Clarksons M5 Test

Couldn't believe it when I was reading the article.  I skipped to the top of each column to see if he had actually got off his soap box and to my amazement I was at the end of the article before he mentioned anything of the car's performance - how could The Times print such rubbish? 

Clarkson is a journalist first and a car critique, well, not at all.
Top Gear lost all their motoring credentials when Tiff and Quentin left.

Shame we were deprived of a review of such a quality car...

Kin Mak wrote: No other car can out handle a M5 without having some passers-by calling you a **** when you drive past.

Are you saying no other car in it's class can out-handle it?

That might be close to the truth, but surely you're not saying no other car regardless?

On the note of the cars that the M5 is up against, well I'm sorry but I disagree.  I have seriously looked at one and the fact it can carry 4 people in comfort means very little to me.

Very very few people invest £60k+ from a practicality point of view - the people who buy these vehicles tend to have at least one other vehicle that they use too.

Furthermore, I know of 3 people that have actually taken delivery of M5's - and not a single one of them looked at the cars you have mentioned above (although one of them does own an RS6+).  The S4 certainly isn't a competitor in any shape or form either.

They all bought it for it's out and out straight line performance and build quality. 

I think the comment on what the car competes against is based on a personal opinion of other buyers rather than the facts.

I can only say what I have found from experience and knowing those that have bought them - so it's a genuine example of fact.

People buying new M5's are car enthusiasts on the whole - practicality is simply a by-product in the purchasing process.  They're looking at 911's, Aston Martin's, and every else in the price bracket.

The fact they can use the BMW as a daily driver is by the by - because you can also use the 911 and the AM as a daily driver without any issue at all.  Okay, so they won't seat 4 people, but that's when you roll the standard saloon car out instead - thats what most of these buyers do.

Practicality really is not a big issue for most M5 purchasers - it's performance, build, pedigree and engineering excellence 80% of the way and nothing more.

Yes, I've seen that clip before.

However, I thought we were talking purely about the new M5 here and not the old model.

A standard RS6 will leave an older M5 without too much effort anyway and an RS6+ will leave it even quicker.  The RS6 is simply a far faster vehicle.

However, the new M5 would of course leave an RS6+ in a straight line even with 2 wheel RWD drive as opposed to the Quattro - the RS6+ has a PTW ration of 253bhp per tonne against the new M5's 300bhp per tonne.

All said, well it's individual choice.

I was merely quoting a few facts from those I know that have bought new M5's and that was to point out the competitors for the NEW car aren't what you might think they are because the buyers don't use the same purchasing rationale as someone buying at 2-3 years old or more.  They're power enthusiasts, mainly, who want the very latest in technology and power - and they have a thirst for speed that over-rides a lot of facts that creep into the used purchasing process.

The old M5 can't be described as shockingly quick though, nor can an E46 M3 - but the new M5 can.

However, getting back to my original post, the old M5 offers a vastly superior overall driving experience to the new M5.  Hence, in my opinion, it's a better car (the old M5) to drive and receive feedback in.

I just found the new M5, well, boring.