M5 or M3?

Hi,

I recently posted asking if the M5 was worth the extra over other
higher end 5 series and I know that I won't be happy with my next BMW
unless it has the M badge on it. However now I'm not so sure about
the pros and cons of M5 v M3.

Of course the M3 is still holding it's value at around £42k and the M5
has dropped a lot for a few year old car they're around £35k, so on
that front the M5 probably won't lose much more and the M3 might do.

The M3 would be slightly cheaper to insure and probably better on
fuel, so is it a good option over the M5?

Thanks

Daz

"daz" > wrote in message
...
Hi,

I recently posted asking if the M5 was worth the extra over other
higher end 5 series and I know that I won't be happy with my next BMW
unless it has the M badge on it. However now I'm not so sure about
the pros and cons of M5 v M3.

Of course the M3 is still holding it's value at around £42k and the M5
has dropped a lot for a few year old car they're around £35k, so on
that front the M5 probably won't lose much more and the M3 might do.

The M3 would be slightly cheaper to insure and probably better on
fuel, so is it a good option over the M5?

Thanks

Daz

Unless you are going to race it on a track you are unlikely to be able to
use the M5 much, certainly with the 400bhp limited lifted. Sure it has
brakes that won't fade on a fast alpine descent etc. etc., but at the end of
the day it is nearly £70,000.

OTOH a 550i is just over £45k, gives you 367bhp and an M badge to go on the
boot will cost not a lot...

Horses for courses. Performance wise there isn't THAT much of a difference
between the two, but the M3 will be a lot more nimble, more a sports car,
than the M5. Both will require significantly more maintenance than their
more mundane siblings. Everything from oil to tires will be changed more
often and at greater expense.

The 335Ci is a pretty nice compromise and offers enough thrust for 99% of
real world driving situations. Crank up the boost (enlarge the oil cooler
when you do) and it can be quite a beast.

R / John

"daz" > wrote in message
...
Hi,

I recently posted asking if the M5 was worth the extra over other
higher end 5 series and I know that I won't be happy with my next BMW
unless it has the M badge on it. However now I'm not so sure about
the pros and cons of M5 v M3.

Of course the M3 is still holding it's value at around £42k and the M5
has dropped a lot for a few year old car they're around £35k, so on
that front the M5 probably won't lose much more and the M3 might do.

The M3 would be slightly cheaper to insure and probably better on
fuel, so is it a good option over the M5?

Thanks

Daz

On Aug 26, 3:05*pm, "John Carrier" > wrote:
> Horses for courses. *Performance wise there isn't THAT much of a difference
> between the two, but the M3 will be a lot more nimble, more a sports car,
> than the M5. *Both will require significantly more maintenance than their
> more mundane siblings. *Everything from oil to tires will be changed more
> often and at greater expense.
>
> The 335Ci is a pretty nice compromise and offers enough thrust for 99% of
> real world driving situations. *Crank up the boost (enlarge the oil cooler
> when you do) and it can be quite a beast.
>
> R / John
>
> "daz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> Hi,
>
> I recently posted asking if the M5 was worth the extra over other
> higher end 5 series and I know that I won't be happy with my next BMW
> unless it has the M badge on it. *However now I'm not so sure about
> the pros and cons of M5 v M3.
>
> Of course the M3 is still holding it's value at around £42k and the M5
> has dropped a lot for a few year old car they're around £35k, so on
> that front the M5 probably won't lose much more and the M3 might do.
>
Agree, BMW V8s can be pretty pricey to maintain. For example, the last
generation M5, E39 model, eats tires for breakfast, (expect to replace
every 20-25K!), clutches for lunch, (some people have had to replaced
the clutch at 25K! Ouch!!!), and expect to replace small things like
the vanos. Also, don't forget to use the BMW-specific 10-60 grade oil
which sells at BMW dealers for like $14/qt. After all, a replacement
engine is only around $21K.

Of course, you know that the BMW V10 found in the E60 M5 is even more
expensive....

> The M3 would be slightly cheaper to insure and probably better on
> fuel, so is it a good option over the M5?
>
I like the E90 M3. Probably the question is do you need the extra room
of the M5? Good Luck!

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:22:50 -0700 (PDT), bfd >
wrote:

>E39 model, eats tires for breakfast, (expect to replace
>every 20-25K!), clutches for lunch, (some people have had to replaced
>the clutch at 25K! Ouch!!!), and expect to replace small things like
>the vanos. Also, don't forget to use the BMW-specific 10-60 grade oil
>which sells at BMW dealers for like $14/qt. After all, a replacement
>engine is only around $21K.

Well, I guess it varies. I had an 01 e39 M5 for 3 or 4 years and put
about 35K miles on it.

It had quite a bit of work done, mostly under CPO warranty.

It wasn't what I'd call bad on tires, I got over 30K miles from a set
of the OEM spec Michelins. Frankly, I don't want a tire that lasts
70K miles on a car like that.

It had the original clutch when I sold it with 68K miles on it, and it
was still going strong. I think that low-miles burned out clutches
are always due to the crap habits of the driver.

The problems I had with it were mostly electrical and
electromechanical, starter motor, fuel pump, etc.

It uses about a quart of oil every 2K miles if it's driven a bit hard.
I used Mobil 1 to top it up, the dealer gave me the nod that it was
OK.

The most painful part was paying $48K for it and getting $28K when I
sold it.
--
Dan.

In article
>,
bfd > wrote:
> Agree, BMW V8s can be pretty pricey to maintain. For example, the last
> generation M5, E39 model, eats tires for breakfast, (expect to replace
> every 20-25K!),

E39s aren't particularly hard on tyres and their life will depend on how
it's driven. It also depends on the type of tyre - the most grippy ones
are likely to have the shortest life.
So saying, 25k is not a bad life for tyres on a very high performance
car. Especially if all that performance is used frequently.

--
*Dance like nobody's watching.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Aug 27, 1:19*am, "Dave Plowman (News)" >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
> * *bfd > wrote:
>
> > Agree, BMW V8s can be pretty pricey to maintain. For example, the last
> > generation M5, E39 model, eats tires for breakfast, (expect to replace
> > every 20-25K!),
>
> E39s aren't particularly hard on tyres and their life will depend on how
> it's driven. It also depends on the type of tyre - the most grippy ones
> are likely to have the shortest life.
> *So saying, 25k is not a bad life for tyres on a very high performance
> car. Especially if all that performance is used frequently.
>
That's true. Tire life is really dependent on the driver and driving
condition. Yesterday night, I looked at the most recent Roundel mag,
and in the tech talk section, Mike Miller stated that some E39 M5
drivers were getting as little as 8K (EIGHT THOUSAND) MILES on a set
of tires!!!!

Similarly, I've read in the past about complaints about E52 Z8 owners,
which has the same engine as the E39 M5, needing to replace tires at
under 20K miles too.

Of course, the same complaints about the clutch, which is dependent on
driving habit. If you *ride the clutch* on one of these V8s, expect to
replace sooner than later....

bfd wrote:

>> *So saying, 25k is not a bad life for tyres on a very high performance
>> car. Especially if all that performance is used frequently.
>>
>That's true. Tire life is really dependent on the driver and driving
>condition. Yesterday night, I looked at the most recent Roundel mag,
>and in the tech talk section, Mike Miller stated that some E39 M5
>drivers were getting as little as 8K (EIGHT THOUSAND) MILES on a set
>of tires!!!!
>
>Similarly, I've read in the past about complaints about E52 Z8 owners,
>which has the same engine as the E39 M5, needing to replace tires at
>under 20K miles too.

The rears on my Supra TT have lasted about 15k, on average.