The only valid "criticism" of the car is the price tag....

 

The slalom speed is quite interesting.

 

I guess the M/T car looses over half a second in the Quarter mile, but cant stop thinking that it would be more "fun" to drive. I am growing weary of the AWD and DCT formula in the Porsche.

 

Why is it everyone cries about the weight of the new ///M cars while the others weigh more than the M6 and more in the area of a Range Rover? I know they're heavy but as this proves, BMW is still on top and that's a good thing! Only thing (as ideliver has already said) is the price tag which isn't that bad as you're getting quite a bit of car for that (interior, exclusivity, performance!!). Still, my money would be on a GT3. Plenty happy with my V10! :flag:

 

Thanks for sharing this!

 

Wow M6 GC does 3.5 to 60 and 11.7 1/4 mile! It does feel fast but i never thought it was this fast !!
This confirms its faster than the M5 which did 3.7 to 60 and 12.0 to 1/4 mile. Car and driver 2013 BMW M5 Road Test – Review – Car and Driver

I do realise its not the same conditions but the margin is quiet abit and it was done by the same magazine.

M6 GC new ///M Sedan King kinggf :goldcup:

 

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2013-audi-s6-vs-2013-bmw-m5-2012-mercedes-benz-e63-amg-1.pdf

The same magazine also tested the F10 M5 at 11.9 @ 123mph...a little closer to the M6 GC. The M6GC also had the carbon ceramic brakes which reduces unsprung weight...which will help the rear wheels put a little more power to the ground. A similarly optioned M5 may show some improved acceleration figures as well.

 

Yes but personally i thought the M5 would be faster due to its lower weight. It seems BMW want the M6 GC to be a notch ahead. Regardless of the two, but having a sedan as heavy as the M6 GC to do 3.5 to 60 makes it fall in the brand new 991 GT3's terrority. Thats some serious performance.

Im also impressed with its slalom performance. It basically is #1 in its category minus 1/4 mile sprint. Even with that it should be ahead after that :M5thumbs: :goldcup:

Well done BMW ///M :applause:

 

Yes but personally i thought the M5 would be faster due to its lower weight. It seems BMW want the M6 GC to be a notch ahead. Regardless of the two, but having a sedan as heavy as the M6 GC to do 3.5 to 60 makes it fall in the brand new 991 GT3's terrority. Thats some serious performance.

Im also impressed with its slalom performance. It basically is #1 in its category minus 1/4 mile sprint. Even with that it should be ahead after that :M5thumbs: :goldcup:

Well done BMW ///M :applause:

The performance of cars in general now is getting ridiculous. Even the diesels have become stupid fast!

I'd like to see a comparison between a F10 M5 with ceramic brakes and Competition Package against a standard M6 GC. Makes you wonder if the M6 is really worth all of the extra cash.. hmmm Still love both cars though! Good to know BMW is still on top!! :M5launch::flag:

 

I'll take the RS7! Look at the fuel economy!

 

I'll take the RS7! Look at the fuel economy!

This I can't understand!

In the UK, the official fuel consumption figures are (miles per imperial gallon, 1 imperial gallon = 1.3 US gallons):

BMW M6GC

Urban - 20.2 mpg
Extra Urban - 37.2 mpg
Combined - 28.5 mpg
C02 - 232 g/km

Audi RS7

Urban 20.3 mpg
Extra Urban 37.7 mpg
Combined - 28.8 mpg
CO2 - 229 g/km

CLS63

Urban 20.3 mpg
Extra Urban 37.2 mpg
Combined - 28.5 mpg
CO2 - 231 g/km

So how on earth do Car and Driver get

BMW M6GC

City - 14 mpg
Highway - 20 mpg

Audi RS7

City - 16 mpg
Highway - 27 mpg

CLS63

City - 16 mpg
Highway - 22 mpg

Yes, the RS7 is fractionally more economical than the M6GC, but nothing near 35%, more like 2%. The 'City' figures are in the right ball park, as are the Highway figures for the M6GC and CLS63, but the RS7 Highway is just so far out as to make it almost certainly a typo or calculation error, 21 would be far more likely.

In real life these cars are so close in economy that you'd not notice it.

Edit :

And just to reinforce that, the C/D 150 mile trip consumption for the Audi is the WORST!

 

Edmunds also says 16/27 for the RS7, plus it starts at 11K less. It does have a smaller V8 at 4.0 liter plus you get AWD. You can place that 11K onto a gas card. I'm a BMW fan but I think Audi has BMW and Mercedes beat in this comparison.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

Typos have a habit of proliferating!

The figures I quoted are manufacturers figures used by the UK DVLA (and much of Europe) to calculate the amount of road tax that you pay and the amount of benefit in kind you have to pay if it's a company car, they are not wrong. Given that, and the 150 mile test consumption by C & D, I can't see how the RS7 can better the M6GC and CLS63 by 5 mpg or more and yet produce almost identical amounts of CO2.

Interestingly, Audi give three figures in the USA for their cars, most others give 2. Audi give City (16), Highway (27) and Combined (19), are we comparing Apples and Apples here? The only valid explanation I can see is that the Audi 8 speed gear box is very precisely tuned to the exact US 'Highway' test which appears to be more of a constant speed test than the UK 'Extra Urban' test.

These cars are very similar, only relatively minor points will make someone go for one over another. Do you want 4 wheel drive? Do you prefer the dash layout? Do you prefer the looks? Do you value the hatch back?

I've driven the CLS63, the M6GC and Audio RS6 and S7 - the RS7 was not available to drive. The M6GC is the better drivers car by some way IMO. The AMG63 is the most luxurious, the RS7 the most practical both in terms of internal space and with the 4 wheel drive. Aesthetically the M6G6 is much better looking inside and out IMO once you get used to the iDrive system. The Audi is not bad and the use of the dash display and monitor is well thought out, but the rear does not look quite right. The dash of the CLS63 is too 'busy', but in practice works quite well, the design of the CLS63 is of course significantly older then the other two.