1994 BMW M5 3.8 petrol


This car is a beast!


Timing chain tensioner broke at 102k miles.

N/S wheel bearing replaced at 108k miles.

N/S track rod replaced at 108k miles.

Front Nurburging suspension damaged and replaced at 108k miles.

General Comments:

This car might weigh 2 tons, but it handles like a car half it's weight.

Not much else can match this car for comfort and handling at speeds over 100mph.

Supportive seats and very responsive air conditioning.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th June, 2002

21st Nov 2003, 16:15

I agree mate. that thing is a beast. the noise a bmw straight six makes is one of the best engine notes in the world.

1986 BMW M5 3.5 6 cylinder petrol


Dated, rusty but what a drive!


Propshaft UJ exploded (!)

Rough idle.

Head gasket blew.

Rust making an appearance.

General Comments:

I can't believe it still goes at all, never mind well enough to see off almost anything on the road. 215k on the clock and it's still a rocketship.

Handling is interesting, especially in the wet where you kind of get used to exiting corners with a dollop of opposite lock. No nannying traction control or ESP in 1986, and a fine thing it is too. The straight six still sends shivers up my spine as it howls to the red line, and by the feel of it, it hasn't lost much of its 286 bhp either.

It's an easy car to get in to trouble in because it is so effortlessly and amusingly fast, yet the chassis isn't really up to the job. Being RWD it makes it entertaining rather than annoying though, and I have driven various newer cars (including the latest M5) which just aren't as much fun. Quicker maybe, but nowhere near as involving.

I should sell this car. It's old, rusty and a bit tired these days. The problem is, what else combines RWD, 0-60 in under 6 seconds, and such involving handling and bombproof build quality for less than £30k?


Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th January, 2002

15th Dec 2005, 14:29

"...yet the chassis isn't really up to the job."

Maybe it's that you have 215k on the clock and drive the car hard. The entire front end should have been rebuilt 60k ago if you want it to handle anywhere close to how it did new.

2000 BMW M5 5.0 V8




Nothing at all, but it is a BMW after all so you would not expect there to be any trouble.

General Comments:

This car is rather naughty. Acceleration to 60 is not amazing, but when you floor it in top gear at 100mph its 400bhp comes into its own and it launches down the road.

It handles like a smaller car like an Evo or Impreza.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th July, 2001

2000 BMW M5 5.0 V8 petrol


This car is a civilised monster


Faulty climate control.

General Comments:

This car is quite brisk, especially with the "Sport" button pressed.

It handles well for such a large car, but don't expect sports car levels of feedback from the steering.

The suspension is perfect for road use.

The cabin is perfect in all respects: a lesson to other manufacturers.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 17th April, 2001

18th Jul 2001, 14:38

The fact that you could describe the acceleration of the fastest 4 door sedan ever built as "brisk" is tragic. 9 out of 10 points for performance is like calling Jennifer Aniston "OK looking" just because she's not currently holding the title of Ms. America!

8th Aug 2001, 13:25

10 out of 10 means perfect, and anyone who's driven an e30 M3 will tell you it can't be awarded that.

1986 BMW M5 3.5 24V injection




I jet-washed the engine and got water in the electrics, the car misfired for the weekend and returned only 20MPG during a trip to the Brecon Beacons from Epping.

Had to replace the exhaust system (£680), propshaft donut and bottom suspension arms (ball-joints).

The boot-lid seal leaks despite being replaced.

The instrument cluster and service lights mysteriously failed after being serviced by a BMW 'expert' - not a dealer, ever since I have relied only on BMW dealers.

General Comments:

I've never owned a BMW before nor wanted to, but this car has radically altered my view on that.

The service staff at Godfrey Hall in Coventry are extremely polite and efficient plus a 6000 mile service costs less than £100.

Other spare parts are pretty expensive but the car has been so reliable that average running costs are comparable with anything I've owned previously.

Insurance is astronomical as the car is a group 20, but fuel economy is surprisingly good at 25.4MPG average. Unlike later M5's the car does not have a speed limiter and a top speed of 165MPH is supposedly attainable.

One downside is that the leather Recaros are not as comfortable as they look - although 12-way electrically adjustable, they don't have adjustable lumbar support and I've experienced back-ache on some long journeys.

The worst thing about the car is that it has raised my expectations so high that I have no idea what to buy next - anything would seem disappointing compared with the 'M'.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 20th November, 2000

1991 BMW M5 3.6 petrol


The gearbox was changed at 30k, the engine has to be set up to run correctly. The steering box has been replaced, and the heating system is crap, no air coming out.

General Comments:

It goes like a rocket, with the limiter off I've been 168mph and it's got more, the engine has been tuned by Munich ledgens. I mock any sad fool in a Cossie with my 380 bhp and that's not from a crap Superchip.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th February, 1998

18th Jan 2001, 18:57

A Superchip is a Superchip, they all do the same job, which is to de-restrict the manufacturers factory settings for enviromental emissions. And a Superchipped Cossie, Impreza or Mazda RX7 would all easily see off the 3.6 M5.

The 3.8 is the better tuned engine of the two, which is what you would need, and it would have to be tuned to see off a tuned Cossie.