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

Image
By



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


Labels:

Comments

  1. Charity22 April 2013 at 09:07

    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

Kawasaki Ninja H2R - 300 hp and Supercharged

By
Okay, this isn't a car but there's a reason why I'm writing about it. It has a supercharged 1.0 litre engine makes 296 hp. 296 hp may not be too impressive in a car but one has to remember that this isn't a car. It's a bike and it weighs just 476 lb in full trim and a 90% full tank. That's a weight to power ratio of 1.6 lb/hp. I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around that number. To put that number into perspective, a 2013 Mustang GT500 has 5.9 lb/hp. A C6 Corvette ZR1 has 5.3 lb/hp. A 2015 Porsche 918 has 4.2 lb/hp and that's with the electric motors running at full song. The insane Hennessey Venom GT with its twin-turbo LS7 7.0 litre engine has 2.2 lb/hp. I can't even begin to imagine what 1.6 lb/hp would feel like. I would also be curious about how fast you'd have to be going to be able to use that power. I used to have an 09 Cobalt SS. It had GM Stage 1 and a few bolt ons which would put it at very close to that 296 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

2004 Audi TT 3.2 Quattro DSG Track Review

By
Before getting into this, I have to confess something... I had never driven an Audi TT before. Not until this one, anyway. But that hasn't stopped me from forming an opinion about it from the comforts of my own couch while reading and watching reviews online. After all, if you've never done that, do you even know what the point of the internet is? Now, we all interpret reviews differently. Call it confirmation bias if you will, but if you like a car, you'll read a review and look at the positives as what makes the car great and the negatives are but a few quibbles you have to live with. If you don't like a car, the positives are a few things the manufacturer got right while screwing up everything else. It's a bit harsh to put the TT in the latter category, but that's where it ended up for me... I never took the TT seriously. The problem with the TT for me isn't that it's a Golf underneath, per se. There is nothing wrong with a performance car sharing a...
2 comments
Read more

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

By
A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity. Grip is noticeably l...
12 comments
Read more

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

By
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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more