Skip to main content
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   NEWS   |   TECH ARTICLES   |   AT THE TRACK   |   REVIEWS   |   VIDEOS   |   CONTACT ME

The "M5 BMW should have built" - A 700 hp Switzer Tuned BMW M5




The "M5 BMW should have built" is what Switzer, the Ohio-based tuner, is calling their P700 BMW M5. The new F10 BMW M5 is far from lacking in the power department, thanks to a twin turbo 4.4 litre V8 making 560 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque. The numbers don't tell the complete story though - judging by acceleration test numbers compared to similar cars in the segment with comparable hp ratings, power-to-weight ratios and even some dyno tests, the hp rating is probably closer to what the car makes at the wheels rather than the crank, which is what many people have come to expect from BMW engines. That was not enough for the folks at Switzer Performance though, so they made a few modifications to bring the numbers up a little.




How much is a little? Well, if Switzer is conservative with their power ratings like BMW, then nearly 140 hp. For $6,995, they will take a stock BMW M5 and turn up the boost with a new engine control unit (ECU), replace the stock exhaust with a Switzer one and put in a high flow air filter. The result is nearly 700 hp and 640 lb-ft of torque - up 140 hp and 140 lb-ft torque from the stock numbers. Most of the gains are probably due to tuning and the increased boost but Switzer says that the exhaust also has an aural benefit, which is great because the stock exhaust tone is far too docile for a super sedan. All of this sounds good but is it the M5 BMW should have built? I disagree.

In one of Edmunds' reviews, they wrote: "The front end can feel ponderous, and understeer is way too prevalent for an M car." Car and Driver wrote in the Lightning Lap 2013 feature: "Whether the M5 is braking or turning, this car weighs 4425 pounds. There is only so much you can ask of its Michelin Pilot Super Sports - maybe a few laps of good grip, but then the rubber greases up and the understeer sets in fully," and added about the steering: "Little is communicated up the column from the contact patches and the weighting seems pointlessly hefty." According to the specs page on BMW's website (BMW M5 Sedan - Features & Specs - Specifications), the curb weight is 4,387 lb. when equipped with the auto transmission and 4,354 lb. with the manual transmission. In fact, when Road & Track tested one with the manual, it weighed a whopping 4,525 lb. It weighs and understeers too much and lacks steering feedback and braking consistency. Did BMW ruin this M5?

The answer is yes, in a way. This M5 is really not as bad as it sounds. The M5's biggest problem is its badge - the M5 badge. It is a great car but it's not a great M5. BMW softened the car to appeal to a larger market and increase sales. From a business perspective, they've done a great job and I'm sure it will sell more. They have made it a better everyday car and it is still a very fast midsize luxury sedan with great limits and handling abilities, especially for a 4,400+ lb. car. It's not a great M car, though. A great M car does not need excuses. You shouldn't need to say it's great, considering how much it weighs, how quiet it is, etc. You should be able to say it's great, period.

The M5 BMW should have built isn't the current one with more power, regardless of how much power that is. The M5 BMW should have built weighs less than 3,800 lb. and feels more at home on a track than on the road, rather than the other way around, without having a punishing ride. Are you listening, BMW?

Source: Motor Trend


Comments

  1. This new F10 BMW M5 is far from lacking in the power department, thanks to a twin turbo 4.4 litre V8 making 560 hp and 500 lb-ft of torque. For sure am impressed by the changes that have made this BMW look awesome. Nice work on the blog.

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment







Does An Aftermarket Grille Really Increase Airflow?
I put a Saleen S281 grille to the test to answer that question.

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's
What you need to fit a proper size square tire setup.

How Limited Slip Diffs Make You Faster on Track
What you need to know about how they put power down and pros and cons.

Can Telemetry Explain Schumacher's Talent?
A comparison between Schumacher's and then team mate Herbert's data.






Cayman GT4 Track Review
The first Cayman with proper (911-challenging) power.

Is an EcoBoost Mustang any good on Track?
Two days at the track in a Mustang short 4 cylinders.

2016 BMW M4 DCT Track Review
It's quick (properly quick). But is it fun?

Can a stock Golf Diesel handle a Track Day?
Not your every day track beater.




🔥 Most Visited This Week

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. Although not a true "R-comp" tire on paper, it performs like one by the account of every single test and review I've read (down to wear rates...). They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track load

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's vs Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's

I never thought I'd ever run Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2's on my 2012 Boss 302. The cost is astronomical and they are supposed to last the least of anything comparable. So how did I end up with (nearly) fresh Sport Cup 2's? A complete fluke. I came across a lightly used set with only a few hundred miles and no track time; 305/30/19 takeoffs from a GT Performance Pack Level 2 (GT PPL2). I knew my 71R's were getting very worn before the season started and likely wouldn't last the whole season, even this short one. The price was far better than a new set of RE-71R's, a little more than half, and local Time Attack rules (Canadian Automobile Sport Clubs) recently made 180 and 200 TW tires equivalent, meaning no PAX or PIP point penalty for going with 180 TW tire like the Pilot Sport Cup 2's. I have been very curious about how PSC2's compare to RE 71R's but I stayed away due to their being painfully expensive and, up to last year, their 180 TW rating would

Stock Suspension S197 Mustang With Square 305/30/19's

If you've had any doubts about whether or not they will fit, fear not! You absolutely can run square 305/30/19's. I had a lot of doubts before pulling the trigger, even more so when the wheels where on the car. The tires do poke out a bit and I figured rubbing is all but guaranteed at full compression but I couldn't be happier I trusted APEX and those on here who have run it. Here's what you need: 1. Camber plates: I have MM C/C plates and they are maxed out at -2.3 deg with the stock struts. I have been running them for years with many track days without issue. 2. 1"/25 mm spacer: I have Motorsport-tech 1" spacers and they look like high quality units. There is maybe a 1/4 inch clearance in the back so you can't go any narrower than 25 mm. http://www.motorsport-tech.com/adaptec/car/ford_s and you want Design 2. Motorsport Tech 1" Mustang Hub-centric Spacers 3. Elongated studs: your best bet is to get the FPP hubs with elongated studs

Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R Track Review

2012 Boss 302 on square 305/30/19 RE-71R's at AMP - Graham MacNeil © For better or for worse, I have heard and read so much about RE-71R's. Everyone swears by the grip but complains about the wear. Generally speaking, the pros are: 1. They grip as well or better than most R comps. 2. They don't wear as quickly as R comps if driven occasionally on the street. 3. They work better in the rain than R comps. The cons were limited to overheating quickly when used on track (being an autocross tire) and wearing too fast on heavy cars like mine. In the popular 200 TW category, they are faster than the popular Hankook RS-4's and BFGoodrich Rival S's according to published Tire Rack Tests. According to plenty of reviews, they are also faster than well established R comps like R888R's (which don't seem to work too well on heavy cars anyway) and the venerable NT01's. But I was still hesitant for a while until I talked to a tire tech support gentleman