# 528/530 vs 540 steering



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

SS said:


> *Let's back up. First, when I was talking about "capability" I was referring to "handling". Secondly, when you brought up "slalom" I mixed it up with "skidpad", *


 So that makes it, what- two things you were mistaken about? Mixing up slalom and skidpad and then *assuming* the 528 non-sport handles better- which you did:


SS said:


> *Actually, just over a month ago, I posted slalom number comparing the 528 non-SP to the 540 Sport, and the 528 non-sport STILL had higher numbers! *





SS said:


> *Secondly, when you brought up "slalom" I mixed it up with "skidpad", which is what really matters for handling/cornering capabilities. Third, skidpad number do NOT mean actual handling...*


 There is simply nothing here but contradiction.


SS said:


> *but I brought that up because I figured that is what you were referring to *


 That's called an assumption, and once again, you assumed incorrectly.


SS said:


> *(by the way, how can you say I'm wrong about it, if you did not bring proof to the table?*


 Because YOU brought the numbers to the table and proved yourself wrong _for_ me:


> _Originally posted by SS _*
> I was wrong about ONE thing! The skidpad numbers on the non-SP 528 is .78, and SP 540 is .82 *





> _Originally posted by SS _*
> I stated I was wrong about numbers, but remember, if we're going to compare the RB to the R&P, we need both SP, or both non-SP...not two different setups!).*


You could take your own advice. *You're* the guy who brougt the non sport 528 into discussion to make a point that has been proven invalid and based on nothing to back it up- also known as "assumptions."


> _Originally posted by SS _*
> Now, my original statement was simply that the R&P is more capable than RB in terms of handling, and that is a fact. *


Your original statement to which I took exception and which you have not been able to prove with anything other than conjecture (assumption) was:


> _Originally posted by SS _*
> Also, it gives the 528 more "capability" than Recirculating Ball would in turns. *





> _Originally posted by SS _*
> Again, I do not feel like digging up all the references, but I am not "assuming" this stuff, and you keep stating. These are facts I simply did not provide referrences for...if you are not certain about them, proceed to research yourself, and perhaps you'll get a better understanding. *


 I have a satisfactory understanding of the differences between R&P and RB and the way one E39 handles over another- with proof from reputable sources rather than hearsay. If we cant provide *good* information, we shouldn't give it.


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> *This is a pretty ambiguous statement as both systems will allow the same tolerances in a given turn. Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 . I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns. One should not infer a difference between "communication" and "capability" of any E39's handling. *


By the way...it is possible for a car that does not handle quite as well as another to make it through the slalom faster than another. A much faster car can get through the slalom quicker than, and at a higher speed than a slower car that handles corners better. So, perhaps, you should not have even mentioned that...

I was not saying the 528 handles MUCH better than the 540...or R&P handles MUCH better than RB, but that is does indeed handle better...this conversation has dragged out much further than it should have...


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> *So that makes it, what- two things you were mistaken about? Mixing up slalom and skidpad and then assuming the 528 non-sport handles better- which you did:*


*

Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP). Again, I corrected myself, so let's move on...




There is simply nothing here but contradiction.[/QUOTE}

A contradiction? LOL...my point is that skidpad numbers show roadholding, which CAN translate to handling, but that a car with a lower skidpad number can handle better than a car with a higher skidpad number. Perhaps the wording was not correct...




That's called an assumption, and once again, you assumed incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions!




Because YOU brought the numbers to the table and proved yourself wrong for me:

Click to expand...

You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it.




You could take your own advice. You're the guy who brougt the non sport 528 into discussion to make a point that has been proven invalid and based on nothing to back it up- also known as "assumptions."
Your original statement to which I took exception and which you have not been able to prove with anything other than conjecture (assumption) was:

Click to expand...

Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???




I have a satisfactory understanding of the differences between R&P and RB and the way one E39 handles over another- with proof from reputable sources rather than hearsay. If we cant provide *good* information, we shouldn't give it.

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


> The information I gave is good. Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). This is a well-known fact, and for someone who continuously keeps stating I'm "assuming", you sure are doing tons of assuming I am assuming without backing up your statements that I am incorrect!


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> *So that makes it, what- two things you were mistaken about? Mixing up slalom and skidpad and then assuming the 528 non-sport handles better- which you did:*


*

Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP). Again, I corrected myself, so let's move on...




There is simply nothing here but contradiction.[/QUOTE}

A contradiction? LOL...my point is that skidpad numbers show roadholding, which CAN translate to handling, but that a car with a lower skidpad number can handle better than a car with a higher skidpad number. Perhaps the wording was not correct...




That's called an assumption, and once again, you assumed incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions!




Because YOU brought the numbers to the table and proved yourself wrong for me:

Click to expand...

You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it.




You could take your own advice. You're the guy who brougt the non sport 528 into discussion to make a point that has been proven invalid and based on nothing to back it up- also known as "assumptions."
Your original statement to which I took exception and which you have not been able to prove with anything other than conjecture (assumption) was:

Click to expand...

Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???




I have a satisfactory understanding of the differences between R&P and RB and the way one E39 handles over another- with proof from reputable sources rather than hearsay. If we cant provide *good* information, we shouldn't give it.

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


> The information I gave is good. Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). This is a well-known fact, and for someone who continuously keeps stating I'm "assuming", you sure are doing tons of assuming I am assuming without backing up your statements that I am incorrect!


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> *This is a pretty ambiguous statement as both systems will allow the same tolerances in a given turn. Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 . I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns. One should not infer a difference between "communication" and "capability" of any E39's handling. *


By the way...it is possible for a car that does not handle quite as well as another to make it through the slalom faster than another. A much faster car can get through the slalom quicker than, and at a higher speed than a slower car that handles corners better. So, perhaps, you should not have even mentioned that...

I was not saying the 528 handles MUCH better than the 540...or R&P handles MUCH better than RB, but that is does indeed handle better...this conversation has dragged out much further than it should have...


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

I don't see how r&p vs rb steering would directly affect handling assuming you tried both systems in the exact same car and they had the same steering ratio.
But:
-I think that often rb systems have a slower ratio than r&p systems, i'm not sure if this is the case with the 540 vs 528. If the rb system was slower, it could slighlty affect the driver's ability to get through the slalom as fast. But this is sort of an indirect effect.
2. Another indirect effect would be that the lesser feel provided by the rb system could make it more difficult to squeeze the lastounce of handling ability out of the car.

As far as skid pad numbers, I don't see how it would matter-- on a skidpad the driver just turns the wheel in 1 direction and accelerates until the car oversteers or understeers. THe steering system doesn't matter. 

I think "handling" is a pretty vague term-- and it can be defined as narrowly or broadly as you'd like. I think this is partly why this discussion grew so confusing. I think that, generally, when we say that BMW have good handling, we mean:
-good weight balance
-good turn-in characteristics
-not too much body roll on turns
AND
-good steering feel (reasonably firm, progressive build up of weigt in turns, can feel road).

If you accept this broader definitoin of handling, then, yes I agree that the r&p systems "handles" better than the rb systems. Its all a moot point anyway, BMW is ditching the rb system on the next 5 and already has on the 7.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

SS said:


> *Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? *


 Because you presented it as fact that was backed by proof when in fact it was false information. You only corrected yourself after you were called on it.


SS
[/i][B]The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment said:


> *Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???*


 I assume nothing. It's sort of the point behind this whole exercise. If I did assume anything, it would certainly not that you were assuming something... I mean assuming that I would assume something like that.


SS said:


> *The information I gave is good.*


 Fine, All I have asked is that you prove a 528 is more "capable" than a 540 rather than more "communicative" and that there is a difference between communication and capability. Prove it using the opposite of the definition above. Pay close attention to #3.


SS said:


> * Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). *


 SS? Let's look at the dispute without trying to make it more than it is: I disputed your *assumption* that the 528 is more "capable" because of it's steering. My dispute has nothing to do with the much more broad comparisons of the two systems. I'll put this in italics to see if you can get it. This may be the fourth time I've said it:
_ You presented as fact that a 528 was more cabable in turns than a 540. You have no proof of this. This is called an *assumption.*_See #3. In fact, you provided proof that the 528 non sport failed when compared to a 540 sport. If you present fruit loops as fact, be prepared to back it up.


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
Again, I did not ASSUME the 528 non-sport handled better than a SP 540...I erroneously mixed up the numbers & corrected myself, so why do you keep harping on that??? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because you presented it as fact that was backed by proof when in fact it was false information. You only corrected yourself after you were called on it.

*Uhmm...I corrected myself BEFORE being called on it. What are you talking about?*

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
The only reason I mentioned non-SP versus sport is because that is all I had a "reference" to at the moment, which I thought was satisfactory in response to your first post. However, as you can CLEARLY see in my original statement...I was comparing apples to apples (non to non - SP to SP).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your "original statement" had no mention of sport package or non-sport package. There is absolutely NO clear distiction of apples, oranges, or any other fruit except the fuit loop statement about a 528 being more "capable" in a corner to which I took exception. By original statement, I mean the FIRST reply to Thrasher. Were you talking about another original statement? Can there be two original statements?

*Again, in my ORIGINAL statement...meaning the FIRST statement, I was comparing the 528 vs 540. I meant that in an apples to apples way...meaning, SP vs SP, non-SP vs non-SP. Got it?*

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
Okay, FINE...yes, that was an assumption! But, that was simply me trying to figure out what you were getting at - does not make my OTHER statements assumptions!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one said it did. There is no reciprocal relationship being drawn from one assumption to the other. Each is taken on it's own merit.

*It seemed as though you were implying it did...otherwise, why mention it? I already correcet myself...*

quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
You're not making sense. I did not ASSUME this - I incorrectly REMEMBERED this...and I cleared that up! You're still wrong to say I assumed it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assumption: 
as·sump·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn) 
n. 
1)The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation. 
2)The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command. 
[B}3)The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory. 
4)Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption. [/B}
Presumption; arrogance. 
Logic. A minor premise. 
Assumption 
Christianity. The taking up of the Virgin Mary into heaven in body and soul after her death. 
A feast celebrating this event. 
August 15, the day on which this feast is observed.

*Again, you are misusing the word, and I will tell you how. #3, you did not prove to me that what I stated is FALSE, and neither IS it false. #4, who said it is taken for granted withOUT proof? Just because I did not PROVIDE proof on the board, does NOT mean it has not been proven. What part of this does not make sense to you???*

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
Yes, it was I who brought that into the conversation, because I thought that is what you expected to see (and all I had to compare at the moment). I did correct myself later...so what's your point? And what is with the ongoing "assumption" comments? Is that not your way of "assuming" I'm assuming things???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assume nothing. It's sort of the point behind this whole exercise. If I did assume anything, it would certainly not that you were assuming something... I mean assuming that I would assume something like that.

*You clearly made an assumption that I was incorrect...did you NOT? You also clearly ASSUMED I was ASSUMING...right or wrong?I could provide proof...just not in the mood to go digging for proof...there IS a difference!*
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
The information I gave is good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, All I have asked is that you prove a 528 is more "capable" than a 540 rather than more "communicative" and that there is a difference between communication and capability. Prove it using the opposite of the definition above. Pay close attention to #3.

*And you also ASSUMED twice with your statment that "Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 . I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns." Many, many slalom tests will concur? Both systems are equally capable? Where's your proof??? Perhaps you should read #3 again.*

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SS 
Clearly, you do not know much about this topic as you think. If you want futher proof of this, ask a question to an auto reviewer, or someone in a related field, and you will see that I am correct about my statement that the RB is inferior to R&P (in terms of handling capabilities). 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SS? Let's look at the dispute without trying to make it more than it is: I disputed your assumption that the 528 is more "capable" because of it's steering. My dispute has nothing to do with the much more broad comparisons of the two systems. I'll put this in italics to see if you can get it. This may be the fourth time I've said it: 
You presented as fact that a 528 was more cabable in turns than a 540. You have no proof of this. This is called an assumption.See #3. In fact, you provided proof that the 528 non sport failed when compared to a 540 sport. If you present fruit loops as fact, be prepared to back it up.

*Again, I did not assume...and I don't know why you keep abusing that word. Do you not fully understand what #3 means? Without PROOF and without pulling out proof are two completely different things! Also, a non-SP vs SP is not a valid comparison...and again, I threw that out after I realized the numbers were transposed. With that, if the numbers WERE read correctly, is that my point would easily be proven that even with inferior suspension, the R&P would outhandle the RB...but again, that was thrown out...okay?*

I'm not going to keep going on and on with this topic...it is ridiculous. Point is, I stated FACTS to the original poster. If you so strongly believe I am incorrect, show me proof, and I will retract that statement. If you cannot prove I am incorrect, do not keep telling me I am incorrect/assuming! If you have been in duscussions about these two setups over the past FOUR years, as I have...perhaps you would understand more about the differences between the two. If you do not own a 5-series (which I will ASSUME you do not, because you frequent the E46 board...or did), why get into it with a 5-series owner who knows tons about his car, and like cars?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

SS said:


> *Uhmm...I corrected myself BEFORE being called on it. What are you talking about?*


 Fair enough. You corrected youreself on being wrong- or was that mistaken? Or maybe "incorrectly remembering? Is there a difference?


SS said:


> *Again, in my ORIGINAL statement...meaning the FIRST statement, I was comparing the 528 vs 540. I meant that in an apples to apples way...meaning, SP vs SP, non-SP vs non-SP. Got it?*


 Well, sure, NOW.. But you have to admit it works better when you say what you mean the first time rather than back peddling, Mr. Clinton. You can't refer to your original statement pointing to substance that isn't there. Whether you _meant_ to mention SP or non SP in your original statement or not, you didn't. That omission makes it inherantly unclear.

Assumption: 
as·sump·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn) 
n. 
3)The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory. 
4)Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.


SS [/i][B]Again said:


> *You clearly made an assumption that I was incorrect...did you NOT? *


Nope, I proved that you were wrong about the 540 i sport being less capable than a 528 non sport with help from you.


SS said:


> *You also clearly ASSUMED I was ASSUMING...right or wrong?
> *


Again, no. You agreed you were assuming. 


SS said:


> *I could provide proof...just not in the mood to go digging for proof...there IS a difference!*


 Yes, I suppose there is.. Wanna see my Porsche?


SS said:


> *And you also ASSUMED twice with your statment that "Many, many slalom tests will concur, and I have yet to read that any E39 is less "capable" than another- unless you're talking about the 530 over the 528 . I agree with the thoughts of better road feel, but both systems are equally "capable" in turns." Many, many slalom tests will concur? Both systems are equally capable? Where's your proof??? Perhaps you should read #3 again.*


You provided the proof that said 528's numbers aren't as high as 540's. Unless you're suggesting that those numbers are false?


SS
[/i][B]Again said:


> *Also, a non-SP vs SP is not a valid comparison...and again, I threw that out after I realized the numbers were transposed. With that, if the numbers WERE read correctly, is that my point would easily be proven that even with inferior suspension, the R&P would outhandle the RB...but again, that was thrown out...okay?*


 So your point is that there is no point? That may be the closest you've come to bullseye.


SS said:


> *I'm not going to keep going on and on with this topic...it is ridiculous. Point is, I stated FACTS to the original poster. *


 Facts without support are not facts. They are opinions. Opinions without proof are assumptions. Like it or not.


SS said:


> *If you so strongly believe I am incorrect, show me proof, and I will retract that statement. If you cannot prove I am incorrect, do not keep telling me I am incorrect/assuming! *


 Nope- no fair turning the tables. I called you on something you said and it's up to you to clean your own mess off the floor, Snoopy.


SS said:


> *If you have been in duscussions about these two setups over the past FOUR years, as I have...perhaps you would understand more about the differences between the two. If you do not own a 5-series (which I will ASSUME you do not, because you frequent the E46 board...or did), why get into it with a 5-series owner who knows tons about his car, and like cars? *


 You know that saying about assumptions? Thanks for proving it. In case you're NOT familiar it goes something like: "Don't ASSume- when you ASSume, you make an A$$ out of yourself." Oh, and thanks for admitting, once again, that you assumed something proven (by me) to be incorrect. I've owned bimmers since you were in diapers, junior and that includes a couple E39's, an E46, an E53, a couple '02s, and some others.

But nothing is as sweet as my Porsche. I mean, I'd prove it- cause I have proof- I just don't want to provide the proof.


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> *Fair enough. You corrected youreself on being wrong- or was that mistaken? Or maybe "incorrectly remembering? Is there a difference?
> Well, sure, NOW.. But you have to admit it works better when you say what you mean the first time rather than back peddling, Mr. Clinton. You can't refer to your original statement pointing to substance that isn't there. Whether you meant to mention SP or non SP in your original statement or not, you didn't. That omission makes it inherantly unclear.
> 
> Assumption:
> ...


Okay, name calling...how appropriate, and mature. Then, stating you "proved" something you assumed, but turn the tables around and say the other person is assuming? A Porsche? How relevant to the conversation. My age...again, how relevant. The amount of cars you owned? Again...how relevant.

No matter what you say, you cannot rightfully tell a person he/she is "assuming" just because that person did not PROVIDE facts. And you cannot use the 528/540 skipad numbers as water for your "proof" I am incorrect, because the 528 had non-SP versus the superior SP suspension...how ridiculous!

...clearly, this is a waste of time. Until you SHOW me some proof I am incorrect, I will continue to laugh at how silly your comments are.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

SS said:


> *Until you SHOW me some proof I am incorrect, I will continue to laugh at how silly your comments are. *


 It's not up to me to clean up your mess. Why, with your resistance and proven inability (or, to candy coat it: lack of desire) to back assumptions you present as fact, a person may even infer that you've lied here. I challenged you to provide actual, printed, unbiased, unmitigated proof that a 528 was more capable than a 540 in turns and you can't. Do it and the case is closed.


----------



## F1Crazy (Dec 11, 2002)

SS said:


> *Yes, the cornering limits in the 528 ARE higher than the 540...did you not know this? This has been a hot topic for a very long time among us E39 guys!!!
> 
> Lastly, with your comment about BMW not putting this stuff in their "top performers"...you're incorrect. Their top performers (in terms of handling)...the 3-series, I6 5-series, new 745's, etc, all have R&P handling. For performance, auto-makers prefer R&P over RB...this is a well-known fact. Actually, again, the reason BMW did NOT use R&P for the 540, is because it could not fit...NOT so it would perform better. Also, to my knowledge, the next generation 545i will have R&P... *


Hmmm... After reading this and your later posts I don't really know where to start. 
Everybody knows that R&P steering provides better road feel and feedback and in that aspect is superior to RB. BMW engineers knowing RB's limitations made sure through suspension calibration that cars equipped with it would handle on par with their R&P equipped siblings. Do you think that Motorsport's flagship would be equipped with RB if it wasn't capable of providing well handling car? They would rather stick with I6 and R&P. 
You make R&B equipped cars look like their handling is vastly inferior to 528 but you're having problems to back it up.



> *Also, I completely disagree with your statement about 30 miles of canyon carving - that is just like saying unless the daily driving consisted of 30 miles of canyon carving, the handling of a BMW is no better than a Malibu. Really think about this stuff...
> *


This is just saying that unless your daily driving consisted of 30 miles of canyon carving, you'll hardly notice the difference between handling of 528 and 540 in daily driving.


----------



## jzdinan540i (Nov 22, 2002)

Not this again.....
I own 2 RP BMW's, and one RB BMW and I like te RB better. I don't agree with any of the comments above about RP bieng better hands down. In fact, I find the difference to be so slight the only time it really becomes noticable is at speeds over 130.
On the track yes there would be some differences, but we are talking about a 4000lb sedan, not a sports car. Funny, how the old E39 M5 still out drives all the super sedans and it has RB.
I find the RP very twitchy on the Mcoupe and almost perfect on the X5, it just depends on the application.
Now SS go back to Turdfly, they are getting jelous you're over here.
Gosh it must get so old having 4 morons run a board about nothing


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

jzdinan540i said:


> *Not this again.....
> I own 2 RP BMW's, and one RB BMW and I like te RB better. I don't agree with any of the comments above about RP bieng better hands down. In fact, I find the difference to be so slight the only time it really becomes noticable is at speeds over 130.
> On the track yes there would be some differences, but we are talking about a 4000lb sedan, not a sports car. Funny, how the old E39 M5 still out drives all the super sedans and it has RB.
> I find the RP very twitchy on the Mcoupe and almost perfect on the X5, it just depends on the application.
> ...


LOL...what's up JZ?!? You know, as I stated originally, what each person likes better is "personal pref" - however, it is proven that R&P is more sharp, responds faster than RB, and has a more communicative feel. With the M5...yes, of course it out-drives all the "super sedans", but there are many other suspension components that helped it achieve that accomplishment. As I'm quite certain you know, it only has RB because R&P could not fit in the V8 E39's...something that will be changed in the future (Ever wonder why they decided to change that???  )

BTW, JZ, isn't the MCoupe based on the E30 platform? I've read something about that before...and I know the E30 handles great on the lower end, and starts to "lose it" at higher speeds.

Cheers,

SS


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

jzdinan540i said:


> *Not this again.....
> I own 2 RP BMW's, and one RB BMW and I like te RB better. I don't agree with any of the comments above about RP bieng better hands down. In fact, I find the difference to be so slight the only time it really becomes noticable is at speeds over 130.
> On the track yes there would be some differences, but we are talking about a 4000lb sedan, not a sports car. Funny, how the old E39 M5 still out drives all the super sedans and it has RB.
> I find the RP very twitchy on the Mcoupe and almost perfect on the X5, it just depends on the application.
> ...


LOL...what's up JZ?!? You know, as I stated originally, what each person likes better is "personal pref" - however, it is proven that R&P is more sharp, responds faster than RB, and has a more communicative feel. With the M5...yes, of course it out-drives all the "super sedans", but there are many other suspension components that helped it achieve that accomplishment. As I'm quite certain you know, it only has RB because R&P could not fit in the V8 E39's...something that will be changed in the future (Ever wonder why they decided to change that???  )

BTW, JZ, isn't the MCoupe based on the E30 platform? I've read something about that before...and I know the E30 handles great on the lower end, and starts to "lose it" at higher speeds.

Cheers,

SS


----------



## jzdinan540i (Nov 22, 2002)

You are right, the reason why RP isn't in the E39/E38 was space. But hey I drive the 540, so what ever it comes with is best LOL so FU hehehe
The Mcoupe/Z3 has the worst suspension ever, I mean it is only 20 year old technology LOL. Rear trailing arms are for shit. So I just hold on and pray the rear end doesn't kick out. The Coupe is very nimble, but twitchy and its night and day compared to the E39. Can you beleive the Coupe is my winter car LOL. Yep the E30 and Z's have the same rear suspension, ick...


----------



## Chuck (Jan 14, 2002)

*Man, you never quit.....*

Shane you are, without a doubt, the Energizer Bunny of verbal diarrhea. LOL, what a bunch of crap.


----------



## DDB (Feb 14, 2003)

From the looks of the this thread, it appears as if Roadfly isn't the only place where SS is called out for posting erroneous claims without any proof.

My favorite was where Shane wrote above, "It is a well-known fact that..." Oh, well clearly that settles it! It's a well-known fact, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Shane, in comparing the handling/cornering/slalom/skidpad properties of the 528 and 540, you need to remember that there are other differences besides just the steering mechanism. How about weight differences and weight-balance characteristics of the two cars? Tires? I think you get the point...

The only way that you could prove your point would be to take two identical 528s and fit the RB steering mechanism into one of them, and go get some numbers. Until then, your vague speculation will remain entertainment to us all.


----------



## :)P eter (Jan 14, 2002)

Its so nice and peaceful back home, I was wondering why. The answer is clear now. Propellerhead ,hes all yours !! Wait till you get into uphill/downhill issues with him ! Hi JZ , no I wasnt home last night when you were bashing me LOL !


----------



## rsmillar (Feb 14, 2003)

Just more proof: no matter what planet you're on, uphill always equals downhill, and you can't polish a turd...

The real question is: Is the 528 truly an all around better car?


----------

