Talk:BMW 5 Series (E60)

N52 engine
Why is there no mention of the N52 engines, which were used in the North America, Australia and Malaysia models during the production of the N53 elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.7.58 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Top speed for US models
Non-M models electronically limited at what speed for US? 128.195.186.69 09:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu

Models
This article seems to only state the models available in the USA without saying so. The Mid Life section aiming to detail which model replaced which seems confusing at best.

LewisR (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Table Petrol engines
The M5 engine is wrong: it's not a V8, is V10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.226.177 (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BMW 5 Series (E60). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722001005/http://www.bag-eg.com/ to http://www.bag-eg.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BMW 5 Series (E60). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213211912/http://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_5_series_2004/208.aspx to http://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_5_series_2004/208.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Model codes: E60 vs E65
Hi. Does anyone know why the E60 (released in 2003) has a lower model code than the E65 (released in 2001)? It is rare for model codes to not be in chronological order, so I think this would be good if an explanation could be added to the article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the E65 is a 7 Series model and the E60 is a 5 Series model which is placed below the 7 Series. The 7 Series is a flagship model of BMW and it had the highest number in the model code until 2008 when it's code was changed to F01 and the 5 Series' code was changed to F10 when the E60 was replaced in 2010. U1 quattro  TALK''  02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to clear up the year-old question, but sorry I don't follow. Here are the model codes in chronological order: E23 (7 Series), E28 (5), E30 (3), E32 (7), E34 (5), E36 (3), E38 (7), E39 (5), E46 (3), E65 (7), E60 (5), E90 (3). So usually the 7 Series is a smaller number than the 5 Series which comes after it. Or am I missing something? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The 7 Series model code became smaller in 2008 with the introduction of the F01 and has been the same ever since. U1 quattro  TALK''  08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * When the 5 and the 7 series were introduced, the 5 Series was placed below the 7 Series as it was a flagship model. This tradition was reflected in the model code up until the discontinuation of the E65 7 Series. The 7 Series has the smallest model number out of current BMW car lineup i.e G11 (7 Series), G15 (8 Series) and G30 (5 Series). U1 quattro   TALK''  08:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, I understand that the numbering reset when the F01, so the 7 Series has the lowest numbering. But I don't understand why the 2001 7 Series has a higher number (i.e. E65) than the 5 Series that followed it (E60)... despite all your efforts to explain it, sorry! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Because of the same logic I explained earlier. The 5 Series is placed below the 7 Series that is why. BMW doesn't follow chronological when introducing an entirely different series. That is true for models in the same series i.e 5 Series (E28, E34, E39 etc.) U1 quattro  TALK''  09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

February 2018
Hello folks. Here is the reasoning behind my recent edit: Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Infobox: The subtleties of CKD vs full assembly are better discussed in the Production section. Same situation re involvement of designers and transmissions used for each model.
 * Spelling:MOS:RETAIN
 * Power units: kW and hp/bhp are the most common units in English-speaking countries


 * Your recent edits only make the infobox vague and hard to understand. The infobox is meant to be a summary of the entire article. I suggest you see the infobox template. U1Quattro (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello U1Quattro. I disagree that it is vague and hard to understand. The infobox is not intended to be a summary of the entire article. I went to the effort to describe the changes here, yet you still reverted my edit immediately. As per WP:BRD, it is not appropriate to revert my edit with each reply, not to mention that the revert is a case of WP:BABY. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The infobox is supposed to contain a summary of the articles most important points. Things like assembly (location), designer etc. are supposed to be there. Stop removing things without thinking why they are there. CKD vs full assembly can be written about in the article, removing the entire field is completely wrong. 2A04:4540:904:F700:98BF:D6B3:B0BD:A8D6 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edits were not in a way valid edits. You're just defying the general infobox template with your own vision. If you think your changes are significant, discuss with the administration at the proper venue and let them think what is best instead of forcing them here. U1 quattro  TALK''  11:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the case of the E60, CKD assembly is only of interest in the few countries where it is used. Therefore, I believe it is not a key point of the article and shouldn't be included in the infobox. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, it does not need to be in the infobox. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image (here we go again)
3rd time in a row, U1Quattro seem to be on a spree of using unfavourable images over perfectly fine ones. The latest is with the BMW 5 Series infobox picture.

U1Quattro replaced I think the perfectly fine example, sometimes quality doesn't doesn't always mean more pixels and has little to no background distraction and taken at quite a good focal length. They claim that the car was "dirty" even though I'm unable to see any on the car and the one they replaced is no difference.

The problem with the one U1Quattro replaced is that the angle is skewed and the background isn't the best. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)



The current photo looks worse compared to the previous one. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:42, 11 April 2019


 * I agree, the perspective is off. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While I don't think the background is a problem (I'd say it's a slight improvement), the angle is definitely worse than the previous one. --Sable232 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Changed the photo. I think this should solve this. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Everyone else agrees that the previous one should be used. Please do not change the infobox image with one that was never discussed, this doesn't solve anything but being disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. This image needs to be gone and a better one placed at its replacement. Here is my contender and if you can stop reverting edits, that'd be good.

U1 quattro  TALK''  16:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

And I don't need to go to a concensous to change images. If I find a better one, I replace it with that one. U1 quattro  TALK''  16:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You going to revert a edit despite the majority showing favour to the previous image? What the point of discussing these dispute if you just going play your own games anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess I have to report you for misconduct as all you do is blame me and damage my credibility. If I have found a better image, I would change the image. Simple as that. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * How was that misconduct? I was trying to do the right thing and not edit warring. I'm doing everything what your meant to do when in a dispute. But despite doing all that you still want to have it your own way. --Vauxford (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have put up a discussion. Hope to see it resolved. These arguments have given me enough reason to avoid you in the future. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image
I disagree with the previous discussion and propose new images for the infobox



U1 quattro  TALK''  17:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The wheels are actually dirty (unlike the IFCAR one). Distracting background with the cars. --Vauxford (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Same could be said about background of the image you put on the Audi R8 (Type 4S). Let the other decide. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But we already agreed that the blue car is best fit. Why do you want literally everything your own way. Your digging your own grave at this rate just from the sheer arrogance of your behaviour. --Vauxford (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What my point is that your comments about the background are way off when your own photos involve such backgrounds. Plus it's you who is getting things his own way when I remove either your photos or the ones from your favourite photographers. I think you already dug your own grave when you got blocked yourself. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You called me a "liar", you threaten to report me to the admins for "misconduct". This hostile behaviour of yours need to be stopped immediately. I tried to do the right thing by follow the WP:BRD. Tried to reach conesus with the other project members and you still object and despising everything I do. What else do you want from me?


 * That block was done to separate each other when the dispute got out of hand. A 24 hour block wouldn't hurt my reputation unless I was breaking guidelines and being disruptive constantly. Your case is far worst because any potential contributor will see how you treat others and they will steer off to the other direction without a doubt, reluctant to even approach you. --Vauxford (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I took a new picture of the E60 today. Maybe you want to consider it.--Alexander-93 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * can you adjust the brightness of this? It would be a good candidate. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * hostile behaviour? You started to behave stubborn when I took off the photo of your favourite photographer OSX from the Toyota Hilux page. You have ever since involved me in fruitless discussions and damaged my credibility when I took off your photos or either of the photographers which are your favourites from pages. This shows you are biased indeed. When this gets solved, I'll do my best to avoid you in future. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly the pictures which I was defending wasn't even by OSX and he aint even my favourite photographer, I don't see what that go to do with anything. This doesn't make me biased it just me giving my opinion about things and tried to maintain the quality of the article. --Vauxford (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The first image as I said, the wheels are dirty and it filled with distracting elements such as the cars protruding in the background.

The second image is pretty much the same from the previous discussion. With a weird angle, distracting background and heavy reflection on the bonnet.

The third image is yet another one filled with distracting backgrounds, since the car is black, it is overly reflective and doesn't look that presentable.

The fourth one is ever so slightly better, but compromised with the extremely tight crop and blurry image.

The last one which Alexander-93 put, also got many distracting elements in the background. e.g. cars and a person in the shot. The way the angle is gives it a impression of a side shot rather then a 3/4 angle one. --Vauxford (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * you should let the other users comment. This isn't about your opinion. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your the one who started this new discussion. So technically I'm allow to have my say about it. Don't you dare and try and isolate me from this. --Vauxford (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * this says otherwise . That dirty truck image was from OSX and you defended it. You're fooling no one by removing that from your user page. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would isolate you from this because you refused to involve me in the previous discussion. I won't let your biased opinion hold out over others. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That truck clearly wasn't his, and that list of favourite photographers was added when I started on Wikipedia and was still new to things, I removed it now since I found it rather childish. --Vauxford (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Childish? That is definite proof you're biased. You lied by saying that OSX is not your favourite photographer while this link shows he clearly is and that's why you're defending his image here when it's of poor quality. That list also includes Eurovision Nim whom you despised. U1 quattro  TALK''


 * I I'll isolate you from this since you hadn't allowed me to speak on the last discussion. I wouldn't let you hold your biased opinion above others. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Read the damn diffs. This was made almost 2 years ago. Before ANY of these events happened. Just what the hell is your problem!? With your pathetic attempt to try and branded me as a liar rather then being just a misunderstanding on your behalf, you know damn well what your trying to do, trying everything you can to make others discredit and isolate me. This is borderline harassment, even someone like EurovisionNim, which I had many problems with in the past wouldn't go this far. You sure know how to make a editor break. --Vauxford (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This isn't harrasement, but a defence against your biased opinion. I know how you and Eurovision argued in the past and how you branded him as something he never was. You had a list of your favourite photographers and frankly this photo which you're defending comes from your favourite photographers. You said that OSX wasn't your favourite photographer when I showed you that YOU said that he is. That's a fact. I'm not discrediting you or anyone. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The diff says that you removed the list eight days ago and not two years ago. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Because I didn't want it on my userpage! This is where the orignial came from, which was legit 2 years ago. I was young and naive and didn't know much of the guidelines and communities etc. --Vauxford (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your opinions about the background are invalid because you'd defend your own photos no matter how bad the background is or how poor the condition of the vehicle is. An example are your comments in the talk page of Toyota Hilux where you said that it is hard to find an image of a clean Hilux when there are such images on wiki commons and you took one such image. U1 quattro  TALK''  17:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You removed the list at the time when these arguments were happening, isn't this a bit of a coincedence? U1 quattro  TALK''  18:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a coincidence. Because I thought it was time to remove some of the old things I written on my talkpage. I know that I'm telling the truth. I'm not saying anything else because this discussion has gone completely derailed. Just leave me alone. --Vauxford (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not know about your dispute, but what has been 2 years ago shouldn't matter. And if Vauxford wants to tell us his favorite photographers on his site, it is his right. But I do not understand his argumentation in some cases. He does not want dark cars like here for the E60, but then he resets my edits (here or here). Also the argument with the background is bilaterally. As you mentioned U1Quattro, in the case of the Audi R8 he wants to have the image with the vehicles in the background. Here a similar background is annoying. Sorry, thats not a good style of argumentation! In my opinion, and probably that is how it should be in a car-article, the vehicle should be in the focus. And therefore it should be in a good condition. The background is just a secondary criteria. And therefore I think the black E60 of S 400 HYBRID is more suitable than the current one.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the photo of the black car is very nice, but I agree that the side is a bit indistinct. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think the photo of the black car is the pick of that bunch. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Do also see the previous discussion, sorry for the ping but I'm not letting it get buried and forgotten despite being a vital part of the discussion. Most people agreed that the one by IFCAR is the best when it comes picture quality. The black one is good, but the side is too reflective. --Vauxford (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * people chose that photo as compared to another photo. Not from multiple photos like these. Well, that says it. Changing photo. U1 quattro  TALK''  01:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * that's his problem. No matter how poor the vehicle or the backgrounds are in his photos, he would defend them. No matter how low quality the photos are of his favourite editors, he will defend them like he's doing in his latest comment while one can see that the previous concensous only involved a single photo against IFCAR/OSX photo. U1 quattro  TALK''  01:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Vauxford, yes I did. The old one (BMW-5series-E60.jpg) would be my 2nd preference. But I think the better angle of the black car slightly outweighs the reflections on it (especially considering most people will view it as a thumbnail). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * and now you can see how biased and stubborn he is. Even when a concensous was reached, he would go on to revert edits and defend the photo still. U1 quattro  TALK''  08:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah the revert at 7:59 today was really poor form. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * just how much of a hypocrite you are. A consensus was already met with the majority wanting the previous picture to stay, yet reverted it and continue to try and get it change. You are no different or better then me! So please stop trying to cover up your ends and slandering me of being a bad guy. You now you trying to convince others that I'm a bad person? That is very manipulative of you. 3 other people in the previous discussion said the previous should stay. But no, you discounted that one like it mean nothing to you. You even admit that you will isolate me from the talkpage discussion. I wasnt defending the picture vecause he was my favourite photographer, but because it was a fine picture. That doesn't make me bias at all. I am seriously cross and upset with the harassment and accusation you had on me. Shame on you. --Vauxford (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Three people here agreed to the black E60 photo proposed by me as well. So that makes it even. A new concensous can also be reached via a new discssion. You're no one to force your concensous as universal. Yes I isolated you from the discussion because of the reasons mentioned above. I also closed the discussion when I said I was going to change the photo yet you decided to revert the edits based on a concensous which involved less photos than here. This clearly implies that you're defending the photo for no good reason. Your childish behaviour about the photo is out of hand when there is nothing good about that photo except the background. Moreover, I never said I was better than you. It's your personal grudge. U1 quattro  TALK''  10:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It clear that your denying yourself that your in the wrong. Users has comment to be that you been antagonising me. This is defiantly not one sided. At this rate i might as well report all this to the incident noticeboard which will likely result a IBAN for both of us. You really leave me with no choice. --Vauxford (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * actually, I'm not wrong. I disagreed with the photo, opened a discussion, obtained the concensous and applied the result as per WP:BRD. Plain and simple. Now remember that I can also report you for the damage of my credibility which you caused due to a fuss at the Audi R8 (Type 4S) which will result in only you getting blocked. As per our previous altercations, you tried to frame me as I did something wrong when I didn't. The matters was solvable through talkpage discussions yet you decided to take it to the admin notice baord. So you should be careful before you start to place allegations. U1 quattro  TALK''  11:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Now when a concensous was reached, you still come out here and and revert the edits claiming that a concensous was not reached when it was. You also time and time again point out your concensous which was closed a few days ago when this was an entirely new concensous. Plus I'm not the one framing you as the "bad one" has also this same complaint with the way you argue with other editors and revert edits. U1 quattro   TALK''  11:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of your empty threats. I honestly didn't mean to damage your credibility. That wasnt my intention, we were both in the wrong for edit warringand we messed up which we got repented for. The circumstances for this feud between us will definitely will result in a IBAN for both of us. The fact your determine to only have me block. You are in the wrong as well, we are both bad as each other so you saying that I'm going to get blocked for something I didn't intend to cause is meaningless and empty. --Vauxford (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As I write this, I'm already in discussion with an administrator to resolve this fruitless dispute which has been both wasting my time and credibility. You have been the one to threat me first. Your behaviour clearly shows that you don't care about yourself getting blocked as a result of your actions but I do. Your arguments have both been irritating as well as aimed to frame me as a bad person which I clearly don't intend to be. I hope to have this issue resolved soon. U1 quattro  TALK''  15:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The reason why I'm not taking your threat lightly because that was the advice I was told by another user. You trying so hard to get rid of me and not trying reveal that your in the wrong in this as well. Seriously I'm going to get silenced or something crazy at this rate, I have no hope with justice in this Wikipedia anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Such an allegation is seriously out of the line. You're assuming something which I'm not really bound to do. I'm involving an administrator because I want a solution to this dispute, I'm not trying to get rid of you. U1 quattro  TALK''  22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: At the time of this comment, there are six images displayed above for consideration.From my view, images 2, 4, and 6 are the most suitable options. With #2, the angle isn't quite right (taken from a bit too high of a perspective), but the background is good and with some cropping it would be adequate. 4 and 6 are taken at the proper angle, and they're both about even in terms of quality. Image 1 doesn't have a good background, and the angle is biased slightly too much towards the front of the car. #3, the reflections are distracting and the angle is also less than ideal. #5 has an undesirable background, and the angle is biased too much towards the side of the car.While none are excellent, 2, 4, and 6 would all work in my opinion. --Sable232 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 3 looks the best image here with one close behind, (1 looks dark in places), The rest don't really show the front so well. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox specs (not images thank goodness!)
Hello Mr.Choppers,

The changes I am making to the Infobox are due to WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns. Happy to discuss if you think otherwise. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WLs for the first instance are completely standard.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Mr.Choppers, could you please provide a link to the Wiki policy that you believe supports this claim? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

First release to be corrected
Hello, the first EUR version of the E60 (530i) is dated by production in 12/2001. Any objections if I would change the E60 release to either 12/2001 or to 2002 ? Thanks for your comments. Emulator99 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)