#also I’ve lost over 100 lbs that’s p cool | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

jesusvasser · 6 years ago

Text

First Drive: 2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performente Spyder

CALISTOGA, California — When Editor Mike Floyd sent me to review Lambo’s latest, I vowed that I would cover it like the jaded, sober professional I imagine myself to be—but that all went out the window the moment I opened the taps on the 2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performante Spyder’s 630-horse V-10. Bombing through the back roads of Northern California in a brand-new supercar on behalf of an A-list car mag is something I’ve dreamed of doing for years, and if you’re going to live the dream, there is no better ride than this.

What is the Huracán Performante Spyder? It’s insane, that’s what it is. It is a road-going elephant gun that transforms mere mortals into driving deities. It’s the ride that earns you looks of smoldering jealousy from drivers of high-end Porsche 911s. It’s the car that Aston Martin owners can’t quite afford. It is the passport to a lifestyle that 99% of us—especially those of us who chose to write about cars for a living rather than do something more lucrative, like working at a 7-11—can only dream about.

It’s also a little cramped, very noisy, and has the world’s silliest turn signal switch—nuisances that the Beautiful People never tell you about.

Let’s break the car down: The Huracán is the smaller of Lambo’s supercars, and the Performante version sheds weight and adds power. Its naturally aspirated 5.2-liter V-10 delivers 630 hp and 442 lb-ft of torque, increases of 28 hp and 29 lb-ft over the regular Huracán. All-wheel-drive is standard, as is a dual-clutch seven-speed automatic transmission.

The Performante gets Lambo’s active aerodynamic system (Aerodinamica Lamborghini Attiva, a.k.a. ALA). A movable flap on the front splitter either increases front downforce or reduces drag depending on driving conditions, while flaps at the base of the rear wing supports route air through the wing structure and out of vents on the underside, achieving the same effect out back. And if that’s not enough, the back end uses separate left and right channels to shift downforce to the inner rear wheel when cornering at high speeds. Seriously, how cool is that?

New for 2018 and the subject of my diatribe is the convertible version, the Spyder. Like the regular Huracán Spyder, the Performante Spyder required no additional chassis stiffening above and beyond the coupe; the raked-back windshield delivers the required rigidity, while pop-up roll bars behind the passengers provide rollover protection. The roof is a cloth affair that raises and lowers in 17 seconds at speeds up to 50 km/h (that’s 31 mph to us ‘Muricans), and the vestigial rear window serves as a wind blocker.

The Performante Spyder weighs 77 pounds less than the regular AWD Spyder, but it’s a hefty 276 pounds heavier than the Performante Coupe. Even so, Lambo says the performance figures are close enough for jazz: 0-100 km/h (62 mph) in 3.1 seconds, 0.2 sec off the pace of the tin-top Performante, and the same 202-mph top speed.

Slithering in behind the Huracán’s wheel—as that Crosby, Stills and Nash song goes, it gets harder as you get older—transforms you to a place outside of the regular automotive universe. Whatever surfaces aren’t covered in Alcantara suede are molded from forged composite, a lightweight form of carbon fiber used extensively in the Performante’s underlying structure. Switches are lined up like rigidly disciplined soldiers on a flowing center console. There’s no center screen; the Audi-sourced navigation system displays on the video-screen dash next to the digitally-rendered tachometer. One could argue that the nav display is too small, but one could also argue that one who would pick such nits has no business driving a Lamborghini. Such a person might also point out the incongruity of the cheap plastic on the steering wheel hub, so it’s probably best to kill them before they start talking.

Anyone lucky enough to drive the Huracán Performante Spyder must experience launch mode. Set the drive mode switch to Corsa, disable ESC, then floor the brake and mat the accelerator. The engine howls at five grand and the transmission holds in neutral. Release the brake and off you go. It is difficult to describe the experience of rocketing to 60 mph in three seconds, but it’s not as dramatic as you might expect: No wrenching of the stomach, no flattening of the face—one instant you’re standing still; the next, you’re at a mile-a-minute and gaining speed quickly.

Flinging this car around the curves, however—that is as dramatic as you might expect. Acceleration is as quick as a motorcycle. Grip feels limitless, and it may as well be; assuming you’re not driving like a complete imbecile, you need to push very hard on very sharp curves to get the Pirelli P Zero Corsas to give up their hold on the pavement. And you will want to push hard, because the steering is pretty darn near perfect—quick but not darty, hefty but not heavy, delivering feedback without kick-back.

The ride is hard but not uncomfortable, at least until you hit really choppy pavement, where it becomes clear that when push comes to shove the Huracán prioritizes grip over comfort. Carbon-fiber brakes powerful enough to stop time allow you to rapidly scrub speed when you suspect cops might be lurking ahead.

And the noise—oh, the noise! The Huracán has three drive modes, called Strada (street), Sport (you can guess), and Corsa (race). They change all the usual parameters—dampers, shift pattern, throttle response, dashboard display—but the one you’ll notice most is the soundtrack. Strada is quieter than the other modes, in the sense that a Metallica concert is quieter than a Megadeath concert. It mutes the exhaust somewhat, but like Luciano Pavarotti, when the Huracán sings, everyone is going to hear it. Sport opens up the exhaust and allows a fusillade of backfires every time you lift off the accelerator, while Corsa turns up the sliders on the equalizer.

It is right and proper that we talk about sound, because that may be the best reason to get your Huracán Performante as a Spyder: With the top down, you can appreciate the big V-10 in all its glory, at least until your ears start bleeding. And appreciate it we should: A big naturally aspirated engine—especially one with ten cylinders—is an aural treat, a mellifluous soundtrack that is rapidly disappearing thanks to ever-increasing fuel economy and emissions standards. Turbochargers may be great for power, but they are also natural mufflers, which makes them instruments of the Devil.

Aside from rain—which I am told by reliable sources does not occur in California (but it pours—man, it pours)—is there any good reason to drive this car with the roof in place? The Huracán offers one of the best top-down experiences on the road. The windshield is set far forward, so even short people like me (5’6”), who often find themselves unwillingly sheltered by a swept-back windshield, can experience the sky above them. Buffeting is minimal, visibility is good, and as for wind noise, the engine is so damn deafening that it’s impossible to hear.

That said, I don’t see how anyone taller than me can really enjoy this car. Six-footers may well find themselves staring right into the top of the windshield frame, their heads exposed to the slip-stream. (My co-driver tried raising his adjustable seat and instantly lost his baseball cap to the wind.) Despite my ridiculously short 29” inseam, I had to adjust the form-fitting buckets pretty far back.

And while the Huracán Spyder is lovely with the top down, top up is another story. Closing the low-slung roof feels rather like being swallowed by a large fish. If you were hoping that putting the roof up would give you some respite from the Huracán’s turned-up-to-11 soundtrack, forget it: Top-up, the Spyder is an echo chamber, adding the din of road noise to the roar of the engine.

Since I’m already complaining like an ingrate, I’ll mention the cramped footwells and the ridiculous turn signal switch, a toggle on the steering wheel that must be pressed straight in to turn off after a lane change (because nothing is more embarrassing than driving a high-end Lamborghini with a forgotten left turn signal blinking away). Switching the transmission from manual to automatic mode is a fiddly operation requiring a hard-to-reach button. And why does the Corsa mode not allow automatic shifting? Trying to impress the locals with the exhaust at full bellow and then running into the rev limiter makes one look like a dolt.

Forgive me for complaining, but it’s the only way I can detach myself from the Huracán Performante Spyder without acknowledging that I will probably never be able to afford the $309,000 asking price, let alone the $42,820 worth of options on my test car. (I’m not even sure I could swing Lamborghini’s $3,695 destination fee.) Still, a person can dream, and even live that dream, if only for a few hours. The 2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performante Spyder is the car of which dreams are made, but we all have to wake up sometime.

2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performante Spyder Specifications

ON SALE Summer 2018 PRICE $312,554 ENGINE 5.2 liter DOHC 40-valve turbocharged V-10/630 hp @ 8,000 rpm, 442 lb-ft @ 6,500 rpm TRANSMISSION 7-speed dual-clutch automatic LAYOUT 2-door, 2-passenger, mid-engine, AWD convertible EPA MILEAGE 13/19 MPG (city/highway) L x W x H 177.4 x 88.0 x 45.9 in WHEELBASE 103.2 in WEIGHT 3,322 lb 0-60 MPH 3.1 sec (est) TOP SPEED 202 mph

IFTTT

#IFTTT #Performance Junk WP Feed 4

0 notes

jonathanbelloblog · 6 years ago

Text

First Drive: 2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performente Spyder

It’s also a little cramped, very noisy, and has the world’s silliest turn signal switch—nuisances that the Beautiful People never tell you about.

2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performante Spyder Specifications

IFTTT

#IFTTT #Performance Junk Blogger Feed 4

0 notes

junker-town · 7 years ago

Text

ULM might have the Sun Belt’s best offense. Shootouts, ahoy!

Matt Viator’s third season in Monroe could include a bowl bid if the defense improves from horrible to simply bad.

I’ve made it pretty clear through the years that I admire both of the Sun Belt’s Louisiana schools. In the seven seasons that I have been writing full-time for SB Nation, ULM and UL Lafayette have provided three of my favorite college football moments. In order:

1. The Ragin’ Cajuns’ 2011 New Orleans Bowl win

youtube

2. The Warhawks’ 2012 comeback win over Arkansas

The underdog masterpiece.

youtube

3. The two-QB formation

youtube

This series of moments defined both programs and showed that there is potential for excitement and innovation even in the lower-revenue pockets of FBS.

They also all happened more than five years ago. The Cajuns and Warhawks won a combined 17 games in 2012, a remarkable accomplishment. But that total fell to 15 in 2013, 13 in 2014, and six in 2015. Todd Berry, ULM’s turnaround master, was looking for a new job by 2016. Mark Hudspeth, engineer of four straight nine-win seasons at UL Lafayette from 2011-14, was dismissed a couple of months ago.

I say it often (in fact, I said it in this week’s UL Lafayette preview as well): hard jobs remain hard. You are consistently swimming upstream and fighting a current while much of FBS swims on a horizontal plane. That makes me admire those who will take on such a project.

ULM is, in particular, one of the most difficult jobs in FBS, and Matt Viator, winner of 78 games at Nicholls State (also in Louisiana), took it on in 2016. In his first eight games, he went just 2-6 with wins over only Southern U. and Texas State, the worst team in FBS that year. ULM averaged 22.8 points per game and allowed 42.4.

Since then? Progress ... on one side of the ball. The Warhawks scored a combined 79 points in late-2016 wins over South Alabama and Georgia State, and they averaged 34 points per game in 2017, 42 in conference play.

They also only went 4-4 in conference play and 4-8 overall. You’ve got to stop somebody occasionally, too.

In 2018, ULM faces an almost exaggerated version of 2017. The Warhawks return almost everyone from an offense that surged to 17th in Off. S&P+. Quarterback Caleb Evans threw for nearly 3,000 yards and, sans sacks, rushed for nearly 700. Receivers Marcus Green and RJ Turner were both efficient (54 percent success rate) and explosive (16.3 yards per catch). The top five running backs and six linemen with starting experience also return. Offensive coordinator Matt Kubik’s offense could be the best in the conference this year.

Photo by Loren Orr/Getty Images

Matt Viator

Will the defense be anything other than the worst? ULM managed to fall from 126th to 129th in Def. S&P+; that’s a long road from respectability.

Injuries played a role, sure. Losing potential starting end Shaquille Warren for the year and getting only four games from starting safety Nick Ingram didn’t help. Defensive coordinator Mike Collins played a line loaded with freshmen and sophomores and tried every possible combination of personnel in the back. Nothing worked. ULM was awful against both run (127th in Rushing S&P+) and pass (116th in Passing S&P+).

Eight starters return, though the three lost starters were among ULM’s top five havoc guys. Still, experience and good health should generate improvement. But is there enough pure talent? Is it all on the offensive side of the ball?

Though the record didn’t change, Viator engineered clear, obvious improvement in his second season in Monroe. With this offense, he can probably do it again in 2018. The “how high” and “how long” questions can wait, I guess.

Offense

Perhaps the most impressive thing about ULM’s offensive improvement is that it happened with almost no help from the run game. Alabama transfer Derrick Gore averaged a paltry 3.6 yards per carry; he has his best games against two of the better opponents on the schedule (36 carries for 199 yards against Southern Miss and Appalachian State) and averaged 3 yards per carry against everybody else.

Gore’s presence on the first string was a confusing one, as Ben Luckett, ULM’s leading rusher in 2016, averaged nearly 7 yards per carry in a backup role. His marginal efficiency was nearly 13 percentage points higher than Gore’s, and even at 227 pounds, he had some burst in the open field.

Both are back, and they could get pushed by a pair of three-star redshirt freshmen, Jakyle Holmes and Javin Myers. They’ll also be running behind a pretty burly line. Six players have combined for 72 career starts up front and average a cool 6’4, 317 between them. (And that says nothing of backups like 330-pound Brandon Jones, 354-pound Joq Savage, or 321-pound Dakota Torbert.

The lack of cumulative production from the running backs, though, spells out just how impressive Caleb Evans was. A backup as a freshman in 2016, Evans overtook Garrett Smith (who has since transferred) in the starting lineup and never looked back. Not including sacks, he carried 10 times per game at 5.8 yards per carry, and he completed 61 percent of his passes with a marginal efficiency near of plus-8.5 percent (meaning, he was 8.5 percent more efficient than the national average based on down, distance, and field position).

Evans took minimal sacks, and he spread the ball around like crazy. Sure, he favored the trio of Marcus Green, Brian Williams, and RJ Turner, but nine different players were targeted at least once per game. And as iffy as Gore was between the tackles, he was great catching passes out of the backfield: 19 targets, 16 catches, 272 yards. Since Luckett wasn’t much of a receiving threat at all, that tells you pretty clearly why Gore was in the game.

Photo by Scott Donaldson/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

Marcus Green

Of those nine primary targets, only Williams is gone. The 5’8 Green, who caught 25 balls for 392 yards and two touchdowns during a season-ending four-game gauntlet against the defenses of Appalachian State, Auburn, Arkansas State, and Florida State, is all but assured of all-conference honors this year.

Turner had 16 catches of his own for 315 yards and four scores in that four-game stretch; he’s back as well. That’s a dynamite combination, and we haven’t yet talked about the potential efficiency supplement of not only Gore, but also players like senior wideouts D’Marius Gillespie and Markus McCray or tight ends Josh Pederson and Sloan Spiller.

This is a thrilling passing game, one that was easily able to overcome whatever second-and-8 or third-and-7 situations the run game set up for it. And in theory, experience and better depth could make those second-and-6s or third-and-4s. I expect a lot from this offense in 2018.

Defense

On two occasions in 2017, ULM scored at least 37 points and lost by double digits — 47-37 to Georgia State and 67-50 to Arkansas State. All they had to do was go unbeaten when scoring a boatload of points, and they’d have been bowl eligible. Instead, they put together a pretty nasty combination of inefficiency and an inability to prevent big plays:

Woof.

There weren’t enough injuries to justify such a poor performance, but injury did help to create a deep pool of experience heading into 2018. Add in four JUCO transfers (two linemen, two defensive backs), and a few interesting freshmen, and you’ve at least got yourself some options.

As a thought experiment if nothing else, here are the nicest things I can say about ULM’s returning defensive personnel:

Sophomore linemen Mason Husmann (nose tackle) and Kerry Starks (end) have a lot of potential. They were undersized last year at 270 and 220 pounds, respectively, and that does obvious things to your run defense, but they combined for 11 tackles for loss and 3.5 sacks for a defense desperate for havoc, and they each took part in at least eight run stuffs (stops at or behind the line). When Starks was involved in a play, it averaged 1.0 yards per play. And if nothing else, these guys will have spent the entire offseason going against ULM’s extremely meaty offensive line, so they’ll be used to fighting bigger guys.

David Griffith is a legitimate play-maker at weakside linebacker. He logged eight TFLs, took part in 14 run stuffs, and held opponents to minus-3.7 marginal efficiency as ULM’s second-leading tackler. Good things, all, and all of his LB battery mates return alongside him, including junior Cortez Sisco, Jr. (4 TFLs).

There are lots of experienced options at safety. Ingram had 2.5 TFLs and four passes defensed in 2016, and seniors Wesley Thompson and Rhoy Williams were instrumental in making sure that ULM’s explosiveness numbers weren’t even worse. Plus, another senior, Collin Turner, recorded five passes defensed (third on the team) in just six games, and JUCO safeties Cal Kee III and Tyler Glass bring good size to the table.

Sophomore corners Kenderick Marbles and Corey Straughter survived. A lot was asked of them as freshmen, and Straughter managed five passes defensed while, yes, also failing a few tests. So did senior JJ Dallas, who had five PDs in just seven games.

Again, options, options, options. Nine of the 10 linemen are back (plus end Shaquille Warren), and each of the top five linebackers return. Plus, of the 17 defensive backs to record at least three tackles, 15 are scheduled to return. That’s depth that simply didn’t previously exist.

Melina Vastola-USA TODAY Sports

Kenderick Marbles

Was I persuasive? Did I talk you into massive improvement? Probably not. This is still an extremely undersized defense, and while experience and continuity will help — I’d be surprise if this defense didn’t improve into at least the 100s in Def. S&P+ — there are plenty of reasons to wonder about the pure talent level here.

Special Teams

Special teams was mostly helpful for ULM last year. Marcus Green is an unbelievable kick returner (32.4 yard average, four touchdowns) who creates a bit of a philosophical dilemma for opponents — can you kick it through the end zone? Should you kick toward the sideline and risk it going out of bounds? He helped to create a positive field position margin for ULM despite awful defensive inefficiency.

Beyond him, the unit is fine. Harrison Heim averaged nearly 42 yards per punt, Craig Ford made most of his shorter field goals (and went 2-for-3 on longer ones), and Green was at least decent in punt returns. The Warhawks need a new kickoffs guy, but Green alone makes this unit a net plus.

2018 outlook

2018 Schedule & Projection Factors

Date Opponent Proj. S&P+ Rk Proj. Margin Win Probability 1-Sep SE Louisiana NR 15.0 81% 8-Sep at Southern Miss 94 -5.6 37% 15-Sep at Texas A&M 24 -22.6 10% 6-Oct at Ole Miss 25 -22.5 10% TBD Georgia Southern 106 1.9 54% TBD Texas State 123 8.0 68% TBD Troy 78 -5.4 38% TBD UL-Lafayette 121 6.7 65% TBD at Arkansas State 66 -13.0 23% TBD at Coastal Carolina 118 0.5 51% TBD at Georgia State 113 -0.5 49% TBD at South Alabama 109 -2.0 45%

Projected S&P+ Rk 107 Proj. Off. / Def. Rk 28 / 128 Projected wins 5.3 Five-Year S&P+ Rk -12.5 (121) 2- and 5-Year Recruiting Rk 102 / 115 2017 TO Margin / Adj. TO Margin* -4 / -4.5 2017 TO Luck/Game +0.2 Returning Production (Off. / Def.) 78% (83%, 73%) 2017 Second-order wins (difference) 3.9 (0.1)

Part of what makes the ULM job so hard is scheduling. For cash flow, the Warhawks almost always load up on payout games in non-conference play, and trips to Southern Miss, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss should ensure a 1-3 record in that portion of the schedule (though they could scare a green Southern Miss team in Week 2).

That means you probably have to go 5-3 in Sun Belt play to reach bowl eligibility. That might be tough, but the Hawks will have a chance. S&P+ projects them as healthy favorites in two games (Texas State and UL Lafayette) and forecasts tossups in four others. Win three of four tossups or pull an upset elsewhere, and there you go.

The margin for error is slim, but this offense should be able to hang with just about anybody. It deserves a bowl, and it deserves a defense that makes at least a stop or two more per game. Caleb Evans and Marcus Green are legitimate stars you should try to watch.

Viator is doing what he can, and the upside on one side of the ball is undeniable, even if he doesn’t break out any two-QB formations. He’s got an intriguing rebuild underway. Let’s see how far he can take it.

Team preview stats

All power conference preview data to date.

0 notes

bestautochicago · 7 years ago

Text

2018 BMW M5 First Drive: The King is Dead, Long Live the King

There was a time when the alpha-numeric “M5” held transcendental place in our automotive consciousness and struck fear in the hearts of AMG drivers. Unfortunately, this car’s immediate predecessor, the F10 M5 (2011-2016), was roundly criticized for being a luxury car with a big motor—a rather large, distant-feeling speed instrument and not much else. In a comparison test against the last-generation Mercedes-Benz E63 S AMG, of the fortified, overboosted 2014 M5 Competition Pack, senior features editor Jonny Lieberman wrote: “…the M5 feels like a bank vault with the speedometer always reading 100 mph.” That car, and others since, linger as reminders that the M Division, perhaps only temporarily, had lost its way. Even Cadillac has driven a supercharged V-8 wedge into the super sedan battlefield with its underappreciated and highly capable CTS-V. BMW had to react in a big way. They did.

Of course, some will argue the V10-powered E60 M5 (2005-2010) was a technical marvel, sprung from the last time BMW was participating in Formula 1 racing. Yet, that high-strung low-torque engine operated within too narrow a window to be an effective all-around super sedan. It was a car that was alternatively at five-tenths or 10/10ths with little between. Arguably, it’s not been since the first V-8-powered E39-generation M5 (1998-2003) was on the prowl that BMW held a winning hand in this uber-sedan war. We were reminded of just how special the E39 remains when BMW supplied one to drive during this program in Portugal. In fact, they brought an M5 from each era—and even a 1981 M535i progenitor—for us to drive on the road when it wasn’t our turn on track in the 2018 M5. This fact made us ponder if BMW and, more specifically, the M division were, in fact, reminding themselves of the unique magic that the M5 should contain and supply. It should be more than a fast 5 Series. It should, like that E39 did, have us asking, “Wait. BMW are actually going to sell this car? To anybody who can afford it? This thing is completely bonkers. No way.”

Hair-on-Fire Great

Well, guess what? The BMW M5 is once again, completely bonkers, hair-on-fire great in its current F90 form. Not only does it once again sound like a proper ne plus ultra sedan, but it is also scary fast yet has the poise and feedback it so lacked in the F10 era. It’s once again the proverbial ballerina body builder able to balance on one toe while holding a two-ton weight over its head with one hand behind its back. Technical director Frank Markus wrote a terrific deep-dive into all the nuts and bolts of what makes the 2018 BMW M5 work when he drove a prototype earlier this year. Suffice to say that one lap of the Estoril circuit in the new M5 thrashed and dashed any misplaced preconceptions about the first use of all-wheel drive in an M5 and the shift from a dual-clutch automated manual (or a honest DIY manual) in favor of a well-tuned ZF eight-speed automatic. This M5 is alive, eager, and ready for a fight. A highly revised and more powerful version of the previous 4.4-liter twin-turbo V-8 now makes 592 horsepower (officially 441 kW) and 553 lb-ft (750 Nm) of torque. By Frank’s count there are 270 combinations available with driver-selectable options for engine responsiveness, transmission, chassis, M xDrive (4WD/Sport 4WD/2WD, so, yes, a “drift” mode), stability control (DSC), etc. That’s still too many. Luckily, there are two prominent red steering wheel “preset” buttons (M1/M2) where you can store your favorite configurations for easy retrieval. Seated in the car on the track, we were asked to start with M1 that BMW reps had programmed.

Out Lap

The M1 was conservatively set with the engine/exhaust at full song but with the transmission in the second-most aggressive mode, non-Sport AWD setting, and full DSC for introductory laps. BMW claims a 0-62-mph (100 kph) time of just 3.4 seconds. That seems about right because the car was insanely fast out of the paddock and down to the first corner. What’s more, unlike the muted F10, this car sounded stupendously good—like that old E39! Besides having control flaps in the exhaust system, we’re told that a “Helmholtz” resonator fitted between the two branches contributes to it. Some of that glorious sound is, of course, “enhanced�� with the car’s audio system, as well. BMW horses have always felt bigger than their numbers suggest, but the way the M5 lifts its nose and puts the power to the ground on throttle hints at the all-wheel drive working effectively. At that there’s a deep reserve of torque (553 lb-ft) from a mere 1,800 up to 5,600 rpm.

Arriving at the first several corners, the turn-in was crisp and accurate like a rear-drive car, but the eager, aggressive M5 suddenly went lazy and stubborn midturn. Despite the driveline defaulting to 2WD until the computer-controlled transfer case deems it necessary to allot power to the front wheels, the heavy hand of DSC was obvious. In this mode, the first corners were agonizingly, artificially slowed. Any attempt to alter the car’s conservative line and speed by frantically (or gently) manipulating the throttle to shift the car’s prodigious weight (estimated to be about 4,250 pounds) or yaw rate was met with a dead go-pedal until the front wheels were pointed straight. About half way around the 2.6-mile lap, I pressed the M2 button (ushering Sport 4WD and M Dynamic DSC) and ensured the shift protocol was the most aggressive available. As if I had loosened the car’s bridle and let the reins go, the M5 came alive beneath me; it began to shrink around me. With more power being directed to the rear wheels, the tail of the car was easily coaxed into gentle, measured oversteer. The steering (which I had switched to Comfort to get rid of unnecessary weight) began offering me genuine information about the front tires’ impending lack of grip. The car was so predictable that when I’d lift off the throttle, weight would transfer to the front, and I’d quickly flick the steering the other way to catch the slide and meter it with the throttle and/or the laser-precise steering. Despite its wheelbase growing an inch, overall length by 2, and width by 0.5 inch, weight is down by 50-90 pounds compared to the rear-drive F10 M5—and this is how an M5 should behave on a track.

The first time down the half-mile straight, the M5 piled on the speed as if it were in a vacuum without wind resistance. In what felt like a never-ending surge, and with each seamless, belching upshift, it just never stopped accelerating. All I could say to myself on that first lap and throughout that first sessions was: “Whoa. What. A. Motor!” For me, it defined the car in the morning, making the M5 feel like a uncaged beast that was ready to pick up asphalt and throw it at the cars following—which it did, and BMW reportedly replaced 10 windshields during the event.

On the Road

I was just getting comfortable. My hands had stopped sweating, and I had learned the track and just how much tail-out was allowed or discouraged by the car. I hadn’t yet dared look at the speedometer at the end of the straight. Too soon, however, the out lap, three hot laps, and one cool down were now behind us. We were assured that because it had rained on a previous group’s track day that there were plenty of M5-bespoke Pirelli P Zeros in the garage and that there would be afternoon hot-lapping. As we had planned, my co-driver for the afternoon road drive was none other than Jonny’s new Head2Head co-host, Jethro Bovington. And waiting for us in the parking lot was an identically equipped 2018 M5: Optional carbon-ceramic brakes (reducing corner weights by 50 pounds collectively), the M Driver’s Pack (raising the speed limiter from 155 to 189 mph), and 20-inch wheels with 275/35R20 and 285/35R20 tires.

The first order of business was to get out of town by negotiating a single roundabout then charging down an onramp onto the A16 headed north. Jethro wasted no time pressing the M2 button, and we blasted down the highway with the sat-nav system gently giving us guidance. It wasn’t long before we had arrived at the first toll station, and I asked Jethro, “If we were to arrive at the next one ‘too soon,’ would you expect to be fined for speeding?”

“I think that’s an urban myth meant to keep people from speeding,” he replied. “I’ve never heard of anybody getting nicked like that in all these years on European A roads. The speed cameras are real, but I don’t believe they time you between toll gates.”

At the first highway transition, Jethro really leaned on the car, and it just stuck to the line. “It’s really good at hiding its weight, isn’t it?” he asked. “The grip is tremendous, and it truly does feel rear drive. And this motor! Gawd.”

After a time we’d gotten off the A-routes and switched seats for the country road portion. At the first corner, I dabbed the brake and only the seat belts kept us from slamming into the dashboard. “Wow, these brakes take some getting used to, right?” I said.

We were going a good clip between towns, and interestingly, the nav system lagged behind so often that we missed several turns by the time we reached junctures. Besides that, the M5 that felt all-conquering on track and on the highway it suddenly felt all knees and elbows; the proverbial bull in a china shop. “Boy is this car big,” I said. “It takes up the entire width of this little road, and I don’t like those game-over drainage troughs one bit.”

The ride quality, too, suffered a great deal on broken pavement and even a short stretch of Belgian blocks through a small Portuguese hamlet. “Yeah, you really, really have to want this M5 to put up with the ride out here in the real world—even on the softest settings, it’s sports-car firm,” Jethro added. “Pretty punishing.” We both wondered why BMW hadn’t ventured into magnetorheological dampers yet. This would seem the perfect candidate for them. Licensing? Hmm.

The conversation continued. “I think most people will be more satisfied with a less-mental M550i xDrive,” Jethro added.

“Agree, but I’m glad they went all in with the M5,” I said. “Let’s get back to the track and queue up.”

Session Two

With the morning’s wisdom, new-found confidence in, and respect for the new M5, we took our place in line for a second opportunity to really probe the car’s limits on fresh tires behind two pro drivers, a DTM champ and Blancpain GT competitor/rising star. No sooner were we belted in our cars, M2 button pressed, than the pros leading the group of three chase M5s at a time wooded the throttle and did a glorious burnout in pit lane. Oh, it was go-fast time alright. The lead M5s were the liveried version of the Moto GP pace car that was curiously shod with Michelin Pilot Sport 4 S tires—not Pirellis. At any rate we were off and hell bent for leather.

If the morning session was all about appreciating the motor, then the afternoon was devoted to the chassis and driveline and finding the perfect line. The pro drivers were goading us to go faster and faster, and finally, we were at the limit of the car. I finally caught a glimpse of the speedo right before I got on the brakes into Turn One. It read, “270 kph” or 168 mph, to us yanks. No wonder the cars’ top speeds were raised for the event. We would’ve been on the 155-mph limiter well before the first turn. With all three lights indicating the most aggressive transmission mapping, it ripped matched-rev downshifts like a twin-clutch. It’s utterly indistinguishable in shift speed and intelligence. Turn after turn, I grew more confident in adding throttle sooner and sooner coming out of the corner. I found the less-strict limits of MDM mode (still not enough yaw to be truly fun) and switched it off completely. I didn’t delve into 2WD drift mode, but the incongruous thing, however, was that even with DSC shut off, it was so easy to dance the car around the track—clipping curbs, drifting wide on the exits, positioning the car inch-perfect, finding the ABS threshold, and backing off slightly to modulate the brakes into corners. The M5 simply does everything you want it to do and nothing you don’t. The M xDrive system is so fluid that a driver can scarcely detect its carbon-clutch pack shifting power to the front, and the Active M Dynamic differential out back effectively shifts torque side to side without using brakes. The harmony of all of this is astounding and what makes the new M5 deserving of the old, highly revered badge. What a car. What a supremely entertaining and capable super sedan it is.

OK, it’s great and all. So what’s the tariff?

How much would you expect to pay for all of this? At this point, only base pricing has been announced at $103,595, or precisely $1,800 below a comparable 2018 Mercedes-AMG E63 S 4Matic. Tantalizing, isn’t it? Adding the historical cost of the M5’s carbon-ceramic brakes ($9,250) and the Competition package (now M Driver’s pack) that includes the 20-inch forged aluminum wheels and specific tuning ($7,300) would indicate we were driving M5s that would easily exceed $120,000 before interior options. And it’s worth it. The last E63 S 4Matic we tested cost $145,160. Rest assured, however, that we will line up the next Head2Head with these two cross town rivals in a few months. Their on-paper credentials are startlingly close, and it’ll be a cage match for the ages. Watch this space.

2018 BMW M5 BASE PRICE $103,595 VEHICLE LAYOUT Front-engine, RWD/AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan ENGINE 4.4L/592-hp/553-lb-ft twin-turbo DOHC 32-valve V-8 TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic CURB WEIGHT 4,250 lb (mfr) WHEELBASE 117.7 in LENGTH X WIDTH X HEIGHT 195.5 x 74.9 x 56.8 in 0-60 MPH 3.2 sec (MT est) EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON 15/21/17 mpg (MT est) ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CITY/HWY 225-160 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.13 lb/mile ON SALE IN U.S. Spring 2018

Source: http://chicagoautohaus.com/2018-bmw-m5-first-drive-the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king/

from Chicago Today https://chicagocarspot.wordpress.com/2017/12/19/2018-bmw-m5-first-drive-the-king-is-dead-long-live-the-king/

0 notes

robertkstone · 7 years ago

Text

2018 BMW M5 First Drive: The King is Dead, Long Live the King

Hair-on-Fire Great

Out Lap

The M1 was conservatively set with the engine/exhaust at full song but with the transmission in the second-most aggressive mode, non-Sport AWD setting, and full DSC for introductory laps. BMW claims a 0-62-mph (100 kph) time of just 3.4 seconds. That seems about right because the car was insanely fast out of the paddock and down to the first corner. What’s more, unlike the muted F10, this car sounded stupendously good—like that old E39! Besides having control flaps in the exhaust system, we’re told that a “Helmholtz” resonator fitted between the two branches contributes to it. Some of that glorious sound is, of course, “enhanced” with the car’s audio system, as well. BMW horses have always felt bigger than their numbers suggest, but the way the M5 lifts its nose and puts the power to the ground on throttle hints at the all-wheel drive working effectively. At that there’s a deep reserve of torque (553 lb-ft) from a mere 1,800 up to 5,600 rpm.

On the Road

The conversation continued. “I think most people will be more satisfied with a less-mental M550i xDrive,” Jethro added.

“Agree, but I’m glad they went all in with the M5,” I said. “Let’s get back to the track and queue up.”

Session Two

OK, it’s great and all. So what’s the tariff?

IFTTT

#IFTTT #PerformanceJunk WP Feed 3

0 notes