BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it just me or does anyone else think there is an alarming amount of errors and lack of understanding in all the types of media relating to the M5 press launch?

I've just read through the Automobile review, and he states about "remembering to pull it back for down shifts and push it forward for up shifts". Mmmm if I remember correctly the old aout boxes were that way round when they were first introduced, but BMW changed it around to match the SMG model, not sure when the change occured.

Ok Evo's 501 bhp quote is constent and I would guess a typo as the press packs would of had 507 bhp plasterd everywhere.

I know this community, by its very nature is very automotive focused and facts seem to play a large part, but it's their job to portray an honest accurate representation of the products. These publications and shows are what a large amount of customers base there choices on.

I'm not asking for the manual to be read and fully digested, but I would hope that some investigation and search for knowledge would be implied by the job discription.

I know reviews will be based on individual feelings, if everyone thought the same we would be the same person. But they are presented with e press pack providing a single point of reference with all relevent data, a near army of marketing people to field questions at, but there is still seems to be a lack of understanding and errors. It makes me wonder how accurate stories and information the media provide can be where they don't have everything handed to them on a plate.

Sorry for the rant, and any mistakes but the hotel bar is empty and iPAQ's aren't the best tools for this:)
Sacha...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
One problem is the difference in terms. In the US we have MPH vs KPH, 0-60mph, 0-100kph (translated to 0-62mph), gallons vs. imperial gallons (i believe it is 4 - 20 oz pints ? not sure if they still use that when quoting car specs) vs. liters, quarts vs liters, the us hp vs brake hp vs kilowatts, pounds vs. kilos, you get the idea.

I believe that the magazines do there best to convert all of this information into their home market and sometimes they get it messed up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
greg_h said:
One problem is the difference in terms. In the US we have MPH vs KPH, 0-60mph, 0-100kph (translated to 0-62mph), gallons vs. imperial gallons (i believe it is 4 - 20 oz pints ? not sure if they still use that when quoting car specs) vs. liters, quarts vs liters, the us hp vs brake hp vs kilowatts, pounds vs. kilos, you get the idea.

I believe that the magazines do there best to convert all of this information into their home market and sometimes they get it messed up.
i think the problem HomerUK pointed out has nothing to do with the conversion of the unit.

EVO's error on HP rating (501bhp), a German Magazine's error on biturbo charged engine configuration, Automobile's error on the operation of the SMG, and Autoweeks' numerous errors in their review. those are all just mindless mistakes the writers did not pick up after sending the article out for printing. i am sure they can easily spot the error just by double checking over the article, but why they didn't do it or didn't pick up the error is totally beyond me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Personally, i stick to topgear (and also evo) reviews, coz it seems to be in line with what i think...

And most of other car magazines, very often, frankly writing crap... You have to remember, that it is journalists, which are testing cars, not pro drivers! and most journalists are really bad at driving ;)

Very often i find myself buying a carmag, reading a review and sayind "what a hell?! this is bullshit... :grrrrr: ".... i bin it straight away :M5thumbs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
I think that there are multiple issues. The largest is the rush to be the first with the article, or at least on time with the competition.

I too think the 501 issue was after conversion.

Not sure how many of you get Roundel, but theirs was the worst in some ways. Run-Flat tires? Come on...

Hopefully when full reviews replace these first look organized press releases, they will take a little more time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
tifosi said:
i think the problem HomerUK pointed out has nothing to do with the conversion of the unit.

EVO's error on HP rating (501bhp), a German Magazine's error on biturbo charged engine configuration, Automobile's error on the operation of the SMG, and Autoweeks' numerous errors in their review. those are all just mindless mistakes the writers did not pick up after sending the article out for printing. i am sure they can easily spot the error just by double checking over the article, but why they didn't do it or didn't pick up the error is totally beyond me.
I agree, after looking at the types of mistakes it is more than a conversion problem. Apparently, the people writing these articles and doing the reviews are not serious car people. I am a car nut and a stickler for details. I can't imagine myself or any of my car nut friends making those kinds of mistakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Good at least its not just me:)

Val
The defence of these issues being that they are just journalists can't cut it in my books. The are working in the motoring press, even the people writing for papers only do the motoring section. The girl for the Sun, a link was posted by Ashok, is a great example of how it should be done. The details were correct, there was evidence of greater automotive knowledge, and her personal view of the car was made clear.

I have also noticed how much space has been taken up by explaining how to use Launch Control. I guess BMW was pushing this point with the runway tests, but I dont remember this happening with the M3 SMG launch or the CSL testing. Did I miss it in those or did they feel that the M5 would be hitting such a large customer base that detailed explenation on how to use LC was required? For that matter not once have I seen a mention of the SMGII LC in the M3 and CSL referenced as a comparison.

Well I hope I havent offended any journalists on this board, that wasn't my intention. It just rattled my cage as I would guess there are a large amount of people in this comunity, that if they produced this levle of work would cost companies huge amounts of money and soon face the sack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
António Duarte said:
Maybe the LC now works a lot better than SMGII and so BMW thought it would be *good* that there was a lot of press about it...
Don't mind the press about the system, its the fact every one has gone into deatil of how to use it. It has taken everything from a paragraph to almost quater of a page.

SMGII LC works fine in my opinion. I used it a bit in the coupe I had, but I haven't tried it in the cab I've now got. Hope whoever bought the coupe isn't having problems with the clutch now. When I decide to change cars I must admit to abusing them before they go.

Not sure if it changes up for you in the M3, any one know, as I've always used the paddles as the revcounter closes on the red line.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top