# Saw the new 5 series... much sweeter in person!



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

Went to the Precision Driving Event this past weekend. While I was there, I saw a blue bimmer pulling through the event area and parking next to the main pavilion. Something didn't quite look right, then I noticed it was a new 5er! Nobody else seemed to notice, so I grabbed my digi-cam and went to head over. By the time I got there, it was gone!

Shortly later, I saw it drive by and park again, so I ran straight over. A few other people saw my excitement and came over as well. Sure enough, a new 530i with NJ manufacturer's plates. One of the blue colors (not sure which) and tan leather interior.

Anyway, this car looks MUCH better in person than in any photographs I've seen. I could still stand to see the head and tail lights made to look more traditional, but they also weren't as bad as I thought. And I had no impression of a Pontiac at all. It was locked up and had personal possessions in it, so no way to see the interior. 

I took a few pictures, but have yet to upload them to my server. And like I said, it looks better in person anyway. (Looking at my pics when I got home, I didn't think it looked as good as it did when I was there.)


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

OBS3SSION said:


> (Looking at my pics when I got home, I didn't think it looked as good as it did when I was there.)


That's how the Z4 started out. Folk were trying to take pictures like it was a Z3, methinks. Different designs have different good photo angles. There's a rear angle on the Z4 that gets the haunches and the swoop of the hood...


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

The Roadstergal said:


> There's a rear angle on the Z4 that gets the haunches and the swoop of the hood...


I think one of my signature pictures has that angle. :thumbup:


----------



## Hercules (Jul 15, 2002)

The Z4 rear end looks awesome... the front end looks 'sad.' I don't know how better to explain it.

The 5 series is looking hideous. Somebody take Bangle out in the back and put him out of his misery.


----------



## in_d_haus (Jan 2, 2002)

With the exception of the integral rear spoiler I'd agree that the rear of the Z4 is nicely done


----------



## hmr (Jul 28, 2002)

Jayhox said:


> I think one of my signature pictures has that angle. :thumbup:


:wow:

I'm warming up to the Bangled designs. :eeps:


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

Hercules said:


> The Z4 rear end looks awesome... the front end looks 'sad.' I don't know how better to explain it.
> 
> The 5 series is looking hideous. Somebody take Bangle out in the back and put him out of his misery.


Have you seen the new 5 in person yet? Last week, I would have agreed with you. But not after seeing it in person. Also, get a sport package with sport body kit... and I think we'll have a winner! :thumbup:


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

...And here's the pics I took. But like I said... these just aren't going to do it justice.


----------



## AndDown (Jun 17, 2003)

Shortly later, I saw it drive by and park again, so I ran straight over. A few other people saw my excitement and came over as well. Sure enough, a new 530i with NJ manufacturer's plates. One of the blue colors (not sure which) and tan leather interior.




Looks like an Orient Blue with sand interior - at least mine looks quite similar in color combo. Thanks for the pics.


----------



## flashinthepan (Jul 25, 2003)

I saw a new 5-series yesterday,

I have to agree it looked quite refined in person, even though I am slow to grasp change. Even though I am not fond of the 6-series, I do see some nice lines on the new 5.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

That front 3/4 looks - mean.  The grilles aren't expanding any; I like that they've kept them pretty compact on the 5.

The sharper lines, and the way that they flow to a nice aggressive butt, are a good move, in my view.


----------



## mquetel (Jan 30, 2003)

AndDown said:


> Looks like an Orient Blue with sand interior - at least mine looks quite similar in color combo. Thanks for the pics.


Seems too light for Orient, looks closer to Mystic, IMHO.

(edit) After looking again, perhaps a bit dark for mystic, but still seems too light for orient.


----------



## mquetel (Jan 30, 2003)

OBS3SSION said:


> ...And here's the pics I took. But like I said... these just aren't going to do it justice.


Thanks for the pics! :thumbup:

I can't wait to be able to inspect one up close and personal. I saw one from a distance at the factory in Munich, but couldn't check it out.

Those wheels are hot! :bigpimp:


----------



## Emission (Dec 19, 2001)

Are those tiny horizontal slits on the brake lenses the back-up lights??


...and I don't like the second set of red lenses down below the waist in the rear.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

Sorry, but : puke:


----------



## Hercules (Jul 15, 2002)

ObD said:


> Sorry, but : puke:


Seconded.

No pictures can do a car that hideous justice 

However like the 7 series... I think it will grow on me. But I still think Bangle needs to be shot -- no wait... torture him a bit first, then burn him alive in one of the 5 series he made


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Herc, you own an RX-8 and rush to condemn unconventional styling? :thumbdwn:


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

The Roadstergal said:


> Herc, you own an RX-8 and rush to condemn unconventional styling? :thumbdwn:


Unconventional ? I prefer unconventional styling over *ugly* styling anytime.

E60 is ugly, as the E65. The rear design is the worse of its kind, IMO.

EDIT : same with the upcoming 6 Series.


----------



## autobahn (Jul 12, 2003)

Saw the new 5 the other day coming past me on the Autobahn on A6 just south of Mannheim. Caught my attention in my rear view mirror. Much nicer looking car in person than in the pictures. Still takes a bit to get used to that rear end. 

Will grab some pictures of the new cars at the Frankfurt Auto Show in a few weeks and get them posted.


----------



## Scorp76 (Dec 9, 2002)

The Roadstergal said:


> Herc, you own an RX-8 and rush to condemn unconventional styling? :thumbdwn:


Word. This is kinda :loco:

It's almost like an Altima owner calling another car's interior cheap. :rofl:


----------



## mecklaiz (Mar 20, 2003)

OBS3SSION said:


> ...And here's the pics I took. But like I said... these just aren't going to do it justice.


Dude, I was there at the Boston event and I didn't see this car 

I'm soooo bummed out.

Z


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Scorp76 said:


> Word. This is kinda :loco:
> 
> It's almost like an Altima owner calling another car's interior cheap. :rofl:


Hmm, sorry but I can't understand the analogy here.

The RX-8 is not an ugly car, nor the RX-7 was.

The E39 is/was a very good looking car, but the E60 is a hard-to-swallow design. For instance, I couldn't find an explanation to why the headlights are extended and going half the way on the fenders.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> . . .For instance, I couldn't find an explanation. . . .


This is all so purely subjective. The RX-8 in person looks overly busy, even compared to my Z4. I personally like the fact that designers are trying to move in new directions rather than repeating the past model. Although I completely agree about the headlight swoooosh.

_~~joking~~_ Could you find an explanation for this?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Did you read my sentence till the end ?

I didn't compare anything. And I'm not talking about something subjective here, it's a fact. The headlights are there.

Do you have an explanation why the E60 headlights are the way they are ? 

I don't. And they are one of their kind.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

mquetel said:


> Seems too light for Orient, looks closer to Mystic, IMHO.
> 
> (edit) After looking again, perhaps a bit dark for mystic, but still seems too light for orient.


Toledo. Not saturated enough to be LeMans.

Want to know why these pictures aren't doing the car any justice? I think the angle on the lens is too wide. Human eyes view things at approximately 50-55mm focal length, anything shorter of that range will make things look "fisheyed" and tend to exaggerate proportions that are already a bit radical to start with.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

I was updating my post when you responded.

Also: "And I'm not talking about something subjective here, it's a fact."

MmmmmKay! I hope you are being a little sarcastic. Aesthetics are, by definition, subjective. :dunno:


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

The HACK said:


> Want to know why these pictures aren't doing the car any justice? I think the angle on the lens is too wide. Human eyes view things at approximately 50-55mm focal length, anything shorter of that range will make things look "fisheyed" and tend to exaggerate proportions that are already a bit radical to start with.


HACK, I agree completely. I was skeptical about the Z4 when the pictures first came out. It is a totally different effect in person. I have yet to see a photo of the Z4 that captures the 3-dimensions of the side of the car. The door bulge narrowing before the rear fenders, then flaring out again is very nice in person, but does not show up in photos.

The Z4 has a "presence" that does not show well in pictures. I was waiting for my wife the other day and she pulled into the parking lot in our Z4 behind a Boxster. The Z4 has a much better "stance" and "presence" that the Boxter by far. :thumbup: I hope the new 5-Series has the same effect in person.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Jayhox said:


> Aesthetics are, by definition, subjective. :dunno:


Agreed 100%.

I didn't like the aesthetics of the E60. :eeps:


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

The HACK said:


> Toledo. Not saturated enough to be LeMans.
> 
> Want to know why these pictures aren't doing the car any justice? I think the angle on the lens is too wide. Human eyes view things at approximately 50-55mm focal length, anything shorter of that range will make things look "fisheyed" and tend to exaggerate proportions that are already a bit radical to start with.


Way too bright to be Toledo.

The car in those pics is definately Mystic Blue. I am certain. I'll put money on the table.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

FWIW, I think the E60 is a better looking car than the RX-8.

However, the old early-90s RX-7 makes either look like Phyllis Diller in comparison.


----------



## M3_413 (Jul 10, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> Unconventional ? I prefer unconventional styling over *ugly* styling anytime.
> 
> E60 is ugly, as the E65. The rear design is the worse of its kind, IMO.
> 
> EDIT : same with the upcoming 6 Series.


 :beerchug: No thanks


----------



## nate (Dec 24, 2001)




----------



## Scorp76 (Dec 9, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> Hmm, sorry but I can't understand the analogy here.
> 
> The RX-8 is not an ugly car, nor the RX-7 was.


What I'm saying is, the RX is largely considered an ugly car (though I personally don't think so). It just sounds funny for an owner of one of the most controversial new designs on the road to call another car ugly with a straight face (especially one that few if any of us have seen in person).

It's that whole pot calling the kettle black thing.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Scorp76 said:


> What I'm saying is, the RX is largely considered an ugly car (though I personally don't think so). It just sounds funny for an owner of one of the most controversial new designs on the road to call another car ugly with a straight face (especially one that few if any of us have seen in person).
> 
> It's that whole pot calling the kettle black thing.


What he said.

The last-gen twin-turbo RX-7 had a very shapely, almost womanly beauty (the RX-7s before it just weren't beautiful - good track cars, though). The RX-8, Z4, E60, have a much more cutting-edge, machine-like, this-is-a-car-and-nothing-else attractiveness.

IMHO.


----------



## mecklaiz (Mar 20, 2003)

The Roadstergal said:


> What he said.
> 
> The last-gen twin-turbo RX-7 had a very shapely, almost womanly beauty (the RX-7s before it just weren't beautiful - good track cars, though). The RX-8, Z4, E60, have a much more cutting-edge, machine-like, this-is-a-car-and-nothing-else attractiveness.
> 
> IMHO.


 You know, when I first read this post in my email I thought this HAD to be a guy.

Now I'm slightly freaked out. :eeps:

Z


----------



## tr1jr2 (Jan 12, 2003)

Gotta weigh in on this one, IMO that car has lost its BMW look, My wife and I saw many on the lot when we did ED this summer and she thought the same, I would liken it to a feeble attempt of an Amercan car Co. tryin to look foriegn....hmmmmmm.....strike that and reverse it!

This car is makin the Pontiac people proud ...there goes the neighborhood....:flush: 

Time will tell, didn't someone state that sales of the old 5er were breaking records??.....I wonder why : puke:


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

tr1jr2 said:


> Time will tell, didn't someone state that sales of the old 5er were breaking records??.....I wonder why : puke:


Sales of the new Zer are breaking records. :dunno:


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

Although I don't really care for the RX-8's styling, I'd have to agree that the e60 is uglier. Ok, I admit I haven't seen it in person yet--- but I know there's no way I'll like it better. I actually think the z4 and e65 look worse in person than picures-- so I bet the e60 will be the same. How? because a picture can be taken carefully w/ just the right lighting at just the right angle to hide some of the uglier styling cues on these cars. 

BTW, does anyone actually find the e60 attractive? OR, are some of you just able to tolerate it, and find some redeeming qualities? I could understand "appreciating it for being different", or just being indifferent,-- but I'd be pretty surprised if people actually find it attractive.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

robg said:


> BTW, does anyone actually find the e60 attractive? OR, are some of you just able to tolerate it, and find some redeeming qualities? I could understand "appreciating it for being different", or just being indifferent,-- but I'd be pretty surprised if people actually find it attractive.


I do. I also think the Z4 is sexy as hell. I'm not crazy about the E65, though I'm less  about it than when it first debuted.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

Plaz said:


> I do. I also think the Z4 is sexy as hell. I'm not crazy about the E65, though I'm less  about it than when it first debuted.


Cool. As crazy as it may sound, I actually think the e65 is slightly better looking than the e60. If it had different' headlights, it would be much better looking, and if it had a better rear, it would be much, much better looking than the 5. the Z4 is the best of the bunch-- it just needs a "hump-ectomy" on the trunk, and a facelift to make it look less droopy and sad. It goes without saying that the interiors could all me majorly improved-- but again, I think the z4 is the best of the bunch due to the lack of idrive.


----------

