Taylormade M5 & M6 Woods - Pics added page 46

[Huntingchris0000]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

[TheMoneyShot]

That M5 looks beefy!

 

Yeah, is it just me or does it look substantially bigger than the M3? If so, I'm not a fan.

 

M3 was a little on the smaller side for me. This one looks just right from the pics for my taste.

[TheMoneyShot]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

 

What did you like about it? How does it feel? Good distance gains?

 

Questions questions....

[Huntingchris0000]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

 

What did you like about it? How does it feel? Good distance gains?

 

Questions questions....

 

It feels so solid and jumps off the face. I typically hit a 3 wood low. This one was easier for me to elevate. I am playing a G400 14.5 degree. Based on the launch monitor I was hitting it about 10 yards further which is significant for me. Launch was probably what was giving me the extra distance

[BirdieBob]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

 

What did you like about it? How does it feel? Good distance gains?

 

Questions questions....

 

It feels so solid and jumps off the face. I typically hit a 3 wood low. This one was easier for me to elevate. I am playing a G400 14.5 degree. Based on the launch monitor I was hitting it about 10 yards further which is significant for me. Launch was probably what was giving me the extra distance

Thanks Chris...guess my concern with the M5 fairway involves the large mass centered normally in the head. This mass is much more than is normally seen in fairways. I wonder how much offcenter strikes will suffer due to this? I will be interested in the reviews about distance consistency especially on offcenter strikes.

I am also interested if any of the pros will be using this fw. Basically the lighter weight due to the titanium allows for this concentration of mass, which allows for the player to more easily dial in a consistent shot flight....the pros can generally move the ball as necessary without this type of tech.

 

I will be interested in trying this fw, but wonder if the M6 is not a better more traditional fw at least for my purpose.

 

The M6 fw however has no weights! so adjustment is totally lost as well as no hosel adapter.

 

I do prefer the speed channel on the TM fw and other fw as I like the feel they provide compared to those without.

 

Research continues. :)

 

 

 

[TheMoneyShot]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

 

What did you like about it? How does it feel? Good distance gains?

 

Questions questions....

 

It feels so solid and jumps off the face. I typically hit a 3 wood low. This one was easier for me to elevate. I am playing a G400 14.5 degree. Based on the launch monitor I was hitting it about 10 yards further which is significant for me. Launch was probably what was giving me the extra distance

 

Thanks for the info, makes me want to try it even more now..

[Lemonde]

That M5 looks beefy!

 

Yeah, is it just me or does it look substantially bigger than the M3? If so, I'm not a fan.

 

For me the larger the head the more I will consider this an option.

[Huntingchris0000]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

 

What did you like about it? How does it feel? Good distance gains?

 

Questions questions....

 

It feels so solid and jumps off the face. I typically hit a 3 wood low. This one was easier for me to elevate. I am playing a G400 14.5 degree. Based on the launch monitor I was hitting it about 10 yards further which is significant for me. Launch was probably what was giving me the extra distance

Thanks Chris...guess my concern with the M5 fairway involves the large mass centered normally in the head. This mass is much more than is normally seen in fairways. I wonder how much offcenter strikes will suffer due to this? I will be interested in the reviews about distance consistency especially on offcenter strikes.

I am also interested if any of the pros will be using this fw. Basically the lighter weight due to the titanium allows for this concentration of mass, which allows for the player to more easily dial in a consistent shot flight....the pros can generally move the ball as necessary without this type of tech.

 

I will be interested in trying this fw, but wonder if the M6 is not a better more traditional fw at least for my purpose.

 

The M6 fw however has no weights! so adjustment is totally lost as well as no hosel adapter.

 

I do prefer the speed channel on the TM fw and other fw as I like the feel they provide compared to those without.

 

Research continues. :)

 

I also hit the M6 and was not as impressed with it. Basically it was a different looking M4 with twist face. Your mileage may vary

 

[BirdieBob]

I was able to try the M5 fairway today and was very impressed. Probably will end up costing me $400

 

What did you like about it? How does it feel? Good distance gains?

 

Questions questions....

 

It feels so solid and jumps off the face. I typically hit a 3 wood low. This one was easier for me to elevate. I am playing a G400 14.5 degree. Based on the launch monitor I was hitting it about 10 yards further which is significant for me. Launch was probably what was giving me the extra distance

Thanks Chris...guess my concern with the M5 fairway involves the large mass centered normally in the head. This mass is much more than is normally seen in fairways. I wonder how much offcenter strikes will suffer due to this? I will be interested in the reviews about distance consistency especially on offcenter strikes.

I am also interested if any of the pros will be using this fw. Basically the lighter weight due to the titanium allows for this concentration of mass, which allows for the player to more easily dial in a consistent shot flight....the pros can generally move the ball as necessary without this type of tech.

 

I will be interested in trying this fw, but wonder if the M6 is not a better more traditional fw at least for my purpose.

 

The M6 fw however has no weights! so adjustment is totally lost as well as no hosel adapter.

 

I do prefer the speed channel on the TM fw and other fw as I like the feel they provide compared to those without.

 

Research continues. :)

 

I also hit the M6 and was not as impressed with it. Basically it was a different looking M4 with twist face. Your mileage may vary

Yes, the M6 is an upgraded M4 with twyst face. It is 185cc.

It is known as the Jason Day fw as the design was to his request.

 

[Redbird]

185 is a big a** 3wd. :swoon:

[jll62]

185 is a big a** 3wd. :swoon:

 

This number came from me. That's what I wrote down at the launch event, but I may have mis-heard. I was a few cc off on the M5. In any case, it's bigger than the M5, which is 161cc.

[TheMoneyShot]

They do not have the size listed for the M6 fwy on TM site?

[Redbird]

I thought the

185 is a big a** 3wd. :swoon:

 

This number came from me. That's what I wrote down at the launch event, but I may have mis-heard. I was a few cc off on the M5. In any case, it's bigger than the M5, which is 161cc.

 

I thought I saw the M5 was 142?

[TheMoneyShot]

M5 is 161cc for the 3 metal and 151cc for the 5 metal.

[Redbird]

M5 is 161cc for the 3 metal and 151cc for the 5 metal.

 

Either their website is wrong or their training material is wrong.

 

[TheMoneyShot]

M5 is 161cc for the 3 metal and 151cc for the 5 metal.

 

Either their website is wrong or their training material is wrong.

 

 

Yep, definitely some conflicting info here..

[jll62]

M5 is 161cc for the 3 metal and 151cc for the 5 metal.

 

Either their website is wrong or their training material is wrong.

 

 

Yep, definitely some conflicting info here..

 

M3 was 139. I don't see how 142 can be correct.

[Lemonde]

Great booklet!

[SwooshLT]

M5 is 161cc for the 3 metal and 151cc for the 5 metal.

 

Either their website is wrong or their training material is wrong.

 

 

Yep, definitely some conflicting info here..

 

M3 was 139. I don't see how 142 can be correct.

 

161cc seems more like it

[RodrigoNicely]

I was told 161cc by our rep

[drewcatc]

M5 is 161cc for the 3 metal and 151cc for the 5 metal.

 

Either their website is wrong or their training material is wrong.

 

 

Yep, definitely some conflicting info here..

 

M3 was 139. I don't see how 142 can be correct.

 

161cc seems more like it

 

from the in hand comparison pics posted earlier, 161 seems more accurate. that is a BIG mistake if 161 is right..

[jabwind51]

So have we actually confirmed that the CT on these will be close to 257 and not the 239 that the supposed eBay fake was?

[TheMoneyShot]

Maybe TM post on here to confirm the actual size?

[BirdieBob]

[Laznasty]

https://www.ebay.com...&frcectupt=true

m6 d-type

[Zakers23]

In his review Epic Flash Sub Zero was 4-5 MPH faster ...

[ffforever]

In his review Epic Flash Sub Zero was 4-5 MPH faster ...

 

Epic Flash subzero is 2-3 mph faster than M6 in his review.

[Laznasty]

In his review Epic Flash Sub Zero was 4-5 MPH faster ...

 

Epic Flash subzero is 2-3 mph faster than M6 in his review.

 

Was he optimally fit for each driver before testing? Were they the same length? Were the clubs tested on the same day? Were the strikes in the same location, because in the m5 video he wasn't close to the center of the face. Etc.

There are too many unknown factors to make a reasonable comparison.

[chris975d]

In his review Epic Flash Sub Zero was 4-5 MPH faster ...

 

Epic Flash subzero is 2-3 mph faster than M6 in his review.

 

Was he optimally fit for each driver before testing? Were they the same length? Were the clubs tested on the same day? Were the strikes in the same location, because in the m5 video he wasn't close to the center of the face. Etc.

There are too many unknown factors to make a reasonable comparison.

 

It seems that very few if none of the YouTube reviewers are actually fit into the clubs they "review". They more or less are testing samples straight out of the box, with maybe a shaft change to something they hit well (in another head, nonetheless). I noticed that he didn't hit center very much as well, but surprisingly his ball speed didn't vary much at all despite hitting it all over. That in and of itself was interesting to me.

[Zakers23]

In his review Epic Flash Sub Zero was 4-5 MPH faster ...

 

Epic Flash subzero is 2-3 mph faster than M6 in his review.

 

Was he optimally fit for each driver before testing? Were they the same length? Were the clubs tested on the same day? Were the strikes in the same location, because in the m5 video he wasn't close to the center of the face. Etc.

There are too many unknown factors to make a reasonable comparison.

 

It seems that very few if none of the YouTube reviewers are actually fit into the clubs they "review". They more or less are testing samples straight out of the box, with maybe a shaft change to something they hit well (in another head, nonetheless). I noticed that he didn't hit center very much as well, but surprisingly his ball speed didn't vary much at all despite hitting it all over. That in and of itself was interesting to me.

 

The numbers are the numbers.. maybe they’d flip around by RS was 3 MPH faster too.. and in the new Taylormade promo video, none of the pros are mentioning it got faster just “wow it’s so strait” “wow that went 300! That’s all you need!” Lol