RE: BMW M6 Gran Coupe - official
Discussion
BlueMR2 said:
I note they seem to have dropped the ultimate driving machine tag they used to use on advertising, all they need to do now is go FWD, then they can join up with AUDI to save even more on costs.
Nope 
http://www.scotthallhampshirebmw.co.uk/newbmw/6_se...
kambites said:
mr2j said:
1 series Gran Coupé? With wee suicide doors at the rear a la the RX-8?
I think we're all unwittingly a focus group for BMW R&D execs.
It'll be a two-series, but yes. I think we're all unwittingly a focus group for BMW R&D execs.
RenesisEvo said:
Valid points. It seems BMW are happy to follow/compete directly with Audi who somehow justify similar levels of differentiation, with the A5 as a 2 and 4-door coupe alongside the A7 4-door coupe. And then we have Mercedes with the CL, CLS and SL. So roughly, from bottom to top:
Audi A1 --- BMW MINI -- Merc A class
Audi A3 --- BMW 1/2 series --- Merc B class
Audi A4 --- BMW 3 series --- Merc C class
Audi A5 --- BMW 4 series --- Merc CL?
Audi A6 --- BMW 5 series --- Merc E class
Audi A7 --- BMW 6 series incl. GC --- Merc SL/CLS
Audi A8 --- BMW 7 series --- Merc S class
Bentley --- Rolls-Royce --- Maybach (defunct)
Obviously this is my interpretation and some cars don't quite fit, e.g the normal 6 series coupe doesn't quite have a direct Audi rival unless you consider the S5 separate to the A5, and the RS5 competing against the M6. But what I do believe is most of these closely-related cars are coming about due to a) reduced cost of more models on very similar hardware b) direct competition - for each micro-niche another fellow manufacturer brings in, the other two German marques always jump in to compete.
I think you're pretty much spot on,for me the RS5 will compete with the new M4 and the S5 the new M435i (if BMW make one) Audi A1 --- BMW MINI -- Merc A class
Audi A3 --- BMW 1/2 series --- Merc B class
Audi A4 --- BMW 3 series --- Merc C class
Audi A5 --- BMW 4 series --- Merc CL?
Audi A6 --- BMW 5 series --- Merc E class
Audi A7 --- BMW 6 series incl. GC --- Merc SL/CLS
Audi A8 --- BMW 7 series --- Merc S class
Bentley --- Rolls-Royce --- Maybach (defunct)
Obviously this is my interpretation and some cars don't quite fit, e.g the normal 6 series coupe doesn't quite have a direct Audi rival unless you consider the S5 separate to the A5, and the RS5 competing against the M6. But what I do believe is most of these closely-related cars are coming about due to a) reduced cost of more models on very similar hardware b) direct competition - for each micro-niche another fellow manufacturer brings in, the other two German marques always jump in to compete.
E38Ross said:
The Mercedes CL doesn't have a BMW rival... It's effectively what the old 8 series was. A massive GT based on the flagship limo.
That is sensible. Where I put 'CL?',I should have, in hindsight, put CLK.Not forgetting of course that BMW doesn't just compete with Audi and MB, but the similarities between their line-ups are too close to be coincedence. I can't think of any other marques with such obviously similar extensive hierarchies (note I left out SUVs).
On the strength of the 2dr, and having never seen one, I imagine the Gran Coupe should look better in the metal relative to the photos.
RenesisEvo said:
Valid points. It seems BMW are happy to follow/compete directly with Audi who somehow justify similar levels of differentiation, with the A5 as a 2 and 4-door coupe alongside the A7 4-door coupe. And then we have Mercedes with the CL, CLS and SL. So roughly, from bottom to top:
Audi A1 --- BMW MINI -- Merc A class
Audi A3 --- BMW 1/2 series --- Merc B class
Audi A4 --- BMW 3 series --- Merc C class
Audi A5 --- BMW 4 series --- Merc CL?
Audi A6 --- BMW 5 series --- Merc E class
Audi A7 --- BMW 6 series incl. GC --- Merc SL/CLS
Audi A8 --- BMW 7 series --- Merc S class
Bentley --- Rolls-Royce --- Maybach (defunct)
Obviously this is my interpretation and some cars don't quite fit, e.g the normal 6 series coupe doesn't quite have a direct Audi rival unless you consider the S5 separate to the A5, and the RS5 competing against the M6. But what I do believe is most of these closely-related cars are coming about due to a) reduced cost of more models on very similar hardware b) direct competition - for each micro-niche another fellow manufacturer brings in, the other two German marques always jump in to compete.
I know, they aren't all excatly like for like, but a very interesting perspective thoughAudi A1 --- BMW MINI -- Merc A class
Audi A3 --- BMW 1/2 series --- Merc B class
Audi A4 --- BMW 3 series --- Merc C class
Audi A5 --- BMW 4 series --- Merc CL?
Audi A6 --- BMW 5 series --- Merc E class
Audi A7 --- BMW 6 series incl. GC --- Merc SL/CLS
Audi A8 --- BMW 7 series --- Merc S class
Bentley --- Rolls-Royce --- Maybach (defunct)
Obviously this is my interpretation and some cars don't quite fit, e.g the normal 6 series coupe doesn't quite have a direct Audi rival unless you consider the S5 separate to the A5, and the RS5 competing against the M6. But what I do believe is most of these closely-related cars are coming about due to a) reduced cost of more models on very similar hardware b) direct competition - for each micro-niche another fellow manufacturer brings in, the other two German marques always jump in to compete.
kambites said:
So the performance of the new QP will be significantly worse than the M6 saloon then? Even if BMW are being wildly optimistic and Maserati wildly pessimistic, the'll be about the same.
???? What a load of tosh .... 191 MPH is FASTER than 155 MPH Edited by kambites on Thursday 13th December 14:12
And harking back to EVO Magazine's figures where more BHP doesn't make up for poor handling and grip...
Maserati Quattroporte 4.2 V8 400 BHP Bedford West 1:28.35
BMW E60 M5 5.0 V10 500 BHP Bedford West 1:29.95
Ego bonus sum
GranCab said:
???? What a load of tosh .... 191 MPH is FASTER than 155 MPH
And harking back to EVO Magazine's figures where more BHP doesn't make up for poor handling and grip...
Maserati Quattroporte 4.2 V8 400 BHP Bedford West 1:28.35
BMW E60 M5 5.0 V10 500 BHP Bedford West 1:29.95
Ego bonus sum
Not saying you are wrong, but there will be variables within that test.And harking back to EVO Magazine's figures where more BHP doesn't make up for poor handling and grip...
Maserati Quattroporte 4.2 V8 400 BHP Bedford West 1:28.35
BMW E60 M5 5.0 V10 500 BHP Bedford West 1:29.95
Ego bonus sum
I have a collection of old EVO magazines, I will see if any are mentioned (e.g. was the Maserarti on fresh tires and the BMW not?)
ETA: I have no idea as to the accuracy of this website and the data, but it claims the Maserati Quattroporte S did a 1:43.70 at the Autozeitung test track, The BMW M5 is claimed to have done a 1:39.8
http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/autozeitung_test...
Also this EVO test has a different Quattroporte lap time to the one you stated:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2427...
Edited by BeirutTaxi on Thursday 13th December 16:51
BT - I'm sure there were and still are variables in such exercises - but the point I was trying to make is that the QP made damn good use of 400BHP whereas the M5 less so of its 500 BHP. This point was mentioned in another gassing topic - citing the Top Gear test on the I.O.M. of the old M6
GranCab said:
kambites said:
So the performance of the new QP will be significantly worse than the M6 saloon then? Even if BMW are being wildly optimistic and Maserati wildly pessimistic, the'll be about the same.
???? What a load of tosh .... 191 MPH is FASTER than 155 MPH 
And when was the last time you drove a road car above 155mph anyway? I'd be genuinely surprised if the QP was a faster car than the M6. It might well be a better car, but not a faster one.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 13th December 16:51
stuart-b said:
With some upgrades, over 800+ bhp ?
Bigger turbos required, which will make it laggy. 502lbft available from 1500rpm is very impressive for a petrol turbo and should make the big beast feel quite lively I must admit, I'm kind of lost in all this Mness these days. I knew where I was with an M3 and an M5.
justa1972 said:
Shock horror - another mahoosive fugly BMW - Seriously who the hell looks at the final design and thinks - 'that looks great I'll sign it off' ?
Probably someone who knows how the Chinese like their cars to look in all honesty. They quite like the garish over there and that is probably who will be buying it.GranCab said:
BT - I'm sure there were and still are variables in such exercises - but the point I was trying to make is that the QP made damn good use of 400BHP whereas the M5 less so of its 500 BHP. This point was mentioned in another gassing topic - citing the Top Gear test on the I.O.M. of the old M6
Fair point, although lets not forget the price difference of the two, The E60 M5 was £65k base, the Maserati was £80k. Not to mention the difference in servicing costs.I don't doubt the Maserati's abilities, however for what the M5 can deliver for it's price, it is good value. Given the significant price difference, I would expect the Quattroporte to be the better engineered car.
Is one better than the other? Well one maybe offers a better handling package, the other a more powerful engine. I think it's just a case of what you prefer in a car.
I'm not going to argue on the styling or classy ambience, it's not a contest. Not even slightly.
Edited by BeirutTaxi on Thursday 13th December 17:03
Really, a company brings out a very fast, potent, good looking model and everyone moans. What is the alternative?
A company DOESN'T bring out a fast, potent, good looking new model but instead stays with a small model range assuming that one size fits all for everyone. So, people complain that "why can't they bring out a touring? i think I'll wait for the 2 door, thanks. I don't understand why they only do a 5 door model." etc etc.
No choice = bad.
Choice = bad.
Lots of models = bad.
Selling lots of cars = bad.
Selling not enough cars = bad
I can't see why a car company with a smaller range, and actively restricting its market, is a good thing, Smaller PV funding and R&D, higher UPC, longer times between model facelifts / upgrades to stretch out development costs, etc etc.
And those lamenting the weight, perhaps BMW isn't the marque for you any more? But, thanks to the wonderful thing called choice, there are surely other manufacturers catering for your specific mix of powertrain / weight / cost. But you probably won't buy it, because you only buy used anyway.
A company DOESN'T bring out a fast, potent, good looking new model but instead stays with a small model range assuming that one size fits all for everyone. So, people complain that "why can't they bring out a touring? i think I'll wait for the 2 door, thanks. I don't understand why they only do a 5 door model." etc etc.
No choice = bad.
Choice = bad.
Lots of models = bad.
Selling lots of cars = bad.
Selling not enough cars = bad
I can't see why a car company with a smaller range, and actively restricting its market, is a good thing, Smaller PV funding and R&D, higher UPC, longer times between model facelifts / upgrades to stretch out development costs, etc etc.
And those lamenting the weight, perhaps BMW isn't the marque for you any more? But, thanks to the wonderful thing called choice, there are surely other manufacturers catering for your specific mix of powertrain / weight / cost. But you probably won't buy it, because you only buy used anyway.
arcticnick said:
Really, a company brings out a very fast, potent, good looking model and everyone moans. What is the alternative?
A company DOESN'T bring out a fast, potent, good looking new model but instead stays with a small model range assuming that one size fits all for everyone. So, people complain that "why can't they bring out a touring? i think I'll wait for the 2 door, thanks. I don't understand why they only do a 5 door model." etc etc.
No choice = bad.
Choice = bad.
Lots of models = bad.
Selling lots of cars = bad.
Selling not enough cars = bad
I can't see why a car company with a smaller range, and actively restricting its market, is a good thing, Smaller PV funding and R&D, higher UPC, longer times between model facelifts / upgrades to stretch out development costs, etc etc.
And those lamenting the weight, perhaps BMW isn't the marque for you any more? But, thanks to the wonderful thing called choice, there are surely other manufacturers catering for your specific mix of powertrain / weight / cost. But you probably won't buy it, because you only buy used anyway.
BMW are currently in the lead when it comes to global sales of luxury cars. They've just overtaken Mercedes and Audi. So clearly their strategy of fragmenting the line-up (inc M cars) is working.A company DOESN'T bring out a fast, potent, good looking new model but instead stays with a small model range assuming that one size fits all for everyone. So, people complain that "why can't they bring out a touring? i think I'll wait for the 2 door, thanks. I don't understand why they only do a 5 door model." etc etc.
No choice = bad.
Choice = bad.
Lots of models = bad.
Selling lots of cars = bad.
Selling not enough cars = bad
I can't see why a car company with a smaller range, and actively restricting its market, is a good thing, Smaller PV funding and R&D, higher UPC, longer times between model facelifts / upgrades to stretch out development costs, etc etc.
And those lamenting the weight, perhaps BMW isn't the marque for you any more? But, thanks to the wonderful thing called choice, there are surely other manufacturers catering for your specific mix of powertrain / weight / cost. But you probably won't buy it, because you only buy used anyway.
People on PH moan because that's who we are. A bunch of moaning b
ds!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff