[MAH]

I just saw the o to 60 nimbers for the M6 and to my great surprise, they were 4.8 sec. This is certainly not all that great for a 505HP engine. In fact I have seen many articles stating that the 0 to 60 times were 4.8 sec. for our car.

Does this seem odd to anyone else here?

Mark

 

[sarends]

Perhaps too little data to draw much of a conclusion on at this point? Also, perhaps the e39 M5's 4.8 was one of the better times, and perhaps the 4.8 for the M6 will prove to be one of the "not so great" times? My thoughts are all speculation.

 

[Nolift911]

I just saw the o to 60 nimbers for the M6 and to my great surprise, they were 4.8 sec. This is certainly not all that great for a 505HP engine. In fact I have seen many articles stating that the 0 to 60 times were 4.8 sec. for our car.

Does this seem odd to anyone else here?

Mark

All about power to weight...not sure what the curb weight is but I am sure it is heavier than our M5 or very close. It takes alot (as in 600hp-700hp) to significantly increase 0-60 times. That is alot of heft to move around.

What is the old saying about the Toyota Supra with 800 hp - Same 0-60 as one with 600...

-Jeff

 

[MEnthusiast]

505hp at the top end- My guess is the car can do 4.5 but it needs ideal conditions and the engine needs to rev out. Also the weight is less than the E39 M5 (and E60 too) but not by much. And it takes so much more power to make a meaningful result here. I say don't go by the numbers alone- the review praised the cars feel and handling.

 

[BmwNut]

The fastest E39 number I saw was a 4.7 (IIRC) in Motor Trend, and one of the worst was 5.3, but I dont remember which magazine that was. The 0-60 spreads usually stay within .5 sec.
Many European car mags have clocked low 4 second runs to 62mph with the M6. With more tests I think the numbers will begin to even out.
:cheers:

 

[Gustav]

We have seen 0-200 km/h tims at 13 s flat for European magazines. That is almost Porsche 996 GT2 territory and is indeed very fast. faster than SL65 AMG to 200 km/h.

 

[MAH]

505hp at the top end- My guess is the car can do 4.5 but it needs ideal conditions and the engine needs to rev out. Also the weight is less than the E39 M5 (and E60 too) but not by much. And it takes so much more power to make a meaningful result here. I say don't go by the numbers alone- the review praised the cars feel and handling.

If I remember correctly they also prased the E39 for the feeling and handling.

I guess without a true stick to compare it to it is not quite apples to apples.

Mark

 

[Terk]

The fastest E39 number I saw was a 4.7 (IIRC) in Motor Trend, :cheers:

Bren,

Motor Trend (April 2002) in an article called Max Factory Heat tested the M cars against the AMG counterparts. In the M5 vs. E55 (W210) test the M5 record 0-60 in 4.6 sec. and the 1/4 in 13:08 @ 109.41. The magazines do seem to print a wide variety of numbers in their tests.

 

[Autobahnraser]

I just saw the o to 60 nimbers for the M6 and to my great surprise, they were 4.8 sec. This is certainly not all that great for a 505HP engine. In fact I have seen many articles stating that the 0 to 60 times were 4.8 sec. for our car.

Does this seem odd to anyone else here?

Mark

0-60 mph (96,5 km/h) in 4,8 s. That's the worst time I've ever heard about. Where did they test the M6? On gravel? :hihi:

 

[Just_me]

I doubt they even drove the car. Wasn't it the same mag that compared M5 to E55 but if you read carefully, it was just estimate figures. Could be the same case here.

 

[MAH]

Bren,

Motor Trend (April 2002) in an article called Max Factory Heat tested the M cars against the AMG counterparts. In the M5 vs. E55 (W210) test the M5 record 0-60 in 4.6 sec. and the 1/4 in 13:08 @ 109.41. The magazines do seem to print a wide variety of numbers in their tests.

I do remember this test. In fact I have seen a few M5's that were by in large stock, well S/W upgrade and exhaust and CAI aftermarket that would hit the 1/4 mile in 12.87 secs. I cannot remember the speed though.

Mark

 

[DoctorV8]

At these power levels, in a RWD car, 0-60 is a meaningless number, as it is all very traction dependent. 0-100 and quarter mile trap speeds are much more relevant.

 

[M Power]

At these power levels, in a RWD car, 0-60 is a meaningless number, as it is all very traction dependent. 0-100 and quarter mile trap speeds are much more relevant.

Yes.. but for the fact that the car has "launch control".. Or I should say I guess it has just like the M5 has.. so the computers do all the traction modulation for the driver to get the best rate of acceleration..

Still, seems a little on the high side..

There was a test where they compared the Porsche 997 s to the M6.. Wish I could recall the magazine. May have been the Uk mag called CAR.. Porsche was the "victor" due mostly to its much lighter gross weight..

 

[DoctorV8]

Yes.. but for the fact that the car has "launch control".. Or I should say I guess it has just like the M5 has.. so the computers do all the traction modulation for the driver to get the best rate of acceleration..
.

True, but all launch control can do is maximize the available traction. Adding another 100 HP will not improve 0-60 times if the tire/suspension package is not modified. Removing weight from the front of the car or transplanting it to the rear is more effective than adding HP to a powerful RWD car on street tires.

 

[markf]

the 997s beat the m6 as it handled better (and WOW does it handle),allthe uk mags said the M6 murdered the 997S in a straight line.

 

[MEnthusiast]

What a great time to be into cars!

 

[Terk]

What a great time to be into cars!

So true Jerry, so true. :thumbsup:

 

[Bones]

July 2005 issue of Motor Trend has the M6 0-60 or 0-62 at 4.6 seconds(mfr est.) They comment that the car may be even quicker. They did not actually test the car.

Same issue they test the CLS 55 AMG at 4.4 seconds to sixty(no mfg est. indicated)

MT is estimating the price of the M6 at $92,000.

Cheers!!

 

[Wolverine]

MT has very little credibility here in the US. For example, a quote from the article on the M6:


"...means it's V10 has roughly 275 fewer pounds to lug around than the
M5's."

The actual number is 45 kg, or about 100 lbs.

 

[Enigma]

True, but all launch control can do is maximize the available traction. Adding another 100 HP will not improve 0-60 times if the tire/suspension package is not modified. Removing weight from the front of the car or transplanting it to the rear is more effective than adding HP to a powerful RWD car on street tires.

I can attest to this. My M3 and Elise have the roughly the same hp/Lbs numbers. However, off the line the elise is much quicker because it has more traction because >60% of the weight is on the drive wheels. What really amazed me was that I could even get great starts in the rain. The M3 would have been slipping and sliding all over the place.

But you have no idea what I wouldn't give for a BMW drivetrain in the lotus...