Close

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Strong M6 Gran Coupe performance numbers - Car and Driver runs an 11.9@124 1/4 mile bone stock

    Now this is more like it. 11.9@124 in the 1/4 mile? 0-60 in 3.7 seconds? 0-100 in 8 flat? That's very impressive for a 4395 pound sedan. We know the 552 crank horsepower rating from BMW is underrated for the S63TU V8 and it certainly shows here. What is odd though is that the M6 Gran Coupe is heavier than the F10 M5 (weighed at 4315 pounds) yet is running quicker and faster 1/4 mile times. If anything, the F10 M5 being almost 100 pounds lighter should put the M5 close to 125 mile per hour trap speeds and 11.8 in the 1/4 mile stock.

    Click here to enlarge

    Car and Driver weighed the F10 M5 at 4277 pounds and ran 11.9@123 in the 1/4 mile with it back in a comparison test in July of 2012. In November of 2011, Car and Driver hit 12.0@122 for the F10 M5. So, the numbers are pretty close between the M6 Gran Coupe and F10 M5 as tested by Car and Driver on different days even with the M6 coming in heavier. Keep in mind these are dual clutch transmission numbers and not those with the manual option.

    It will be interesting to see if owners can match these trap speeds. IND-Distribution took their M5 to the drag strip and hit 11's but only 119 miles per hour.

    As more numbers come in from magazines and owners alike we will get a better idea but it is safe to say the M5 and M6 Gran Coupe are 11 second capable cars in stock form at over 120 miles per hour (without the optional Competition Package that adds an additional 15 horsepower). The lighter F13 M6 coupe should be able to do even better than the four doors. Definitely impressive performance especially considering how heavy these cars are.

    Click here to enlarge
    Source
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    515
    Rep Points
    621.9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I wonder if there is a noticeable different in weight distribution between the gran coupe and the M5. Perhaps the M6 grand coupe as a more optimal weight distribution for launching? More weight equals more traction the tires can provide, but also more traction required to move the additional mass. They are both so damn heavy already that a few hundred pounds in the right place could help to dial in the launch/weight transfer. Doesn't explain the trap speed though....more questions than answers here.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,111
    Rep Points
    960.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Car and Driver did a C63 coupe (with P31) test about a year ago and they both ran similar 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. The C63 went 0-100 in 8.6 while this did it in 8.0 that means from 60-100mph the M6 made up .6 seconds thats just ridiculous ! Shows that even at a blazing 3.7 0-60 traction is still limiting its real potential. 124 mph trap speed is ridiculous for a small yacht

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,111
    Rep Points
    960.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Honestly out of all the new turbo motors anybody with driving knowledge would consider the powerband of the s63tu to be superior to the m157. The m157 is just a sledgehammer of torque but has a low redline and looks like it flatlines to redline. The s63tu would be more preferrable for me it has an almost N/A like powerband just on steroids. Good torque from down low and holds it well to 7200 rpm which is great for a factory turbo V8. Somebody needs to really open the ECU and crank the boost on this motor id love to have a reason to get a white M6 coupe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,111
    Rep Points
    960.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    @Sticky @DFM if you read the article it says this m6 gran coupe tested was equipped with the carbon ceramic brakes that reduce unsprung rotational mass by 43 pounds which is HUGE! Im surprised its not a bigger difference but than the extra body weight of the gran coupe negated some of that rotational mass loss

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ezec63 Click here to enlarge
    Car and Driver did a C63 coupe (with P31) test about a year ago and they both ran similar 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. The C63 went 0-100 in 8.6 while this did it in 8.0 that means from 60-100mph the M6 made up .6 seconds thats just ridiculous ! Shows that even at a blazing 3.7 0-60 traction is still limiting its real potential. 124 mph trap speed is ridiculous for a small yacht
    Exactly seems once this thing is moving the power takes over.

    But why did we see a C63 P31 pull an F10 M5? There doesn't seem to be consistency.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ezec63 Click here to enlarge
    @Sticky @DFM if you read the article it says this m6 gran coupe tested was equipped with the carbon ceramic brakes that reduce unsprung rotational mass by 43 pounds which is HUGE! Im surprised its not a bigger difference but than the extra body weight of the gran coupe negated some of that rotational mass loss
    That's a very good point. It still seems like either M6, the coupe or the four door, it just performing better than the M5 for whatever reason.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,111
    Rep Points
    960.2
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Exactly seems once this thing is moving the power takes over.

    But why did we see a C63 P31 pull an F10 M5? There doesn't seem to be consistency.
    Doesnt really make sense at all ! The C63 pulled it on the top end to where the power of the f10 should take over. Their might be some truth to the whole heat soak theory on the s63tu .. I raced and beat a f10 m5 with my C63 but i have headers and a few silly things so it doesnt count ;p I also raced a stock P31 C63 Coupe last week and put a hurting on it seemed like i was walking it MUCH harder than the f10 m5 i ran

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London and USA
    Posts
    2,061
    Rep Points
    1,442.9
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    That's a very good point. It still seems like either M6, the coupe or the four door, it just performing better than the M5 for whatever reason.

    Every review I have read seems to say the same thing, but that seems nonsensical to me.. given the math, physics etc

    BMW usually understates performance figures by quite a bit ( 0 - 60mph ny 0.4 secs avg )...... maybe this time they just underestimated the M6 Coupe by a lot more....

    Are the cd nos on the M5 and M6 coupe DRAMATICALLY different ?
    2005 Porsche 996 TTS RWD - Eurodyne 60-130 in 6.50s
    2015 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI - Eurodyne 0 - 100 in 10.67s
    2015 McLaren 650S (RHD) - UK - 1/3rd owner yet to drive


    Click here to enlarge



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    242
    Rep Points
    621.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    So based on C&D's numbers we can "extrapolate out" a 60-130 time of 9.3 seconds. Obviously the slope of the road isn't known, but 9.3 seconds 60-130 is moving really well for a stocker.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Group.america Click here to enlarge
    Every review I have read seems to say the same thing, but that seems nonsensical to me.. given the math, physics etc

    BMW usually understates performance figures by quite a bit ( 0 - 60mph ny 0.4 secs avg )...... maybe this time they just underestimated the M6 Coupe by a lot more....

    Are the cd nos on the M5 and M6 coupe DRAMATICALLY different ?
    I can't figure it out either.

    F10 M5 cd .33. F13 M6 .33 as well...
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    515
    Rep Points
    621.9
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Seeing as how the motor is prone to heat soak (dyno proven) we cant fairly compare it to other cars when the numbers get close. someone needs to do back to back to back 1/4 miles runs with an S63 powered car to really test this theory. a dyno is one thing but when there is air moving over the heat exchangers who knows.

    Also, has an F10/13 been run on drag slicks yet?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DFM Click here to enlarge
    Seeing as how the motor is prone to heat soak (dyno proven) we cant fairly compare it to other cars when the numbers get close. someone needs to do back to back to back 1/4 miles runs with an S63 powered car to really test this theory. a dyno is one thing but when there is air moving over the heat exchangers who knows.

    Also, has an F10/13 been run on drag slicks yet?
    Haven't seen anyone on drag rubber yet. Should be capable of mid 11's I would think...
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London and USA
    Posts
    2,061
    Rep Points
    1,442.9
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I can't figure it out either.

    F10 M5 cd .33. F13 M6 .33 as well...

    Reminds me of that GRITS scene in "My Cousin Vinny" http://youtu.be/ZZkbtP-t_D8
    2005 Porsche 996 TTS RWD - Eurodyne 60-130 in 6.50s
    2015 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI - Eurodyne 0 - 100 in 10.67s
    2015 McLaren 650S (RHD) - UK - 1/3rd owner yet to drive


    Click here to enlarge



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    278
    Rep Points
    146.2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Read somewhere this S6344Tu is putting out around 660-hp. I cannot recall where I read it, as that may lend validation to what I said. With the F06 M6 Gran Coupe being the top of the M cars, it very likely it is more powerful and better balanced than the F10 M5.

    They are just saying it has 560-hp. For M, that is just the minimum the engine makes. Stated by the head of M GmbH, so they really worked some "black magic" on the chassis and engine. And in this day of heightened cultural differences, I can say black magic because I am black. That is a joke. Click here to enlarge

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by deemo319 Click here to enlarge
    With the F06 M6 Gran Coupe being the top of the M cars, it very likely it is more powerful and better balanced than the F10 M5.
    You think they have the Gran Coupe even more power than the underrated F10 M5? I doubt it.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    198
    Rep Points
    127.9
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    You think they have the Gran Coupe even more power than the underrated F10 M5? I doubt it.
    They should have for the premium they charge for this car...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    818
    Rep Points
    759.5
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I would give my left nut for a black 2900 lbs Gran Coupe!

    gran

    Web definitions
    grandma: the mother of your father or mother.wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14
    Rep Points
    52.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    SICK!!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by alextremo Click here to enlarge
    They should have for the premium they charge for this car...
    No disagreement there.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    974
    Rep Points
    442.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    This is a continuing trend, I see. Every test I see puts the M6 GC ahead of the M5 by a not-insignificant margin, and I can't help but think maybe they give these engines a little extra love. I don't know. Either that or, like it was said above, maybe the weight distribution is just more favorable for launches. It's been said before that they tuned the systems of the car specifically to be more sporty than the M5, I'm thinking mostly this might be a result of that.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    19
    Rep Points
    25.4
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    A few points that may have been overlooked...

    You cannot compare car magazine times/traps to a drag strip timeslip without first looking at how the data is collected and reported. You will notice that Car & Driver includes a downloadable "Test Sheet". That test sheet includes a section called "Correction" (bottom right below Weather). Car & Driver and most other US car magazines (Road & Track seems to be the exception) weather corrects its acceleration data (which is collected using a vbox or other GPS-based data recorders). The "Correction" section shows those correction factors. The M6 CG has a 1.0083 correction factor for trap speed (SP) and a .9924 correction factor for elapsed time (ET). That means you can back into the raw acceleration data by dividng by each factor (124mph trap / 1.0083 = 122.98mph and 11.9s ET / .9924 = 11.99s). Unfortunately they did not provide the test sheets for the F10 M5 tests.

    However, that is not the only difference between a drag strip timeslip and car magazine times. The drag strip uses timing lights to measure ETs and trap speeds. The car magazines use a 1 foot roll-out to simulate the roll-out at a drag strip with the staging timing lights. I have used a vbox at the track and compared numerous runs and have seen that based on how deep I stage, I usually see 1.6' of roll-out but that only translates into hundreths of a second of difference between the ETs. The biggest difference is in the trap speeds. Drag strips have timing lights that are set up 66' from the 1/4 mile end timing lights. The timing system uses that timing light at 1,254' (1,320'-66') to calculate the AVERAGE speed it takes to cover that 66'. The average speed will almost always be LOWER than the GPS trap speed at the 1,320' mark (there could be some exceptions if the car stopped accelerating during that final 66' ...like maybe during a long upshift). Having run the vbox on various cars, I have seen that the GPS trap speed has been higher than the drag strip timeslip from 1.35 to 2.31 mph.

    I took my F10 M5 to the track a couple of weeks ago. Admittedly, my car is not exactly stock. I have Supersprint axleback Race mufflers and K&N drop-in filters (charcoal filter delete as well). My car ran a best 11.835 at 120.87mph in 82 deg heat (DA was 2K'+) WITHOUT LC. I also weigh 240+lbs, had 5/8 tank of gas and did not remove any weight from the car as I went to the track alone and didn't feel comfortable taking stuff out of the car and leaving it in the parking area (including 4 quarts of extra oil which I needed a quart this past weekend... second time in the last 1,500 miles).

    I was on my way to the track before I remembered that I left my vbox at home (I am still mad about that). But I can pretty much guaranty that it would have had GPS based trap of 122+mph. If you factor in weather correction it would have likely translated into an 11.7 at 123mph which is right in the same ballpark as the M6 GC (maybe a little quicker given the VHT prepared surface...but remember I didn't use LC either). Even if you want to discount my 1/4 mile times because the car isn't "stock", you can still look at IND's and figure that the trap speed is "low" because it is the average speed and not the GPS trap at 1,320' which should be about 1.5mph higher.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    198
    Rep Points
    127.9
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Good post. Bring your vbox next time!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    974
    Rep Points
    442.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tom C Click here to enlarge
    A few points that may have been overlooked...

    You cannot compare car magazine times/traps to a drag strip timeslip without first looking at how the data is collected and reported. You will notice that Car & Driver includes a downloadable "Test Sheet". That test sheet includes a section called "Correction" (bottom right below Weather). Car & Driver and most other US car magazines (Road & Track seems to be the exception) weather corrects its acceleration data (which is collected using a vbox or other GPS-based data recorders). The "Correction" section shows those correction factors. The M6 CG has a 1.0083 correction factor for trap speed (SP) and a .9924 correction factor for elapsed time (ET). That means you can back into the raw acceleration data by dividng by each factor (124mph trap / 1.0083 = 122.98mph and 11.9s ET / .9924 = 11.99s). Unfortunately they did not provide the test sheets for the F10 M5 tests.

    However, that is not the only difference between a drag strip timeslip and car magazine times. The drag strip uses timing lights to measure ETs and trap speeds. The car magazines use a 1 foot roll-out to simulate the roll-out at a drag strip with the staging timing lights. I have used a vbox at the track and compared numerous runs and have seen that based on how deep I stage, I usually see 1.6' of roll-out but that only translates into hundreths of a second of difference between the ETs. The biggest difference is in the trap speeds. Drag strips have timing lights that are set up 66' from the 1/4 mile end timing lights. The timing system uses that timing light at 1,254' (1,320'-66') to calculate the AVERAGE speed it takes to cover that 66'. The average speed will almost always be LOWER than the GPS trap speed at the 1,320' mark (there could be some exceptions if the car stopped accelerating during that final 66' ...like maybe during a long upshift). Having run the vbox on various cars, I have seen that the GPS trap speed has been higher than the drag strip timeslip from 1.35 to 2.31 mph.

    I took my F10 M5 to the track a couple of weeks ago. Admittedly, my car is not exactly stock. I have Supersprint axleback Race mufflers and K&N drop-in filters (charcoal filter delete as well). My car ran a best 11.835 at 120.87mph in 82 deg heat (DA was 2K'+) WITHOUT LC. I also weigh 240+lbs, had 5/8 tank of gas and did not remove any weight from the car as I went to the track alone and didn't feel comfortable taking stuff out of the car and leaving it in the parking area (including 4 quarts of extra oil which I needed a quart this past weekend... second time in the last 1,500 miles).

    I was on my way to the track before I remembered that I left my vbox at home (I am still mad about that). But I can pretty much guaranty that it would have had GPS based trap of 122+mph. If you factor in weather correction it would have likely translated into an 11.7 at 123mph which is right in the same ballpark as the M6 GC (maybe a little quicker given the VHT prepared surface...but remember I didn't use LC either). Even if you want to discount my 1/4 mile times because the car isn't "stock", you can still look at IND's and figure that the trap speed is "low" because it is the average speed and not the GPS trap at 1,320' which should be about 1.5mph higher.
    Excellent post, and excellent point. Just saw your post on M5Board about that run, very impressive. Under ideal conditions, your car is going to be very fast. We definitely need to wait and see what the real world numbers will be for the GC, hopefully it becomes more clear when owners start taking them to the track.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,058
    Rep Points
    31,286.7
    Mentioned
    2053 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tom C Click here to enlarge
    I took my F10 M5 to the track a couple of weeks ago. Admittedly, my car is not exactly stock. I have Supersprint axleback Race mufflers and K&N drop-in filters (charcoal filter delete as well). My car ran a best 11.835 at 120.87mph in 82 deg heat (DA was 2K'+) WITHOUT LC. I also weigh 240+lbs, had 5/8 tank of gas and did not remove any weight from the car as I went to the track alone and didn't feel comfortable taking stuff out of the car and leaving it in the parking area (including 4 quarts of extra oil which I needed a quart this past weekend... second time in the last 1,500 miles).
    Do you have your slips to post?

    And yes magazine times do not equal drag strip times. However, the same magazine is getting different results using their test procedures for the F10 M5 and the M6 Gran Coupe. It certainly is interesting...
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •