Improviz

Actually, they are optional, as the article you quoted plainly stated. And the point, which again you dodge, is that they give the car an unfair advantage at the launch, which gives it better time.

Which is the only way it was able to post the numbers you cited. When Road & Track tested a ****EURO**** M6, ****WITH**** launch control, but ****WITHOUT**** the Corsas, it got a whole lot slower.

Which was the point, of course, and quite effectively showed that the car needs semi-race tires to hang with an SL65 on street tires, but in typical fashion you simply avoid the point after it's been shown that the car had an unfair traction advantage, thus rendering your earlier comparisons moot.

Oh, and did the six magazine articles you cited earlier, from different publications, all have the same drivers?

No. Which didn't seem to stop you from citing them...can you say "Do as I say, not as I do"? Sure you can. Mr. Rogers loves hypocrites, Sherwin.

Only an idiot would try to claim the above paragraph in any way, shape, or form constitutes logic, particularly after I already presented the Road & Track test of, again, ****EURO**** M5 and M6, which was conducted ***IN EUROPE***, with EUROPEAN GASOLINE.

And ya know what? They somehow managed to get virtually the same time that Car & Driver got in the ****AMERICAN**** spec M5, which was conducted ****IN AMERICA****, with a ****DIFFERENT DRIVER****, using ****AMERICAN GASOLINE****.

Road & Track's Euro-spec M5, tested in Europe, using European gasoline, ran 0-60 in 4.2 secs, 0-100 in 9.5, and a 12.4 @ 115.8 1/4 mile. Car & Driver's American-spec M5, tested in America, by a different driver, ran 0-60 in 4.2, 0-100 in 9.4, and the 1/4 in 12.5 @ 118.

Prima facie, your idiotic argument is proven false. Two different cars, two different continents, two different gasolines, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah your spin is nothing but bull**** as usual. These two cars were within a tenth of each other. Yet somehow, Gustav's M6 can beat a 996 TT by buslengths while the other video I showed shows one beating a 996 TT by one carlength.

The videos show that the M6 in Gustav's video was markedly faster than the M6s in the other videos. You can gesticulate and divert and throw out meaningless drivel to try and prevent people from watching them, but nobody is fooled by your idiotic nonsense.

Where is your proof that it's not modded? Still waiting.

Where is your M5? Still waiting.

Still waiting for answers to the following questions as well:

1) what did you mean when you stated that "circumstances contrived to make a certain car faster than the other" in the videos I posted?

2) what proof of this do you have?

3) what proof do you have that, as you claimed, the Kleeman guys "inspected" the M6 after the run in the video?

4) what proof do you have that the M6 had a stock exhaust, as you claimed earlier?

Improviz

In which case you are left to explain why you constantly quote magazine articles from different publications, wherein different cars were driven by different drivers, as you did in this very thread, in the following drivel of a post:

Please, sir: step away from the crack pipe. Step away.

Improviz

Hey, complain to Gustav if you don't like it; he's the one who set up the race, and thus the comparison, not me.

Point is that comparing acceleration times between the SL65 on street tires to the M6 on semi-race tires gives the M6 an unreasonable advantage.

And the fine folks at Sport Auto (and AMS) felt compelled to mention that the car was on these tires, and that it had picked the car up 1.5 seconds in lap time, so stop shooting the messenger.

M&M

But the 2 turbos on the 6.0 V12 aren't an advantage.

GIMME a FREAKIN BREAK!

What the hell is wrong with you? The SL65 leaves the factory with 2 turbos, the M6 leaves the factory with the Corsas. As do lots of other cars these days.

Why don't we take the Corsa's off the M6 & then you take the 2 turbos off the SL65. Cmón man stop being ridiculous.

M&M

Ok Imp, I see you go on & on about me using the me using the SPort Auto & AMS tests as comparisons. Even though they have the same driver, venue etc, you think its not a valid comparison.

Well isn't there a bit of double standards on your part as you are comparing a K2 vs US M5 in a street video to a K4 vs Euro M6 on an airfield undert a whole different set of circumstances.

Somehow, your videos are proof, but the magazines tests aren't.

The magazine tests are a lot more representative that a street video from different continents. But hey, if it makes you happy then the magazine tests are bull & cannot be used. So you can ignore them if you want & please forgive me for bringing them up.

But you can't have your cake & eat it. If you want to discount respected mags like Sport Auto & AMS, then you most certainly cannot count a street video as evidence.

M&M

What was the weight in each car, fuel level, fuel quality. Was one car running hot & heat soaked, vs other car being cooled before the run? Which gear did they start the respective races in? Who hit the throttle 1st? What fuel in each car? what revs were the respective drivers revving to? How quickly were they shifting to stay in the powerband? Were the 996TT's both auto or manual. Did any of them have any factory power mods?

I think you onto something there man. Keep up the good work.

Improviz

Give you a break?? I'm sorry, but wasn't it you who chose to compare the acceleration of these two cars in the first place?? Yes, it was.

I guarangoddamtee you that if someone here posted a comparison of, say, the lap times of an RS4 on R-compound tires to the lap times of an M3 on non-R-compound tires and you got wind of it, you'd be up in their face, pointing this out.

So don't act stupid and whine when I point it out. Hell, even the article you cited pointed it out, and plainly stated that the tires gained the car 1.5 seconds in lap time.

It is not a fair comparison to claim that because one car with semi-race tires got similar acceleration numbers to another car with street tires, the two are comparable.

Again: you chose to compare the acceleration of these two cars, not me. If you do not think it is fair to compare a twin turbo to a V10, well, here's a hint for you: don't do it.

There is nothing wrong with me, and I'm not being ridiculous, I am pointing out, accurately and with documentation to prove it, that the only reason the M6 times you cited were even in the same ballpark as the SL65 was that the M6 had the huge advantage of having semi-race tires mounted up, and that once this advantage was taken away in the Road & Track Euro test, the car was tested substantially slower, 5 mph and 0.4 slower to be exact.

1SICKLEX

Alright I have neither but love both so this is just my thoughts.
1. I believe the M6 without the limiter is right at a 200-2005mph car.
2. Not sure what the E55 K4 is without the limiter but I would think drag would hurt it.
3. Aerodynamics start really coming into effect at speeds over 150mph....Not sure if the bodykit on the E helped any.
4. For the M6 to PULL on the modded E55 like that, it would HAVE to have more power. It would HAVE to. I'm not a physics major but how can a car with over 640hp lose to a car with 500hp when they are already at a roll and the E has more power? The only reason would be drag or something is wrong with the car.
5. Was the E55 manually shifted? B/C the M6 clearly has SMG and he can pick the gear he is in. If the E55 driver is in the wrong gear at 50mph, that can cost him.

For those that have had F/I cars, we know that if they are not tuned properly from time to time, you might be running rich, you might be losing 100 hp....

Not making excuses but its hard to compare apples to apples when we don't know ALL the factors involved.

Bottom line, thats for whomever made the video and posted it, Amazing!!!!

M&M

Geez bud, in our country lots of cars come with R-compound tyres stock. Mitsubishi Evo, Subaru Sti, Porsche GT3 RS, Ferrari 360 CS, RS4, M3 CSL, M6, etc.

Are you going to discount all the times of those cars because they have different rubber. They come stock like that. Live with it.

Does it make a difference to the car? Of course it does. Some have carbon roofs as well. I guess we have to take that off too or else "life is not fair".

Improviz

The same driver, venue? That's backing away, as usual, from what you wrote earlier. You wrote that "only an idiot" would compare cars tested by different drivers, on different continents, yadda yadda ya...

So, then, being an idiot by your own definition, you proceeded to cite multiple tests, from different magazines, with different cars, with different drivers.

Which I pointed out was a double-standard on YOUR part.

Ah, the old M&M two-step...twist, twist, twist, baby, but you aren't spinning your way out of this one by evading, changing the subject, or putting words in my mouth.

I didn't comment on the validity of the magazine tests, other than to comment on the fact that the M6 was shod with ultra-sticky tires which helped its numbers, something which even the authors of the article felt compelled to mention.

I certainly didn't say they weren't valid.

What I did say was that it is hypocritical of you to on one hand whine about using videos with different drivers, then on the other hand turn around and cite magazine tests of different cars with different drivers.

Further, the magazine tests you cited are of an SL65, a car not even being discussed in this thread.

Btw, your fellow BMW fan Erik pointed out once that Sport Auto and Auto Motor und Sport are two distinct, separate publications, and I rather doubt that two different, distinct publications would be using the same driver.

You claim that they do.

Got any proof of this claim?

Improviz

what was it you said earlier about not making excuses??

Do you have any evidence at all to substantiate any of the above data points? Of course not. Nothing but excuses and conjecture, as usual.

Improviz

I am living with it just fine, but you seem to be quite unhappy with my pointing it out, along with the fact that they gave a big boost to the vehicle's acceleration and track numbers.

M&M

They most certainly do boost performance. As do the 2 turbos on the 65.

Improviz

Yes, but everyone knows that the SL65 has two turbos. Not everyone knew that the M6 whose numbers you were so proudly touting had semi-race tires mounted up.

M&M

Why do you keep saying differents magazines? There are 2 tests of the 65 from Sport Auto & 2 tests of the M5 from Sport Auto. Why don't you use those for your conmparison. The driver was the same, Horst von Saurma. The venue was the same. The timing equipment was the same. The test procedure was the same, etc.

But even so, I still accept that you can't use it as evidence provided you accept that you cannot use street videos from different continents as evidence.

M&M

It says so in the articles I posted the links to.

2MANYCARS

This is the longest debate ever, and I will be picking up my 07 M6 in 2 weeks, which one should I side with?? BMW? MB? Oh, I don't know..... I would side with neither, all I want is to collect great cars, both the M Division and AMG make great cars, so I will not get myself into this heated topic.

Improviz

You quoted six tests. Four were from Sport Auto, two were from Auto Motor und Sport. These are different publications.

Info about Sport Auto magazine:

Info about Auto Motor und Sport magazine:

Is this registering yet?

You will note that Mr. von Saurma is editor in chief of Sport Auto. You will note that Bernd Ostmann is the editor in chief of Auto Motor und Sport.

Lol, keep twisting, baby....more o' that pretzel logic. Never said what you're claiming, so stop lying.

1SICKLEX

I don't think R-compound tires have much to do with top-speed acceleration runs.
If they started from 0MPH or were TRACKING their cars, yes.

From a rolling start at 50MPH, it doesn't matter as much.

Improviz

Correct. M&M introduced standing-start test numbers for the M6 and SL65 several posts ago, and I simply pointed out that the semi-race Corsas gave the M6 significantly better acceleration numbers in these tests than it would have posted had it been shod w/street tires like the SL65s whose tests he also cited.

M&M

Fair enough. just use the 4 from Sport Auto then? Simple ain't it?

M&M

YEah you got me man.

But what if, I could produce 2 articles, both from Sport Auto, of a 65 & M6 in-gear flexibility tests? In other words rolling run tests. Shall I post them or are you going to start with your excuses about one being 5 speed vs 7 speed?

Well you would be right. It's not fair to compare a 5 speed to a 7 speed in rollinf runs. But then again its not fair to compare a 5.0 V10 to a 6.0 V12 with 2 pumps & double the torque. But hey, life's not fair.

Improviz

Um, oh, yeah, if we just totally ignore the fact that this is yet another desparate attempt at a dodge, and backs away from your earlier claim that "only an idiot" would use tests of different cars done by different drivers, etc...after which you immediately turned around and posted six tests, done by two different publications, of multiple cars, with multiple drivers...

Oh, and we must also ignore the fact that in multiple instances over the course of your time here, you yourself have, in a single post, cited multiple road tests from multiple publications of multiple cars done by multiple drivers on multiple continents...only to, in this thread, state that this is something which would only be done by an "idiot".

So, are you prepared to concede that, by your own definition, you are an idiot?

It is certainly beyond dispute that you are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

M&M

Ok I concede defeat. I am an idiot for using magazine tests.

What does that make you then for using street videos from different continents?

Finnish C32

if M6 with corsas is near as fast as SL65 ni 0-100mph, what would happen over 100mph when the launch control and tyre """"booosts"""" doesnt matter? M6 is still near as fast or even win?