Autobild compares lap times of recent M cars - X5M and X6M outlap the E60 M5

The fact that the 1m is slower in a straight line tells that it is beating the M3 in the turns nicely

This test is good since it shows that the 1M is faster than a E9x M3 when the two major differences are the MT vs DCT and the N54 vs the S65 (the cars shares chassis bits).So if the DCT is better than a MT then this must be an epic win for a 340hp N54 vs the 420hp S65

^ exactly. In my above post I didn't even think about the Dct vs manual issue as well.

bull$#@!. the e60M5 traps over 116. the x5M traps under 114. no way that 5000lb car is going to outlap a car with improved power/weight and a thousand pounds less. I think that they forgot to note that some of it was a wet track. On a wet track, I believe it.

Good to have this in the first page. Sticky not bashing the 1M this time could hopefully lead to us all forgetting the already extremely boring M3 vs 1M fight.

Originally Posted by bluejeansonfire

bull$#@!. the e60M5 traps over 116. the x5M traps under 114. no way that 5000lb car is going to outlap a car with improved power/weight and a thousand pounds less. I think that they forgot to note that some of it was a wet track. On a wet track, I believe it.

It may indicate a tight track but yes, hard to believe and or accept.

Originally Posted by 654

Good to have this in the first page. Sticky not bashing the 1M this time could hopefully lead to us all forgetting the already extremely boring M3 vs 1M fight.

I don't bash the 1M, I question it.

Originally Posted by xbox_fan

This test is good since it shows that the 1M is faster than a E9x M3 when the two major differences are the MT vs DCT and the N54 vs the S65 (the cars shares chassis bits).So if the DCT is better than a MT then this must be an epic win for a 340hp N54 vs the 420hp S65

I wonder if sticky can still sleep quietly these days after this humiliating defeat of his beloved S65 vs just a "factory tuned" N54

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

I wonder if sticky can still sleep quietly these days after this humiliating defeat of his beloved S65 vs just a "factory tuned" N54

What motor did the fastest car around the track have?

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

I wonder if sticky can still sleep quietly these days after this humiliating defeat of his beloved S65 vs just a "factory tuned" N54

the 1M is good fore sure, but immagine how good it could have been, with a real M motor
It could have been a real dreamcar... (at least it was mine until i found out it was N54 powered)

Originally Posted by cisi

the 1M is good fore sure, but immagine how good it could have been, with a real M motor
It could have been a real dreamcar... (at least it was mine until i found out it was N54 powered)

I agee with the real M engine thing. But not the torque-lacking, over-thirsty, soul-lacking S65. V8 and 3-series just don't go together well IMO.

Originally Posted by Sticky

What motor did the fastest car around the track have?

Put the 1M on semi slicks as well and it will probably beat that GTS's time.

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

soul-lacking S65. V8 and 3-series just don't go together well IMO.

Soul lacking? Wind it out to 8400 rpm and bang off a perfectly timed shift with the needle flying to the rev limiter with all 8 cylinders singing and tell me that.

V8 and 3 series don't go together well? Somebody forgot to tell the M3 in ALMS.

Originally Posted by DavidV

Put the 1M on semi slicks as well and it will probably beat that GTS's time.

No, it won't. I think the GTS may even be lighter than the 1M, I'll have to check.

Originally Posted by Sticky

What motor did the fastest car around the track have?

Srsly?? The semi-slicks account for at least one to two seconds of the time advantage!!

The GTS is an epic fail in my book. It would have been great at $75.000. But the price tag puts it in 911 GT3RS territory, to which it's simply no match.

It does sound great though! I saw one on the Nurburgring for test drives.

Originally Posted by Sticky

V8 and 3 series don't go together well? Somebody forgot to tell the M3 in ALMS.

Oh my gosh. Maybe BMW had to respect some sort of regulations , which seem to be common in most racing series

Was the track wet? Because this track gets tight and has lots of weight transfer "sections" as well as elevation change which would favor torque but not weight and a high center of gravity. If the track isn't wet the only real explanation i'd believe would be different conditions or drivers in the X5M vs M5 comparisons. An E60 M5 is still a very quick road course car and not all that heavy for it's size. An 8:13 on the ring with Contact 2's is moving, and even in 2006 that was not the greatest tire.

They drove the current M fleet and the e60 M5 time is from their testing after its launch. The track back then was a bit damp and e60 can do better than that.

I have not read all 30+ comments, but this is so much bull$#@! that the X5M and X6M lap faster than an E60M5.. unless it was raining frogs or in snow conditions.

Originally Posted by Autobahn335i

Srsly?? The semi-slicks account for at least one to two seconds of the time advantage!!

The GTS is an epic fail in my book. It would have been great at $75.000. But the price tag puts it in 911 GT3RS territory, to which it's simply no match.

It does sound great though! I saw one on the Nurburgring for test drives.

Are you really buying GT3RS or a GTS? Who knows what the price would be if it was brought to the USA. Converting Euros straight to dollars doesn't ever approximate the cost correctly.

You have no idea how much time the tires account for except that they are a factor.

The M3 has a longer wheelbase, is right at a similar weight with the 1M, has a carbon roof for lower center of gravity, has more power, better suspension, etc. It simply is superior around the track.