Carl Lassiter

The GT3, be it the 996 or 997, is not a 2+2. It has *no* rear seats. Just a bench which can be complimented with an optional rollcage.

The M6 and GT3 so not compete in anything other than price. Over a twisty road the M6 does not have the chuckability or brakes to keep up with a regular Carrera let alone the hardcore track special. The Z06 competes with the GT3 I'll grant you. However, for a drive to Palm Springs give me the M6 anyday.

I have to say that in my fairly extensive experience in the M5, SMG III is a great gearbox. As involving as a regular manual? Not quite. Nevertheless, paired with one of the most advanced engines this side of the 599, the driver is at the center of the action while it stops being jerky with practice.

Improviz

Oh, for Pete's sake, drop it already. You wrote *nothing* about *anything* other than performance in that post, and you then, in the same sentence, wrote:
You said NOTHING about quality, build or otherwise. What you said was that unless Mercs lost weight and added a manual tranny, neither of which have a damn thing to do with build quality or reliability but have everything to do with performance, they'd be "chasing" the M's, and then topped it off by citing accleration numbers. This post was about performance from beginning to end, with no hint or implication of any other topic.

So stop spinning about how your post was about build quality, reliability, whatever, any more than it was about potato soup. The word "reliability" does not appear in the post. The words "build quality" or "quality" do not appear in the post. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but the post is there in black in white, and it clearly discussed performance, and only performance.

I think what you meant is pretty clear to see from reading the post. And anyway, whether you meant it or not, the twisties argument is a crock pure and simple, because if you buy a heavy car like the M6 exclusively for its handling capabilities, then you're pretty ignorant of other cars' handling capabilities. Yes, it handles very well, for a big, heavy car, but it is still a big, heavy car, and is never going to approach the capabilities of a TRUE sports car. Drive it and a 996 around a short track back to back and you'll see what the difference is.

Egro, it is a compromise, pure and simple. So is a Mercedes. So is a Porsche, or any other friggin' car out there...*none* of them "do it all" perfectly, and all of them sacrifice something.

It is abundently clear that you prefer M cars to Mercedes.

Yes, I can. It gets better mileage, is more reliable (blown engines, despite your ridiculous assertions to the contrary, are a major quality defect), stores more stuff, rides better, and is actually quite quiet until you romp it and open the exhaust bypass flaps....have you actually driven one?

There are few cars available at any price that will beat the Z06 around a track, and none of them are BMWs.

Which proves how lame the twisties argument is.

Their numbers are certainly better, but it's not as big of a margin than you seem to think. Here's the JD Power three year reliability data released last year:


Average problems per vehicle:
Lexus = 1.39
BMW = 2.25
average = 2.37
Mercedes = 2.83

BMW barely beats the average, by 0.12 problems per car. Contrast this with the industry leader, Lexus, which beats the average by nearly ten times this amount. On average, BMW has 225 problems/100 vehicles, or 2.25 problems per vehicle. Mercedes has on average 285 problems/100 vehicles, or 2.85 problems per vehicle. Which means that, over a three year period, Mercedes had 0.58 more problems per vehicle than BMW.

Now ymmv, but to me 0.58 problems per car over a three year period isn't a large enough difference for me to lose any sleep, and certainly doesn't qualify as a huge margin imo....obviously, Mercedes got the lower score, but both Benz *and* BMW have a lot of room for improvement.

So, plainly, *both* of these marques have more than their fair share of problems, as the data show, and while BMW is definitely a bit higher in the numbers (in surveys, *not* in my personal experience as detailed previously), the key word is marginally. If you want truly stellar build quality and reliability, buy a Lexus, cause you ain't gonna get it w/Euro cars.

Yes. To me, a real manual is one that has three pedals. If a machine is doing my shifting for me, then it's an automatic by another name, semantics be damned. And, given that BMW introduced the M5 w/a six speed manual recently due to demand, I would hardly seem to be alone in this opinion.

Improviz

Forgot about the rear seat removal...

Your second paragraph is exactly what I'm talking about: the M guys always want to cite track numbers, but who the f buys a 4,000 pound car for a track car? If the object is to *win* at the track, the Z or the P-cars would be a better choice.

And btw, the Z06 kills (pdf results of C&D's lightning lap comparo) the GT3. The GT2 when it comes out should be closer, but it's got too much power for the 3. In the C&D comparo it beat the GT3's lap time by 3.6 seconds (and the 'vette was on street tires, the GT3 was on semi-R types), and the 997 TT by seven seconds.

The M6 might be a bit more luxury-oriented than the Z, but this also illustrates my point: the M is a tradeoff, not a track star, and so citing track numbers is disingenuous, as clearly track results would not be the paramount item of concern in the purchase of such a car, unless one's goal is to take the car to the track and get beaten by less expensive cars.

chiphomme

Do you always spin, twist, and take things out of order? I frankly am not going to spend too much more time on this absurd thread.
-the performance numbers were posted first to show the M3 wasn't the dog most people in this thread seem to think it is. the quality issue was implied.
-the quality issue explicitly came in a follow up post.
I couldn't care much less whether you believe it or not. That was what was meant. So why don't you just save yourself some time and quit arguing in circles?


And why do you insist on debating a point that wasn't even made, namely that I bought an M6 as a performance track car? I bought it as a fast GT car that I can use in a long haul or as a daily driver. I owned a CLS55 and went to an M6. Do you get the idea maybe I'm not interested in a 911, vette, lotus, or any other purpose built sports car? Sheez.
The M6 is a joy to drive in comparison to the CLS. The Mercedes felt like it was 1000 lbs heavier.
And if you honestly believe a Z06 is a more practical car than an M6 you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. The handling, noise, and build qualities aren't even in the same league. Have you even driven an M6?
Watch a few episodes of Top Gear and get back to me.

And I'm hardly a Mercedes hater. I'm buying a CLK63 Black.

BTW, Sequential MANUAL Geargox in the Ms is a great tranny.

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

If I had a nickel for every time someone's said "I'm buying a CLK63 Black Series" I'd have put my deposit down on one by now. Its the "me too" car of the century.

The M5/M6 are awesome cars, but they don't belong in comparisons to Z06's or Pcars like the GT3 or even the Turbo. The M's are REALLY GREAT GT cars, but they're not meant for the track as evidenced by their single piston calipers which still boggle my mind to this moment.

Ask me how I know, I own one.

Improviz

No, but you sure do: you're claiming that your post implied something which wasn't even written, mentioned, or hinted at, and stubbornly refuse to admit it. Fine.

Yes, I see....in the same way that all of my posts in this thread have been "implying" a discussion of Macroeconomics, right? By not mentioning it.

Keep it up; this is fun.

The follow-up post is not the one to which I was responding, now was it? YOUR FIRST POST IN THE THREAD was PURELY and TOTALLY about performance, and performance only, and it was that to which I was responding. Kind of obvious to anyone with grey matter between their ears, but I don't have the ability to respond to posts which have not been written, any more than I have the ability to divine a post "really" being about matters that it in no way mentions or alludes to.

Uh, perhaps because your post explicitly stated that AMG cars will be "chasing" M cars?

Do you get the idea that I have never said or implied that you were? Do you often spend time repsonding to points which haven't been raised? See your eye doctor.

I've made my point clear, and won't waste time rewriting it as you're clearly not understanding it, but it had zip to do with your preference in cars. It was a response to your post about performance and AMG cars "chasing" M cars.

Yes, as I said: you've made it quite clear that you prefer M cars to AMGs, not exactly a mystery there.

I see...so if the M6 handles so much better than the Z06, can you explain to me how the Z06 manages to pull GT3s and 997TTs by multiple seconds, and the M6 by even more, in every track test ever done of these cars? Were the test drivers holding back??

GIve me a break. You clearly are relying on marketing hype and not objectively generated test numbers for your opinions. The Z06 outhandles the M6, period, and the track numbers clearly show it.

Here are some cold, hard numbers for you. Same driver, same two tracks, track times for M6 and Z06.

First, the M6:
Supertest in sport auto 12/2005
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/bmwm6cpst2005-1.htm
Gewicht 1761 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 12,8 s
0 - 250 km/h - s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 259 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 35,5 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 33,8 m
Nordschleife 8.09 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.14,4 min

Now, the Z06:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/chevrolet...6ls72007-1.htm
Supertest in sport auto 06/2007
Gewicht 1440 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,6 s
0 - 250 km/h - s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax (320) km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 36,1 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 34,4 m
Nordschleife 7.49 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.11,7 min

Hmm, so amazingly enough, the Z06, which you claim has handling that's "not even in the same league" as the M6, pulled it by 2.7 full seconds a lap at Hockenheim, and by 20 seconds a lap at Nurburgring. This, even when the Z06 had standard Goodyear Eagle F1s while the M6 had ultra-sticky semi-R compound P Zero Corsas, which Car & Driver doesn't even consider a street tire.

You are right: the two cars are not in the same league, but you've got it backwards: the M6 is not in the Z06's league. It is actually more in the league of the standard C6 Corvette, which when driven by the same driver lapped Hockenheim in 1'14.8 seconds, 0.1 second slower than the M6 (which has 100 more horsepower than the 'vette). What do you think the result would be if the C6 had Corsas or if the M6 had had Eagle F1s? Bye bye M.

Yes, it is a MANUAL, just as the People's REPUBLIC of China is a democracy. Great tranny on the track, just not so great for driver involvement imo. Imo a manual has a clutch.

ItalianStallion

Wasn't this thread about the M3? Not M6 vs Z06/GT3 (which is a ridiculous comparison anyway)?

Thericker

Bro give it a rest, Impro is owning you left & right BTW have you driven a C6 Z06? I agree it's not in the same league as Mercedes or BMW in interior trim, paint finish, etc..

But it's not the C5 Z06 of yesteryear it's chalked full of the latest tech gadgets, multi-air bladder inflated seat bolsters, and ride quality/noise levels (when not floored) is vastly improved, and when you replace the factory run-craps w/something more civilized like Michelin Pilots NON- RUN-FLATS, the ride is quite phenomenal, you're deff underestimating it as an all around contender.

As far as comparing the CLS55 to the latest M6?? I wont even start, there so diverse

Improviz

A few selected sections; they did absolutely love the engine (and as you can hear in this video, it sounds fabulous), but had some major gripes. Link to article:

Eurosport

i think new M3 is hot, and it'll be a fun car for sure
best of both worlds would be ideal, and M for it's stick, and an amg for it's cross country high speed touring.

so yes i'd hit the new M3
but i'd hit her first ;p

Improviz

Yowsah!! That is some seriously nice scenery!!

skratch77

The next M is a flop,BMW is leaving its hard core buyers for new comers and making the car soft.They said they want to sell 100k cars.The csl will be what the M3 is supposed to be(with a heafty price increase)I would get a used gt3 over it.

There just using the M image for marketing to sell more cars.

The car to watch out for is the 135i,wich is basically the size of a e36 and has 4 or 6 piston calipers(from memory)and has a huge potential for mods.

BMW lead guy at M said there looking into F/I for there F1 cars and will most likely turbo there next car in 2011

The twin turbo inline 6 is hands down a way better engine than the new V8.

I can't believe that after all these years BMW is going the turbo route.

just take a peak at what the 335 gets with a tune and exh.


With DPs that are on the way you can expect around 400whp with 93 oct.People are starting to switch out the compressor wheels from the 9g to the 13g and so far one guy on 6speeds has done it.

with the bigger wheels you can expect mid 400 and around 500ftlbs to the ground lol,the next M cars stand no chance with a modded 135i

and here is the guy in BMW M talking about F/I in there future cars



Gerhard Richter is vice president, BMW M Gmbh — the man responsible for the new generation of M cars. He began his career at BMW in the chassis development department, helping to engineer the first-generation BMW 7 Series. He then became the project engineer for BMW M's first everyday road car, the 1979 M535i, and he has worked at M ever since. Gerhard Richter was interviewed at the launch of the new 2008 BMW M3 by Inside Line's Alistair Weaver.

How would you define the role of the M3 in the BMW M range?
The M3 stands for our philosophy. It is the best representation of the M character, combining the feeling of a racecar with that of a normal street car. We concentrate on what we call "concept harmony," by which we mean that we look at the car as a whole. This is what separates us from everyone else.

How difficult has it been to replace the old inline-6 engine with a V8?
It was not so easy. The six-cylinder is the traditional engine for an M3. But the old engine had reached its limits. We had to develop an all-new engine and it made sense to design a V8. For fans of the six-cylinder engine, we have the M Coupe. This is our entry-level M model.

Will there be a new version of the lightweight M3 CSL?
We built the last M3 CSL to test how many euros customers are willing to pay for less weight. For 20 years, they've learnt to pay for more power, not less weight. The reaction to the CSL was very positive and you will already see in the new M3 that we've spent a lot of money bringing down the weight.

The last M3 CSL was very successful and fun to drive. From now on, there will always be a CSL version of the M3.

The M3 has grown up, both in terms of size and price. Is there room for a smaller, entry-level M car, based around the new 1 Series coupe available in Europe?
Theoretically, yes. A 1 Series coupe would be a good base for such a car, but there has been no decision yet.

It is true that the M3 has grown over several generations and the latest car is a similar length to an old 5 Series. But we also have the M Coupe for those who want a small car that concentrates on driving fun.

How do you decide which engine to develop for each car?
We're looking for the best performance for the type of car. For the M5 and M6 we use a V10, and for the M3 we use a V8. If you only develop one engine for all your cars, then you cannot have the perfect car. If the engine in the smaller car is too big, you will not have the right harmony.

What are your main targets when developing a new model?
We concentrate on several targets — high revs, lower fuel consumption. There are lots of targets but our main target is that the car must be fun to drive. Raw horsepower is not as important as how agile the car is and how the driver feels.

The power-to-weight figure is the most important figure — more horsepower and lower weight equals more agility.

Will we see alternative engine technologies in the future, such as diesel?
When a diesel is able to achieve high revs, why not use it? But for now it's not possible. We need that special, high-revving character in an M engine. It's not enough just to increase the boost pressure [of the turbo]. We need to change the character of the car.

What about a hybrid?
We already have a brake-energy regeneration system in the new M3, but it's not our target to put 100 kilograms [220 pounds] of batteries in our car. We need much smarter hybrid technology.

Or turbocharging?
Maybe in the future. In 2011, the F1 racing regulations could change to introduce turbocharging. If we were able to bring our character together with a turbo engine, then why not? Formula 1 is very important for us; BMW M's heritage is in motorsport. Changes in the F1 regulations might be good for us. If the change fits with the M character, it could be a solution. The most important thing for the customer is to have this special character.

Or hydrogen?
Maybe in 15 years time. It's important to remember that the car is only 100 years old and technology moves very fast. The new M3 engine has 17 percent more horsepower than the old, but it has 7 percent less weight and 8 percent lower fuel consumption. This is one of the most efficient V8s on the market.

What do you see as the key rivals for the M cars?
The characters of our rivals' cars are so different that customers can find the right car for them. The Porsche is a Porsche — very successful and fun to drive. And when people think of Porsche they think of the 911 — a modern-day Beetle.

(laughs)

Audi Quattro Gmbh uses front- or four-wheel drive, and so the handling is quite different. It's a good solution if you live in the mountains. Mercedes AMG uses a relatively low-revving big-block engine and an automatic gearbox. Every car is different.

AMG has recently started to offer a limited run of tuned cars called Black Series. Can we expect a similar range from BMW?
This is not our philosophy. The Black Series is a way of trying to change the character of the cars, but we wouldn't do this because we have a clear idea of what our cars need to be. We have a personalization program — Individual — which caters to owners with special tastes, but these changes would never affect the driving characteristics of an M car.

Audi recently introduced the R8 to much acclaim. Will BMW build a supercar?
That's a very difficult question to answer. A car like the Porsche Carrera GT could reflect our character, but the Carrera GT was not a commercial success. Below this supercar level, anything we could offer would just be on a level with the M3 or M6.

We could build a car that used the technical aspects of the M3 or M6 but clothe it in a new body, but such a car would be more expensive and no more fun to drive. That is the reason why we're hesitant to build such a car, although as an engineer I'd love to do it.

If you build a €1 million supercar, no one will ever have the chance to see it. For us it's better to make an M3 or M6, where the price is OK.

ItalianStallion

Like I said before, thank God that my deposit is refundable.

ItalianStallion

Here, check out the scans from Evo magazine.

Review of M3: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74094

M3 vs RS4 (with C63 article): http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74095

I'm sadly disappointed with the M3...

Zod

hmmm what exactly were the problems you had in the cls?
and in terms of handling or tracks for that mater i belive the cls and m5 are vertily near enough for there not to be 'it distroes it in handling' argument.
the new bmw cars look empty when you enter the cabin maybe that changes when you get used to them. i did not like the styling of the 5 or the 6 ser bmws, but now i am quit found fo the m5 look
ride is much harsher in the Ms though.
SMG is not found in the new m3 why is that?
But i have to agree on one thing, both marks can do better in reliability considering they are motoring giants.

ItalianStallion

Around May of '08 the new DSG transmission will be released.

1985mb

Really, you think so? I don't want to resurrect a 2-week old argument, but I don't think he got the guy's point at all. Just my 2 cents

Fair point, and GM should take note - the Z06, for all its track prowess, gets a lot of criticism for its real-world ride/handling in stock form. Maybe GM needs to reconsider what tires it's putting on at the factory.

Yeah, like comparing an M6 to a Z06 and GT3 (and calling a GT3 a "GT" car )

Improviz

...so be it:

Funny, I could have sworn it was the other way around, but then I've never ceased at people's abilities to "interpret" things.

In what medium have you seen such criticism? The US mags have leveled *some* criticism at its handling, but afaik they've all been very complimentary of its ride, particularly in light of the fact that it is an extreme performer as well.

The US mags have been critical of the handling and ride of other cars, as well--including the GT3 and the M6. Typically, extreme performance cars have (gasp) a stiffer ride, as they are set up for (gasp) better handling. Yet another tradeoff....

Apparently, BMW doesn't think this comparison to be so "dumb". If you go to their website and click on the M6, then go to their "compare" section, they list five cars: the Cadillac XLR-V, the Jaguar XJR, the Mercedes SL and CLS, and lastly....drumroll, please....the Porsche 911 ....gee, help me out here: isn't the GT3 a hopped up 911, in the same sense that an M6 is a hopped up 6 Series??

Perhaps you should write them up and tell them how "dumb" they are.

And I made the reasons I compared the cars quite clear clear: track numbers are very interesting, but if they are your priority your money is better spent elsewhere.

Ergo the M6 is a compromise car, just as is any Mercedes.

Addicted2Speed

0-60 of 4.4 and 12.9 @ 111mph is pretty weak if you ask me, C63 will absolutely destroy it. With a CLK63 convertible, which is heavier than C63 and has the same engine C&D got 0-60 in 4.2 seconds and 12.5 @ 116mph. 5mph difference in trap speed is huge! Looking at the 1/4 mile times of CLK63, its as fast as M5/M6, which is a different league than M3 altogether. We're comparing a 500hp/460lb-ft car (detuning is BS) with a 420hp/295lb-ft car... you don't need to be a rocket physicist to figure out which one is faster. SLK55 AMG is faster as well, C&D got 4.3 seconds to 60 and 12.7 @ 113mph. BMW needs to realize that 295lb-ft torque is simply not enough in a high-caliber sports car

1985mb

Not sure why you'd think I (or anyone) would be holding a grudge against you Does disagreeing with you equal holding a grudge?

I think to some extent it's fair to compare an M6 to a 911 Carrera, but I don't think the M6 compares/competes with a GT3 (or a Z06). To put it another way, I don't think anyone (or any meaningful number of buyers) cross-shops an M6 with either a GT3 or a Z06. If you believe otherwise, please feel free but the previous "similar enough in price, 2+2 coupe" argument doesn't hold water.

And I also don't think 'base 6 series:M6' is analogous to 'base 911:GT3' - I think you've either forgotten or don't know what a GT3 is. It is NOT merely the higher-end, more-powerful version of a luxo coupe or GT. The GT3/GT3RS are as close as one can get today to a homologated (factory-made), street-legal FIA racecar.

TopGun32

v2 is not yet available..

and you will need to purchase V1.47 Proceded before you can bump up to v2.0.

with DPS and exhaust ... easily 400RWHP..

but the biggest difference between the 3 series and the M and AMG cars is the way the on board systems manages the torque, via the torque converter.

How can a SL65 with over 700lbs of torque not have an LSD??

It how AMG tune their cars for maximum torque at certain speeds but avoid loosing all the power in constant wheels spin.

I trully believe the 335i would producing far better numbers if only it had a better torque converted hard ware and software. The LSD would help, but with that much torque.. I'm not sure if it will hold up.

currenlty proceded 1.47 are running mphs of 109 to 106 with very few 110 and ONE 112 trap speed in South Africa by our friend M&M. The lowest eta's are high 12 with ONE 12.5. Most of the 1.47 cars are running low 13's.

why are 335's v1.47 with 350RWHP and 370RWTQ only able to hit 110 trap speeds?

heck C32's stage 2 with less power and torque have equal those marks and trapped 110+ (that is with no LSD, 5 speed auto no less)

its how you put the power down.. and the M3 will be able to do that much easier than a modded 335 with LSD, proceded, DP and exhaust.

I'm doing all my research on the 335's, cuz I want one. But I'm probably going to stretch my $$ for the C63.

FrankW

I'm jacking the thread with CLK 63 black series video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNzuI7LO5lE

Improviz

No, but ever since we first locked horns some time back, each time you've engaged me your tone has gotten ever more spiteful.

What you think is by definition subjective, unless of course you've got some meaningful data to back it up. And it might help if you viewed my remarks in the context in which they were made rather than acting as though they were written in a vacuum.

Are you deliberately ignoring the context here, or are you just not reading the post in its entirety? The context was that if one's priority was getting around a track fast, then both the Z06 and the GT3 are better choices than the M6, or any M car currently being sold. Therefore, it is silly to act as if track numbers are a huge factor in the purchase of these cars, when there are clear alternatives that would thrash them on any track, for less money.

OK? Sheesh...if you're going to start an argument with me, at least give me the courtesy of reading what I wrote and arguing about the actual points I'm making.

Well, that is another subjective argument, now isn't it?

While on the other hand, this is a purely speculative, not to mention stupid, argument.

You are splitting the finest of hairs here. The GT3 *is* a 911, just as an M6 *is* a 6 Series. Both have been extensively modified with higher performance parts. Both share the same basic platform with their lower-priced siblings. However, if one was purchasing a vehicle based upon its track numbers, there is clearly only one choice between the M6 and the GT3, and it ain't the M6, which was and is my point. And there is a reason why I made this point, which you're obviously missing.

SLK55R

I believe this car comes with an LSD stock.

ProjectC55

CLk BE vs M6 vid and the editorial:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=121263


Wow look at what the M6 owners on M5board are saying about the comparison of the CLK BE vs the M6!!

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...d.php?t=100914

Lot's of sour grapes!