bagwell

ragtop kills the deal....all ragtops = ugly IMO

rominl

iTrader: (4)

sorry but no softtop for me, period. it just doesn't make sense on a luxury car imho. i'd pick the e93 m3 any time

with the top down i think the car looks very nice, but with the top up it's just bad

mmarshall

Isn't that the case with most convertibles, whether soft-top or a retractible hard top?

rominl

iTrader: (4)

imho not on cars like the SL. i think top up and down it's both very nice

but my point is all soft top look horrible with the top up

GFerg

IMO this is the only soft top that looks respectable outside of some exotics. Most are downright nasty. However, I think they did soft top because the wheelbase is pretty long. It would be hard to make a folding hardtop S5 IMO without having a gigantic trunk. I'm also sure cost played a part as well.

GFerg

Or Audi didn't originally design the S5 to accommodate a convertible. Could have been afterthought.

mmarshall

With the kind of money an S5 costs, I'm not sure cost was that big an issue. The S5 is a performance car, and hard tops add weight and complexity....weight is the enemy of performance. The Mercedes SL adds a hard-top, of course, but it costs far more than an S5, and uses enormously powerful V8's, especially in the SL AMG version, to overcome that weight.

IS-SV

Agreed, in the higher end premium converts a nicely finished softtop is often preferred (examples: Porsche, AS, Jag, Rolls, Bentley, Lambo, etc.). Typically these are not daily drivers so the practical aspects of a hardtop are not that important. I've owned a few convertibles and prefer the softtop since they are used by me as garage queen/weekender/California cars only.

Also, many 4 seaters are difficult to design with retractable hardtops. Often these 4 seater converts end up with extra weight, extra complexity, big butt trunks, multiple ugly cutlines in the roof itself**, and less than graceful body proportions.

** the sheer size of the larger roof requires more folding/cutlines to fit into an acceptable-sized trunk area, that a 2 seater roadster top doesn't require. Makers of mid-engine and rear-engined cars don't even have the option of a retractable hardtop due to space limitations in that section of car.


That's just my opinion, coming from the premium convert perspective.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

i agree weight is an enemy, but bmw makes a hard top m3 that's 400lb heavier but still performs very well.

stvincent

iTrader: (5)

'hard top' was the first thing popped in my head, but nice car nevertheless.

bagwell

note the A5/S5 is BARELY a 4 seater....the rear is seat is only marginally bigger than the rear seat in my wife's TT.

IS-SV

Typically a 4 seater convert has a even smaller back seat than the puny backseat of a coupe. And getting in/out of the back seat is a chore too.

mmarshall

Two things are at work there, though. First, the M3's strong 414 HP (though the torque lags at 295 ft-lbs, less than in the 335i.). Second, the admitted excellence of BMW's steering and chassis engineering.......among mass-produced cars, arguably the best on the planet, along with Porsche. BMW chassis engineers could take an M1 Abrams battle tank and make it fun to drive.

JKA.nyc

What's up with the silver trim around the windshield and silver side mirrors on this and the regular S5???? I'm guessing it's to help distinguish it from the A5, but doesn't do it any favors style wise at all. Other than that though, looks good.

I8ABMR

I just read about it in a magazine tonight. It seems like a very cool alternative to the standard Bimmer. Plus the interior blows anything any other German manufacturer is doing right now