This heft contributes to comments in the review stating the car feels too big to really be tossable (hurting the fun factor). The new Mercedes SL even with its folding hard top manages to be significantly lighter. It really is a shame these new M models are so bloated and that they keep putting on weight. What is this efficient dynamics crap BMW keeps talking about? The 6 Series convertible had to get a folding soft top just keep the weight from ballooning even further. New Porsche and Mercedes models manage to be lighter than the models they replace and offer more power while being more efficient. BMW somehow keeps gaining weight with the new cars and we are not talking about an insignificant amount.
This weight hampers more than just the feel it also hampers the acceleration as the F13 M6 only manages a 12.2@116.6 in the 1/4 mile. Insideline hit 12.9@113.4 with the previous generation E64 M6. So the new model is quicker and faster as it should be but with a twin turbo V8 and a dual clutch transmission it only manages to gain 3 MPH of trap speed over the naturally aspirated V10. The improvement is minuscule. We would be willing to sacrifice the 3 miles per hour of trap speed to have a motor that sounds glorious with better response in a lighter car. It seems BMW really needs these twin turbo motors and all their torque just to move these new M cars. And yes, Insideline does complain about the poor motor sound of the S63 twin turbo V8 in the M6 as just about everyone does.
The new car is faster, better looking, and does pull more g's on the skidpad. It is a great car. However, it feels like BMW has lost some of the magic that made them special. It is almost as if they are becoming what AMG used to be. Big and somewhat isolated heavy cars with a lot of torque. What made the E64 M6 unique in the marketplace does not apply to the F13 M6. It definitely looks great but BMW's strength was always more about what is underneath the skin. Now we are falling more in love with what is on surface. Superficial aspects can be fun but it is only so long before you start looking at what else is offered. It will sell and people who buy it will say they love it but they will never realize what the car could have been had BMW actually made an effort to apply their "Efficient Dynamics" to the chassis rather than sacrificing classic traits for a couple miles per gallon... oh well.
| Track Test Results | |
|---|---|
| Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) | 1.9 |
| 0-45 mph (sec.) | 3.0 |
| 0-60 mph (sec.) | 4.2 |
| 0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 3.9 |
| 0-75 mph (sec.) | 5.8 |
| 1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) | 12.2 @ 116.6 |
| 0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 2.4 |
| 0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 3.7 |
| 0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 4.9 |
| 0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) | 4.5 |
| 0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) | 6.4 |
| 1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) | 12.6 @ 118.3 |
| Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) | 28 |
| 60-0 mph (ft.) | 108 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) | 69.1 |
| Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON | 68.0 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) | 0.92 |
| Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON | 0.92 |
| Sound level @ idle (dB) | 47.9 |
| @ Full throttle (dB) | 82.4 |
| @ 70 mph cruise (dB) | 64.7 |
| @ 70 mph top down (dB) | 71.1 |
| Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) | 1,750 |
| Dimensions & Capacities | |
|---|---|
| Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) | 4,398 |
| Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) | 4,495 |
| Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%) | 51.2/48.8 |
| Length (in.) | 191.8 |
| Width (in.) | 73.0 |
| Height (in.) | 54.2 |
| Wheelbase (in.) | 109.5 |
| Track, front (in.) | 61.7 |
| Track, rear (in.) | 62.4 |
| Legroom, front (in.) | 42.0 |
| Legroom, rear (in.) | 29.0 |
| Headroom, front (in.) | 37.8 |
| Headroom, rear (in.) | 36.5 |
| Shoulder room, front (in.) | 56.4 |
| Shoulder room, rear (in.) | 49.4 |
| Seating capacity | 4 |
| GVWR (lbs.) | 5,247 |
Source
vBulletin Message