Crown

Board: BMW M Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

     

    Has somebody actually read the latest  Sport Auto and AutoBILD Sports Cars tests of the new BMW M6 Cab? Well...in the Sport Auto test, after Sport Auto did dyno the test cars in the past issues, the new M6 Cab did 0-200 kph in 14.2 seconds. In the AutoBILD Sports Cars, the M6 Cab did 0-200 in...surprise, surprise...12.3 seconds. Almost two seconds faster, which is just impossible. Even more interesting is the fact that in the Sport Auto test, the average fuel consumption of the M6 Cab was close to 20 liters / 100 km (which is quite believable since I own a X5 M with the same engine) but in the AutoBILD Sports Cars test, the M6 Cab had an average fuel consumption of up to 14 liters / 100 km.

    It is no secret that car manufacturers cheat with their test cars but TWO seconds difference? Was BMW afraid to send another "good" car to Sport Auto because they were afraid Sport Auto could dyno it again like they did with that M5?

    Such results actually don't throw a good light on car manufacturers. I also don't understand how AutoBILD Sports Cars could achieve a fuel consumption of 6(!) liters less than Sport Auto. Has AutoBILD Sports Cars actually driven the M6 Cab??? Smiley

     

    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    AutoBild Sportscars tests with only driver, while Sport Auto with two persons onboard. Also, I'm quite sure the guys at ABSC did their run without Launch Control (just like they did with the M5 managing a 0-100 kph time of 3,9 s).

    The Jag XKR-S Cabrio in the same comparison is much slower than the one tested by ABSC, as well. The relatively high air temperature (24 Degrees Celsius during testing) may be another cause for the slow Sport Auto times.

    I don't know why, but Sport Auto tests with Launch Control everytime - even if there are quicker ways to launch the car: for instance SA got 4,4 s with the Merc E63 AMG with Race Start, while ABSC did 4,1 s with torque-braking. Same thing goes to the new M5 (and possibly for the M6 Cabrio, as well).

    At the fuel consumption: different route, different results. Smiley

     


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    acrobat:

    AutoBild Sportscars tests with only driver, while Sport Auto with two persons onboard. Also, I'm quite sure the guys at ABSC did their run without Launch Control (just like they did with the M5 managing a 0-100 kph time of 3,9 s).

    The Jag XKR-S Cabrio in the same comparison is much slower than the one tested by ABSC, as well. The relatively high air temperature (24 Degrees Celsius during testing) may be another cause for the slow Sport Auto times.

    I don't know why, but Sport Auto tests with Launch Control everytime - even if there are quicker ways to launch the car: for instance SA got 4,4 s with the Merc E63 AMG with Race Start, while ABSC did 4,1 s with torque-braking. Same thing goes to the new M5 (and possibly for the M6 Cabrio, as well).

    At the fuel consumption: different route, different results. Smiley

     

    Sounds good but I prefer the Sport Auto method, which apparently is closer to real life driving.

    Having driven the new M5 and the E63 AMG myself, I highly doubt that 3.9 or 4.1 seconds for that matter are possible in these cars. Unless of course you go for a test track with a special asphalt compound which provides maximum traction.

    Also, no matter what route AutoBILD SC is using for the fuel consumption test, under 14 l / 100 km in the new M6 Cab would actually mean that they never drove the car over 200 kph or never fully accelerated.  Smiley This is just ridiculous.

    According to my experience with many different cars, the Sport Auto numbers are the most accurate ones in a real life driving environment. 

    I also think that BMW didn't provide one of their typical "good" cars because they were afraid Sport Auto could put it on a dyno or even worse, actually make a big deal out of it.

    2 seconds difference from 0-200 kph mean a difference of aprox. 100 hp. 100. An additional driver or warmer temperatures can't be the reason for that.

    Remember the SL55 AMG when it was first tested in Auto, Motor und Sport? This car had better performance numbers than my 996 Turbo from 0-200 kph. I made a lot of comments about this on the AMG Owner's Club Forum and they threw me out and suspended my membership. About two years or so later, AMG and AMS actually admitted that AMG had provided a TEST MULE for that AMS test because they didn't have a production series car available.

    Did you think that anybody from AMG ever apologized?! Smiley This was actually the time I had sworn to never buy an AMG Mercedes again but the C63 AMG Coupe PP was too tempting. 

    Long story short: I do not trust manufacturers, not even Porsche, when it comes to test cars. I prefer the real life test.


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    RC:
    acrobat:

    AutoBild Sportscars tests with only driver, while Sport Auto with two persons onboard. Also, I'm quite sure the guys at ABSC did their run without Launch Control (just like they did with the M5 managing a 0-100 kph time of 3,9 s).

    The Jag XKR-S Cabrio in the same comparison is much slower than the one tested by ABSC, as well. The relatively high air temperature (24 Degrees Celsius during testing) may be another cause for the slow Sport Auto times.

    I don't know why, but Sport Auto tests with Launch Control everytime - even if there are quicker ways to launch the car: for instance SA got 4,4 s with the Merc E63 AMG with Race Start, while ABSC did 4,1 s with torque-braking. Same thing goes to the new M5 (and possibly for the M6 Cabrio, as well).

    At the fuel consumption: different route, different results. Smiley

     

    Sounds good but I prefer the Sport Auto method, which apparently is closer to real life driving.

    Having driven the new M5 and the E63 AMG myself, I highly doubt that 3.9 or 4.1 seconds for that matter are possible in these cars. Unless of course you go for a test track with a special asphalt compound which provides maximum traction.

    Also, no matter what route AutoBILD SC is using for the fuel consumption test, under 14 l / 100 km in the new M6 Cab would actually mean that they never drove the car over 200 kph or never fully accelerated.  Smiley This is just ridiculous.

    According to my experience with many different cars, the Sport Auto numbers are the most accurate ones in a real life driving environment. 

    I also think that BMW didn't provide one of their typical "good" cars because they were afraid Sport Auto could put it on a dyno or even worse, actually make a big deal out of it.

    2 seconds difference from 0-200 kph mean a difference of aprox. 100 hp. 100. An additional driver or warmer temperatures can't be the reason for that.

    Remember the SL55 AMG when it was first tested in Auto, Motor und Sport? This car had better performance numbers than my 996 Turbo from 0-200 kph. I made a lot of comments about this on the AMG Owner's Club Forum and they threw me out and suspended my membership. About two years or so later, AMG and AMS actually admitted that AMG had provided a TEST MULE for that AMS test because they didn't have a production series car available.

    Did you think that anybody from AMG ever apologized?! Smiley This was actually the time I had sworn to never buy an AMG Mercedes again but the C63 AMG Coupe PP was too tempting. 

    Long story short: I do not trust manufacturers, not even Porsche, when it comes to test cars. I prefer the real life test.


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4

    As far as I know every european (and maybe the americans as well) magazines tests with one person onboard, except the Auto Motor und Sport - Sport Auto brothers. Their methode may be closer to the real world driving, but the best performance numbers are coming with the less possible weight - like you are on a dragstrip.

    Sport Auto and AutoBild Sportscars are performance-oriented magazines, therefore the best way to get the maximum out of the testcars is how ABSC tests. There are two similarities between their methodes: both tests with full tank of fuel and their performance numbers are two-way averages (calculated from at least 4 different runs).

    Sport Auto always test on the long straight of the Hockenheimring, they stated this many times. AutoBild Sportscars uses the runway of the Rothenburg airport in Germany. (The "quickest" german magazine, AutoZeitung also tests on an airfield, at Mendig, Germany). Even Sport Auto's editor, Christian Gebhart confirmed that Hockenheim is not as grippy as an old airfield's surface.

    Back to the M5-performance numbers. Even Auto Motor und Sport (same methodes as SA) got 4,0 s to 100 kph with Launch Control, twice. Sport Auto's best is 4,1 s with LC. With one person less and a trickier launch (quick-shift manually to 2nd gear at around 30 kph) 3,9 s is possible. Over 100 kph the differences are marginal: AMS got 8,2 s from 100-200, while ABSC managed 7,9.

    About the E63 AMG PP: 4,4 s and 13,1 s with Launch Control by Sport Auto, 4,1 and 12,6 s with torque-braking from 1800 rpm by ABSC. With the very same testcar. As you can see, the 100-200 kph time-difference here is minimal as well.

    Truth is, not every Launch Control is perfect. According to the testers of AutoBild Sportscars, the Race Start function is vincible with some patience and sensibility. RS is only for "the show". Same thing goes for the LC of the new M5.

    You are right, RC, Sport Auto is closer to the real world than ABSC. But it is a performane-magazines, so in my opinion they shouldn't be this soft. Soft like Auto Motor und Sport...

    Smiley


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    It is only surprising that some cars have pretty much the same performance figures in all car magazines and others, especially the M5 and E63 PP, don't. 

    We will do a real life comparison between the new M5, the Panamera Turbo S and maybe even the Panamera Turbo, just to get some idea of real life performance.

    The M5 I testdrove had serious traction issues, even on the straight line, so I just don't get how it could do 0-100 in 3.9 seconds, this is just impossible under real life driving conditions. 

    Yes, sports car magazines are performance oriented magazines but I would like to see a more "down-to-earth" approach in testing because almost nobody stands at a stop light and uses launch control and/or torque breaking.

    I also don't plan to go to any drag strip any time soon... 

     


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    Autobild sportcars come up allways with very quick numbers  or Even to quick numbers for most of the brands.  I wouldnt count on those numbers. On the other Hand bmw probably does not cheat more or les than other brands on test cars or how could a 620 hp m5 Take the Same time 100-200 km/h as the pana turbo s witch was rated with 557 hp ( refering to the sportauto comparising test). I bet the pana was boosted up as well just Not detected on the dyno

    so far the only real life heads up is hear i have seen

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWNNV98ZjN4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Those cars will performe equal on hihgspeeds and yes the m5 is faster to launtch with out launch controle. My best 100-200 was a 7.9 secs with 3500km on the speedo


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    According to my knowledge, the blue M5 used in that comparison was a factory owned car. I wouldn't really call that "real life".  The Panamera Turbo S tested in comparison also had non factory wheels (larger) and it is highly possible, that the turbo chargers were defective (have you heard of the latest Panamera Turbo S recall?).

    If your numbers are right, your car would have way over 600 hp, which is quite impossible for a customers car since BMW is aware of the durability issues with more than 600 hp in that engine.

    What device have you used for your testing (if you used the Performance/Drift Box, without external GPS antenna, the results are worthless)? I also assume that the fuel tank was full

    I don't say that your car isn't fast but when it sounds to be too good to be true... 

    Regarding the rumored "dyno recognition" in the Panamera Turbo S software: The engine module is a Siemens EMS SDI 6.1 and according to our information, it is pretty much impossible that it can be programmed to "recognize" a dyno run. The difficulty here is that there are tons of different dyno systems available and it is practically impossible. This is why nobody has heard of that before (I really looked on the internet if there is a documented case of a dyno run recognition software in an engine module but if you found something, please feel free to post). As to the fact that the Panamera Turbo S performed that well with factory claimed power (actually two other cars hit 0-200 kph in 11.8 and 11.9 seconds respectively in other reviews), there is a simple explanation: A possible shorter gear ratio, lesser PDK losses, lesser drivetrain losses, the better traction, the less intrusive ESP system (in Sport Chrono Plus mode) and the overboost.

    Since we do not have any proof of Porsche cheating but have proof that Mercedes and BMW did cheat, we should really wait until some real life experiences are available. 

    No, I wouldn't even trust your car...you already asked around about tuning it, so... enlightened 

     


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    Christian,

    I fully agree with what you wrote above.

    Just... Latest Porsche "game" with Pirelli(991CS) and Michelin(Panamera Turbo S) tires used for Sport Auto Supertests is also "some kind" of cheating... At least IMO.

    I had a chance to drive 991CS(almost the same specs as Supertest example-PDCC/-20mm, PCCBs, PDK, 20" Techno wheels with wider 305 rear tires etc.) on wet normal road(from Ljubljana in Slovenia till Gorizia in Italy) and I was schocked few times with serious traction problems. Yes, rain was falling all the times, but these Pirelli P Zero N0 are problematic tires on wet road. PSM was working all the times and additional care was needed(Sport mode for PDK was on). I am fully aware that main reason is these Pirellis. They offer amazing traction and grip on dry road(with some warming time). BUT, for wet road driving they are potentiall dangerous(specially if driver is not experienced enough).

    BTW, did you drove your Pana TS on wet road yet? If so, what are your impressions?


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    Very interesting what you wrote. At what sort of speeds did the problem arise? Did you get the chance to experience other brand of tyres in similar conditions?


    --

    "Form follows function"


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    KresoF1:

    Christian,

    I fully agree with what you wrote above.

    Just... Latest Porsche "game" with Pirelli(991CS) and Michelin(Panamera Turbo S) tires used for Sport Auto Supertests is also "some kind" of cheating... At least IMO.

    I had a chance to drive 991CS(almost the same specs as Supertest example-PDCC/-20mm, PCCBs, PDK, 20" Techno wheels with wider 305 rear tires etc.) on wet normal road(from Ljubljana in Slovenia till Gorizia in Italy) and I was schocked few times with serious traction problems. Yes, rain was falling all the times, but these Pirelli P Zero N0 are problematic tires on wet road. PSM was working all the times and additional care was needed(Sport mode for PDK was on). I am fully aware that main reason is these Pirellis. They offer amazing traction and grip on dry road(with some warming time). BUT, for wet road driving they are potentiall dangerous(specially if driver is not experienced enough).

    BTW, did you drove your Pana TS on wet road yet? If so, what are your impressions?

    You are completely right regarding the tires.

    I had hoped to get the Michelin Super Sport for my Panamera Turbo S but the car has been delivered with Pirelli PZero. In fact, I like this tire but you have a good point, I haven't tried it on wet pavement yet. What I don't like about the Panamera Turbo S in general, is the slightly rear drive AWD setup. The car stays neutral pretty long but then starts to slide with the rear. What is good for the 911, isn't really good for the Panamera. I would prefer a more neutral setup on a car which many people use on a daily basis and/or as a family car. Of course, I get it, the RWD AWD setup enhances driving fun but let's be honest, when did you see a Panamera driver drive sideways lately? Smiley Luckily, there is not much understeer.

    It is funny that I actually tried to get four Michelin Super Sport N0 for my car (to retrofit it) but they weren't even available on the market yet. Smiley Smiley

    I also have to admit that I am a little bit confused by the commentary Sport Auto wrote about the PZero on the Panamera, when the track time on wet pavement was actually pretty bad. Despite the bad time on wet pavement, Sport Auto said that the Panamera is very safe and predictable. Not quite sure how this works when an AWD car like the Panamera actually achieves a bad track time on wet pavement. I am confused. Smiley

    Btw: I had the Pirelli PZero on my 997 GTS Cabriolet and in a curve in a forest, it was only a tiny bit wet and I was driving below the legal speed limit, the rear suddenly slipped away, something I never encountered on any car. Without any warning. I was able to counteract the heavy oversteer but I was a little bit on the opposite lane for about two seconds or three and if another car would have been there...well...

    My C63 AMG PP, actually the oversteer king in person, never gave me such a hard time but of course it runs on Continental SportContact 3 tires. Smiley

    I don't quite understand Porsche's tire choices but to be honest, I think Porsche should concentrate on maximum safety first, especially on wet pavement and track times second. Many customers driving a Porsche are just people who want to have fun driving a Porsche, not track addicts who can handle whatever you throw at them.  Smiley

    I always defended Porsche and their tire choices and testing but sometimes, they just don't get it right. 

    Remembering my former Cayenne Turbo S, the Pirelli winter tires (Scorpion Winter?) were horrible, especially when it came to braking (almost as bad as summer tires Smiley). I then switched to Nokian tires and they were great under all driving conditions and even if they got a little bit "nervous" in curves on dry roads, it was a very good winter tire and especially a safe one. This was actually the first time I used a non-Porsche approved non-N rated tire on a Porsche.

    Don't get me wrong: Porsche's tire choices all have a reason but I sometimes get the feeling that they aren't getting their priorities straight.

     

     


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    reginos:

    Very interesting what you wrote. At what sort of speeds did the problem arise? Did you get the chance to experience other brand of tyres in similar conditions?

    Belive it or not at around 80km/h only. I was within legal speed limit for that part of the road. Read what Christian wrote in his response above. His experince with 997.2 GTS almost mirrors what happened to me. I am driving on wet road in same speed with our family Q5 3.0TDI without single traction or grip issues.


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    Remember the super Test of the pana Turbo s what was the Time 100-200  i think 9.2 secs...

    gustav dinied to have a Factory M 5, so we may have contoversel information. My messurment are driftbox with external antenna ( fixed on the roof of the Car) but oppesite to the accurate testing / messuring of my modded Gt2 i did not use any correction factures so there for the corrected values could change.I do not think my Car is running specialy strong Bmw official time is 100-200 8.6  so variation of half a Second is likely.

    no if you ad up upcoming lighter ceramic brakes  the number could go down

    as said on the other tread lets do a High way run together and we know more, but my car wount be stoke for long time,  between 640-660 hp is my Goal for the First step ( Kelleneres or Manhardt is the way to go)


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    Rc dont worry when my car has the tune i will stand for the tune no Point to hidding, but the tune i want should deff give me a time somewhere near flat 7 secs or below every Thing else would be desapointing for me.


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    Dario:

    Rc dont worry when my car has the tune i will stand for the tune no Point to hidding, but the tune i want should deff give me a time somewhere near flat 7 secs or below every Thing else would be desapointing for me.

    The problem is, nobody can actually verify it. Smiley


    --

    RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche Panamera Turbo S, BMW X5M, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe PP/DP, Mini Cooper S Countryman All4


    Re: BMW M6 Cab - Weird Test Results

    thats probably valid for both side, but i suppose we are under adults.  And as far is a can speak for my case, i take the m5 as what it is a salon with extra power. For going really fast and the adrenaline, i take my modded gt2 and let it fly on your perfect highways..

    Lets met up when we have both time and make a friendly high speed comparison


     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New 991.2 GT3 (2017) 10/13/18 7:49 PM
    lukestern
    388210 5041
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA 10/14/18 11:37 PM
    watt
    316291 1950
    Porsche Sticky 992 (Next 911 generation 2019/2020) 10/15/18 8:47 AM
    RCA
    221899 2542
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 7/21/18 6:45 AM
    bluelines
     
     
     
     
     
    208056 1067
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 10/4/18 3:41 PM
    WhoopsyM
    178363 2635
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 10/13/18 1:16 PM
    RCA
    108275 2227
    AMG Sticky Mercedes E63 S AMG (2018) - Short Review (updated on a regular basis) 9/25/18 7:06 AM
    RCA
    29697 315
    Porsche Sticky Paint protection film 9/25/18 6:14 PM
    throt
    13138 121
    Porsche Sticky Child seats in a 991 6/18/18 8:51 PM
    Monkey
    12491 31
    Porsche 918 latest news Thread Closed 11/6/17 10:43 AM
    RCA
    610612 5574
    Porsche 991 GT3 RS 1/9/18 1:43 PM
    Kimi
    511496 5816
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991 Turbo and Turbo S 4/3/18 9:15 AM
    KresoF1
    481868 4254
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 9/13/18 10:12 AM
    RCA
    272999 2589
    Porsche Cayman GT4 10/4/18 10:04 PM
    lexs4
    255251 2550
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Turbo and Turbo S 1/23/18 12:27 AM
    RCA
    190317 1074
    Ferrari 488 GTB/GTS 10/10/18 9:19 PM
    koko
    183116 1625
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 10/15/18 10:07 AM
    WhoopsyM
    174773 3187
    Porsche Boxster Spyder (981) 8/31/18 10:25 AM
    WAY
    141847 757
    Others Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016 model) - Review (updated Feb 13th 2017) 10/7/18 8:43 PM
    Boxster Coupe GTS
    135464 2187
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Panamera (2016) 1/6/18 10:41 PM
    Wonderbar
    126586 1284
    Ferrari Ferrari F12 Berlinetta / 599 GTO Successor 5/22/18 9:16 PM
    RCA
    110973 789
    Others VW caught cheating emissions tests 5/3/18 7:52 PM
    CGX car nut
    105939 871
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 718 Boxster (2016) 10/20/17 11:17 AM
    DaveGordon
    98815 732
    Porsche Porsche Mission E - the future of Porsche? 10/15/18 9:20 PM
    Wonderbar
    75736 970
    Porsche Donor vehicle for Singer Vehicle Design 10/13/18 9:50 PM
    RCA
    65402 672
    Porsche UPDATES: 2018 Porsche Cayenne 2/6/18 2:13 PM
    RCA
    56706 423
    Lambo Huracán Performante in "6.52 something" at the Ring? 11/7/17 12:30 AM
    kingjr9000
    49726 852
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 Carrera GTS models 11/29/17 12:27 PM
    DJM48
    45558 471
    Others Tesla Model X Thread Closed 2/23/18 3:41 PM
    RCA
    42548 1122
    AMG AMG GT R 1/26/18 7:19 AM
    GoHardGT3RS
    40788 597
    305 items found, displaying 1 to 30.