Close

    • 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.


      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.


      Source
      This article was originally published in forum thread: Strong M6 Gran Coupe performance numbers - Car and Driver runs an 11.9@124 1/4 mile bone stock started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 25 Comments
      1. Tom C's Avatar
        Tom C -
        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.
      1. alextremo's Avatar
        alextremo -
        Good post. Bring your vbox next time!
      1. leveraged sellout's Avatar
        leveraged sellout -
        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.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        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...
      1. Tom C's Avatar
        Tom C -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        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...
        Here you go:

        http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW-M5-Timeslip-25676.html

        The times from the C&D comparison test for the M5 were nearly the same: 0-60: 3.7s, 0-100: 8.1s, 0-130: 13.1s, 1/4m: 11.9 @ 123 mph