit Direkteinspritzung und Direkteinblasung: Ottokraftstoffe, Erdgas, Methan, Wasserstoff, 4th edition, Springer, Wiesbaden 2017. ISBN 9783658122157. p. 177: The term Pferdestärke (PS) is a unit commonly used for motor vehicle engine power. However, this unit is obsolete and is not recommended. The statutory unit that should be used instead is the SI-unit kilowatt (kW), and kilowatt should be not be used in conjunction with any other units.
• Franz Anton Fran Schmidt: Verbrennungsmotoren: Thermodynamische und versuchsmäßige Grundlagen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Flugmotoren. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 1939. ISBN 978-3-662-36293-8 . p. 305: On behalf of the homogeneity of technical terms, scientists recently recommend introducing kW as a replacement for PS.

I bet there are plenty of other books around that basically say the same thing. It is quite obvious, I mean PS is based on a system that uses force instead of mass, and I wonder how that can work. But they were being serious back in the day, you'll find plenty of 1960s vehicles that don't use mass, but force for weight. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. You have made your point well. I appreciate that. Thank you. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Personally, I try to avoid it whenever possible, but I don't mind if people use it in addition to kW (Directive 80/181/EEC permits that), and for historical vehicles that were made with PS in mind, I often use it myself if the source I'm using states power in PS. If you want to dig in deeper (which I recommend you don't) you will find plenty of particularities. Basically, this is what I do:

• Post 1978 West-German and Austrian vehicles: Use kW only.
• Post 1970 East-German vehicles: Use kW only
• Pre-1978 vehicles: Use PS, and kW in addition to that.
• In general, DIN 70020-rated vehicles: Use the above rules, but using kW without PS is not really a problem (the "older edition" of the DIN 70020 allows both units)
• Anything that is not a motor vehicle: Use kW unless the subject is very old and the sources use PS (or hp).

I really don't mean to deliver a lecture to you, please do whatever you believe is reasonable, I'm not going to revert or edit-war about anything, I just do what my sources recommend. You say that I've made my point well, but I doubt that there will be genereal acknowledgement, simply because this matter is too German. There won't be a general rule on Wikipedia prohibiting PS for articles on modern vehicles, and I would not want to introduce any such rule. Thank you for bearing with me so long. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that whenever German language sources do provide power output in non SI units it's in PS, and you do see examples of this when it hits a round number like the E60 M5's P500 mode and the 400 PS the E39 M5 makes. I am not convinced that it should be on this page but it might be worth noting so readers don't think that BMW just rounded up. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but (as far as I can tell) only for very old sources. For the first generation BMW M5, BMW already states a kW figure. Everything non-SI was just put for advertisement purposes. I just looked through my older books, and the newest book that I own that primarily uses PS (but also kW as an auxiliary unit) is this one: Frankfurther Maschinenbau AG Pokorny & Wittekind (ed.): Taschenbuch für den Druckluftbetrieb, 9th edition, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 1970, ISBN 978-3-642-47445-3, p. 249: $N={\frac {M_{d}\cdot n}{716}}[PS]$ (for M_d= mkp and n= 1/min). On the same page, the book states that you have to multiply PS with 0.736 to get kW. (The same is true for the 7th edition of the same book from 1954). Wolf-Dieter Bensinger: Rotationskolben-Verbrennungsmotoren, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York 1973, ISBN 978-3-642-52174-4 already uses kW. The newest book that I own that totally omits kW is this one: Friedrich Sass: Geschichte des deutschen Verbrennungsmotorenbaus von 1860 bis 1918, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 1962, ISBN 978-3-662-11843-6. But I am not sure whether or not it is a good example, because it is a "history book" rather than an "engineering book" But this goes way beyond what we should discuss on this talk page. If anybody is interested in discussing this further, my talk page is open. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Johannes Maximilian: @Toasted Meter: @U1Quattro: While PS is not the official SI figure, every metric country in the world refers to horsepower at least some of the time. German WP still includes it as a secondary unit, precisely because it is so common. See here for instance. Listing kW first is usually right, but hp/bhp should only be used for US/UK/CDN market cars. That sources jumble metric and imperial horsepower is not our fault, and it is always easy to find the actual information and not be stuck with false numbers because of lazy editors elsewhere. And what about the 115PS BMW M43B18? Using 85kW as the base unit gives us the wrong number: "85 kW (116 PS)." The only way to get 115PS is to convert from PS. See BMW M43 for some examples of this confusion; nearly every power output is incorrect and they differ several times within the article itself. I recommend writing "{{convert|115|PS|kW|0|abbr=on|disp=flip}}" [resulting output: 85 kW (115 PS)] to get the correct number and remain aligned with official SI practice.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the drivetrain description, I believe that "FR layout" is better terminology for the infobox. The sources I listed above shows that it is a common abbreviation. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Drivetrain layout

Hello U1Quattro,

Regarding this edit that you reverted, "All-wheel drive" is a much more common description than "Front-engine, all-wheel drive". Therefore I believe it is the better choice for the infobox. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

1292simon its not about commonality but about the format which is used here. Good articles like the Jaguar XJ220, Ferrari F40 etc use this layout. There are many other hinges which are common but are not used here.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Template formatting or documentation is not Wikipedia policy. I agree that the engine location is a key fact for mid-engined cars, but not the M5. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi U1Quattro. Ok, I will try to avoid excessive commas and line breaks in the infobox. Regarding the drivetrain layout, please see my previous reply. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with that. As an ICE powered car, the layout present in the infobox should be used. Yore also eliminating information from the infobox for no reason. Even after we had a discussion on it.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

BMW's motorsport division has made one road car that was not front engined, I don't think readers would assume that BMW built a rear engined sports sedan. This seems somewhat unnecessary. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We should follow the standard infobox layout at all times. Rather than summarising things too much. If you both have a problem with that, start an RfC at the infobox automobile template page and obtain a consensus at what you are trying to do. Until then, I'm restoring the previous version.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This is pointless, infobox templates are not rules or the MOS, we need not slavishly follow something OSX added in 2013 on the urging of one other person, It would be just as legitimate for me to add "not mandatory" to the end of it. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates are still used. If they weren't MOS, we would have articles without them. Majority of the Toyota automobiles are Front-engine and the template lists that as an example.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is not how Wikipedia operates. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm restoring the previous infobox layout. Like I said, if you ant to change how infobox works then obtain a consensus on it. Otherwise remove it altogether.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? Do you think this information is actually useful to readers? Or do you think that the infobox documentation must be followed to the letter? Toasted Meter (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes to both. You don't agree? Start an RfC. Not a hard thing to do. All FA about automobiles follow the infobox template by letter and this is what this article should do.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is no proof supporting the claim that being front-engined is a key fact of the M5. However, the fact it is rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive is often mentioned in press coverage. Infobox documentation is not Wikipedia policy. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that this was the selling factor of the M5. If you want to use the infobox, use it in a way in which it is used on FAs and in the example given on the template or don't use it at all since its not part of the policy. Last time I checked, all infoboxes related to Toyota Vehicles and Honda Vehicles use this layout terminology instead of your summarised version even when majority of the vehicles they produce are Front-engine. There is no rule backing up the use of your version of the terminology. So like I said, if you think summarising the infobox is best, obtain consensus regarding that on the template talkpage.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• According to the MOS, the purpose of the infobox is to summarise the key features of the subject. I believe that being front-engined is not a key feature of the M5. Regarding infoboxes in any other car articles, again WP:OTHERSTUFF is not how Wikipedia works. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes but it's meant to be not your made up version. You don't have any policy or anything that backs up what you're doing to infoboxes. Yore messing it up because you think it's right. It's not. FAs use the infobox mentioning the whole drivetrain layout, proper mention of the engine and other stuff. Your changes are just degrading the articles.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Here is some press coverage which looks at the drivetrain layout: 1, 2, 3, 4. None of them mention the engine location. Do you have press coverage (apart from spec sheet rundowns) that supports you claim that being front engined is a key aspect of the M5? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We simply cannot assume whether or not the reader knows if a certain drivetrain layout is "common". For example, I have asked one of my friends if he could tell me what the "default" bus drivetrain layout is. He didn't know that it is rear engine, rear wheel drive. But is it? For a Mercedes-Benz O 405 this is true. But not for an Ikarus 280, a common bus here in Hungary, which has the mid engine, mid-wheel drive layout. And what about all these International S series busses? They have a front engine and rear-wheel drive. The common reader is not a petrol head who knows that an M5 has a front engine, and that a Porsche has a rear engine. But I wouldn't be too sure about the latter. So, my opinion, just write that the car was designed with the front engine, rear-wheel drive layout. It doesn't hurt anyone, but clears things up for sure. Here's one more thing: A 1959 Porsche, with an air-cooled, 1.6 litre, fuel-injected engine, a manual five-speed dog-leg gearbox, rear-wheel drive, and a limited slip diff is so slow, that going by foot is faster. And if that is confusing, I reckon it is because most people forget that not all Porsche vehicles are cars. [2] Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what my point is. Finally someone who is speaking with more sense out here and understands what I'm trying to do. U¹ _quattro TALK 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• It's not a question of whether it's common knowledge or not, for the purpose of the infobox, it's whether it is a key aspect of the vehicle. Otherwise we should add to every car infobox that it has a front-mounted gearbox, centrally located driveshaft (some vehicles have an offset driveshaft) and two equal-length half shafts. I have no objection to the engine location being covered in the body of the artcile.

  PS, please be WP:CIVIL and stop the personal attacks on me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, common knowledge comes here s well as not everyone reading the article knows about cars. The template gives an example on how it should be used. It's there on the template page. If you have a problem with that then start an RfC on the template page which you have not done as of yet. You have resorted to edit reversion without seeking out clear consensus. This behavior is unacceptable. Engine location is a key aspect of the vehicle otherwise there wouldn't be any hype about the Corvette C8 like it is now. If you are that persistent about your version then obtain a consensus about it like I did about designers on the infobox and then come back.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ive started a discussion about this here feel free to participate.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)