[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Not only subjective but also very limited.
The m3 only came around in the mid 80's and bmw is far far older than that.
The've raced the 2002 extensively, the e9 (Csl) was very succesful etc etc
The 'm3' only made the reputation because they call certain cars m3 over and over again; it's now the fifth generation, but all those cars have nothing in common except the name. So if a car built the reputation, which M3 specifically do you mean?
The interweb tales probably say the e30 was the most succesful, but in which class etc? probably a fact copied out of some old book because the production numbers of the e30 m3 were very low.

I don't know about being the most successful, but the e30's success in various racing organizations, and its introduction to the American market, in the 80's played a huge role in establishing BMW as a landmark car company.

When I say BMW's M3 has a racing pedigree, I mean all of the m3's starting with the e30 (with the exception of the current m3/m4). The e46, e36 and e30 that were raced in many organizations, the e92's race-inspired s65. It's pretty commonly accepted that BMW's M3's have strong connection to racing (even outside of the interweb gossip circles).

Again not saying it was the only car that brought success to BMW, but IMO it was the one that earned BMW its reputation and pedigree.

[Law]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I don't know about being the most successful, but the e30's success in various racing organizations, and its introduction to the American market, in the 80's played a huge role in establishing BMW as a landmark car company.

When I say BMW's M3 has a racing pedigree, I mean all of the m3's starting with the e30 (with the exception of the current m3/m4). The e46, e36 and e30 that were raced in many organizations, the e92's race-inspired s65. It's pretty commonly accepted that BMW's M3's have strong connection to racing (even outside of the interweb gossip circles).

Again not saying it was the only car that brought success to BMW, but IMO it was the one that earned BMW its reputation and pedigree.

Again, the "landmark" moment that you speak of happened with the 2002, not the E30 M3.
I don't think anyone here is confused or denies the "M3" nameplate's heritage. The only reason why we're having this discussion is due to your claim where the M6 lacks racing heritage...

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Still, it's kind of disappointing. The M6 traditionally never had a racing heritage whereas the M3 did.

...a claim which has been proven false.
Just take the history lesson and move on. We already know how great the M3 is, this is an BMW forum after all.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Again not saying it was the only car that brought success to BMW, but IMO it was the one that earned BMW its reputation and pedigree.

So then you're just not really familiar with bmw's history, that's all.
BMW already was a very succesfull racing brand before the mid 80's...

you're probably also not familiar with the batmobile then.
I dont think the e30 m3 won anything bmw hadnt already won before in the old world

[M6Pilot]

before i bought my M6 the cars i was comparing to were the corvette zo6, AMG GTS, porsche 911, and AMG E63. Aren't most of those in this race class?

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Law

Again, the "landmark" moment that you speak of happened with the 2002, not the E30 M3.
I don't think anyone here is confused or denies the "M3" nameplate's heritage. The only reason why we're having this discussion is due to your claim where the M6 lacks racing heritage...



...a claim which has been proven false.
Just take the history lesson and move on. We already know how great the M3 is, this is an BMW forum after all.

How many M6 variants have been used for racing versus how many m3 variants have been used for racing by BMW and private teams?

I don't think the M3 got the popularity that it did simply due to its name.

I'm not saying the M6 hasn't been used to race, I'm saying the M3 was the more popular platform for racing. And that aside, today's M6 is vastly different from yesterday's. The size of this new car is enormous compared to what it was 10-15 years ago. I understand the M6's bigger displacement engine might account for some advantage vs other platforms in BMW's inventory, but the handling has got to be a disadvantage of sorts for a car that size.

[GuidoK]

635csi in race trim (so virtually an M6 avant la lettre) won the dtm before the e30 m3 did.

Also the size itself doesnt have to be a problem. Look at how big an f1 car is! wheel base and track widht are much bigger than the m6
And the m6 only has 4cm longer wheel base and 1cm more track width in the rear compared to the current M4. Surely that wont be a problem? (compared to almost a foot with a f1 car comparison )
The difference isnt that big with the m4. Weight is, but that has more to do with wheel size, brake size, interior, luxury etc, so stuff you wont find in a race car.
And the M6 GT3 has almost nothing in common with a regular 6 series as I already wrote. Even the whole suspenion priciples are different, so underneath it looks absolutely nothing alike. Just like the e89 GT3 had nothing in common with the e89 z4.

I dont think the choice for the m6 has anything to do with the physical properties of the car, but it's more regulations (v8 equipped road car must be present), and maybe marketing. They already use an m4 (sort of) look a like in DTM.

[Law]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

How many M6 variants have been used for racing versus how many m3 variants have been used for racing by BMW and private teams?

I don't think the M3 got the popularity that it did simply due to its name.

Huh? Have you been paying attention at all?
Do you remember what you've been saying?

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Still, it's kind of disappointing. The M6 traditionally never had a racing heritage whereas the M3 did.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

My point was that the M3 is the car that built BMW's reputation on the circuits and on the street.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

the e30's success in various racing organizations, and its introduction to the American market, in the 80's played a huge role in establishing BMW as a landmark car company.

Again,
The M6 was racking up victories left and right before the existence of the E30 M3.
If you want to talk about "tradition" and "landmark" moments, as well as "establishing BMW as a brand" per your previous posts, it happened well before the E30 M3. Ever heard of the 3.0 CSL? How about the 2002? There's a lot more to BMW heritage and tradition than the M3.
What you've been saying the entire time is that BMW's racing program and brand image weren't mature before the E30, which is absurd. BMW was well established in racing and known for great street cars well before the E30 M3.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I'm not saying the M6 hasn't been used to race, I'm saying the M3 was the more popular platform for racing.

Yes you are...when you say the M6 "never had a racing heritage".

Originally Posted by Dalko43

And that aside, today's M6 is vastly different from yesterday's. The size of this new car is enormous compared to what it was 10-15 years ago.

And the F82 M4 is so vastly similar to the E30 M3 because...? They don't even share a namesake.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I understand the M6's bigger displacement engine might account for some advantage vs other platforms in BMW's inventory, but the handling has got to be a disadvantage of sorts for a car that size.

Having a versatile engine that won't blow up mid-race is not just "some advantage", it's the difference between life & death in racing.

[RSBro]

I boil it down to:

it's their flagship ///M car
4.4L TT V8
it's their flagship ///M car
they can

I don't understand why it's a problem for some anyway. If I had the funds I would take an M6 all day over an M4. Especially in Gran Coupe form... just, zomg.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

How many M6 variants have been used for racing versus how many m3 variants have been used for racing by BMW and private teams?

I don't think the M3 got the popularity that it did simply due to its name.

I'm not saying the M6 hasn't been used to race, I'm saying the M3 was the more popular platform for racing. And that aside, today's M6 is vastly different from yesterday's. The size of this new car is enormous compared to what it was 10-15 years ago. I understand the M6's bigger displacement engine might account for some advantage vs other platforms in BMW's inventory, but the handling has got to be a disadvantage of sorts for a car that size.

You're all over the map dude. You started out asking a question, then somewhere along the line, you transitioned in to this weird rhetorical thing where you keep moving the goal posts. Did you mean to make a statement, rather than ask a question? Because it sounds an awful lot like you think BMW should have used the M4 as the basis for their GT3 race car.

There's some fantastic information in this thread, and it only touches the tip of the iceberg when it comes to BMW's racing heritage, not to mention the very clear answers to some of your other questions. For example you seem to be rhetorically suggesting that BMW could have just dropped the S63 in the M4 if the S55 wasn't an option. When you get clear answers as to why that can't happen, you switch your line of questioning.

Take a step back and figure out what you're really asking, or if you're even asking a question at all.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Law

Again,
The M6 was racking up victories left and right before the existence of the E30 M3.
If you want to talk about "tradition" and "landmark" moments, as well as "establishing BMW as a brand" per your previous posts, it happened well before the E30 M3. Ever heard of the 3.0 CSL? How about the 2002? There's a lot more to BMW heritage and tradition than the M3.
What you've been saying the entire time is that BMW's racing program and brand image weren't mature before the E30, which is absurd. BMW was well established in racing and known for great street cars well before the E30 M3.

Fine, I short-changed the early variants of the M6 and other BMW models. But over the last 15-20 years, which of the two (between the M6 and M3) has been used more extensively and has seen more racing success?

In the recent past (the last 15-20 years) BMW, and 3rd party teams, have relied heavily on variants of the e36, e46 and e92 m3's for racing in ALMS (now IMSA) and the various European and other regional circuits/groups.

Before that, the historic e30 was widely recognized for dominating the touring car racing scene, in Europe and abroad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3...tion_accolades

Are you really going to pretend that the recent versions of the M6 (E63,F12) come anywhere close to matching those accolades and pedigrees?

Originally Posted by Law

And the F82 M4 is so vastly similar to the E30 M3 because...? They don't even share a namesake.

The F82 M4 is vastly different from the e30, as is to be expected when comparing a modern car to a 30 year old one. The namesake difference is purely the result of arbitrary naming conventions used by BMW.

My main point was that the modern day M6 is a big boat, even compared to the M3/M4 platform, and certainly its size is less than ideal for the technical road courses that are prevalent in endurance sports car racing.

You don't see Chevy racing its Impalla in IMSA, nor do you see Porsche racing its Panamera in IMSA...that's for a reason.

BMW is racing a version (albeit heavily modified) of a luxury sedan, while Porsche and Chevy, among others, are racing platforms based off of dedicated sports cars.

Originally Posted by Law

Having a versatile engine that won't blow up mid-race is not just "some advantage", it's the difference between life & death in racing.

I've already acknowledged that the M6's engine offers a solid foundation for racing work. To be fair though, I'm not aware of anyone trying to modify a S55 for hardcore race use, so its not like we can really discuss its merits, or lackthereof, in that kind of environment.


Listen, you can keep harping all you want on my ignorance when it comes to BMW's early racing years.

The intent behind this thread wasn't to argue about history, it was to discuss the reason why BMW chose the M6 over other, seemingly more practical platforms, like the M3/M4 and Z4 for IMSA racing. I acknowledge the M6's S63 offers its own unique advantages, but outside of that, I'm somewhat mystified why BMW is trying to race a M6 against more race-oriented platforms like Corvettes and 911's.

[TBN54]

Chose the M6 simply because there is no M9.

[Law]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Fine, I short-changed the early variants of the M6 and other BMW models. But over the last 15-20 years, which of the two (between the M6 and M3) has been used more extensively and has seen more racing success?

In the recent past (the last 15-20 years) BMW, and 3rd party teams, have relied heavily on variants of the e36, e46 and e92 m3's for racing in ALMS (now IMSA) and the various European and other regional circuits/groups.

Before that, the historic e30 was widely recognized for dominating the touring car racing scene, in Europe and abroad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3...tion_accolades

Are you really going to pretend that the recent versions of the M6 (E63,F12) come anywhere close to matching those accolades and pedigrees?

Okay look, cute Wikipedia link, but you're spewing a bunch of crap about the E30 M3 that everyone already knows while failing to strengthen your argument.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

The F82 M4 is vastly different from the e30, as is to be expected when comparing a modern car to a 30 year old one. The namesake difference is purely the result of arbitrary naming conventions used by BMW.

You're really contradicting yourself here. On one hand, you're saying the "M3" nameplate has such a long and successful history while discrediting the "M6" nameplate.
On the other, you're saying that the modern cars are vastly different and that namesakes such as "M4" are arbitrary.

So which is it? Because the entire time you've been arguing about how the "M3" name has so much pedigree that it should partially justify why BMW shouldn't race an M6.

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

My main point was that the modern day M6 is a big boat, even compared to the M3/M4 platform, and certainly its size is less than ideal for the technical road courses that are prevalent in endurance sports car racing.

You don't see Chevy racing its Impalla in IMSA, nor do you see Porsche racing its Panamera in IMSA...that's for a reason.

LOL WUT...
You're still not getting it...the importance of drivetrain and engine configuration in the homologation process of GT racing.
Chevy doesn't race the Impala in GT racing because it would mean homologating the Impala's drivetrain, a FWD transverse V6 at best.
Porsche's racing high-strung flat-6 engines are homologated based on...**newsflash** flat-6 engines.
I don't ever recall seeing a Panamera with a flat-6 engine so your point here is completely irrelevant.

BMW, then, chose the M6 for its engine, 4.4L V8, which for all the reasons already discussed and acknowledged in this thread, is a better choice than a 3.0L I-6.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

BMW is racing a version (albeit heavily modified) of a luxury sedan, while Porsche and Chevy, among others, are racing platforms based off of dedicated sports cars.

BMW's touring cars have mostly been based on sedan platforms.
Mind you, even the M3 and M4 are/were sedan platforms.
You want to talk about the success and pedigree of BMW in racing? Its touring cars...based on sedans

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I've already acknowledged that the M6's engine offers a solid foundation for racing work. To be fair though, I'm not aware of anyone trying to modify a S55 for hardcore race use, so its not like we can really discuss its merits, or lackthereof, in that kind of environment.

Listen, you can keep harping all you want on my ignorance when it comes to BMW's early racing years.

The intent behind this thread wasn't to argue about history, it was to discuss the reason why BMW chose the M6 over other, seemingly more practical platforms, like the M3/M4 and Z4 for IMSA racing. I acknowledge the M6's S63 offers its own unique advantages, but outside of that, I'm somewhat mystified why BMW is trying to race a M6 against more race-oriented platforms like Corvettes and 911's.

The answers to your question were presented long ago on page one.
Yet, you won't accept the answers presented.

bradleyland is right to question your objective here.
You didn't get the answer you wanted to hear so you keep fishing for it.

[SunnyD]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

BMW is racing a version (albeit heavily modified) of a luxury sedan, while Porsche and Chevy, among others, are racing platforms based off of dedicated sports cars.

But the M3 has never been a dedicated sports car either...

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

The intent behind this thread wasn't to argue about history, it was to discuss the reason why BMW chose the M6 over other, seemingly more practical platforms, like the M3/M4 and Z4 for IMSA racing. I acknowledge the M6's S63 offers its own unique advantages, but outside of that, I'm somewhat mystified why BMW is trying to race a M6 against more race-oriented platforms like Corvettes and 911's.

If you really want to understand why they M6 was chosen, you can ignore all the racing heritage stuff. That is, by my perception, just you trying to justify that the M4 should have been their choice. Personally, I'd agree with you. I'd rather see the M4 racing in the IMSA series, because I'm just not that big a fan of the current M6.

That's just my preference though. The difference between my preference and reality is that there are quantifiable reasons why the M6 was chosen, and I acknowledge those reasons. I'm going to list them (again) below. These are facts. They're not opinions. They can't be disputed. They're just facts.

Fact 1: The weight of the production M6 is irrelevant in the IMSA SportsCar Championship series. The minimum weight of the cars is part of the GT3 spec. Manufacturers are free to strip the cars down replace parts with CF to the minimum weight threshold. All the manufacturers do this.

Now you can argue that the car is dimensionally larger, but dimensions don't have that much of an impact. Any difference in frontal area and Cd are minor compared to the impact of the aero package. We're talking fractions of a percentage point in the context of GTLM car aero.

Fact 2: Current homologation requirements would require BMW to run the 3.0L S55 block as a base for their racing engine. This would have given them the smallest displacement engine in the entire series by 500cc. The example of the S65 in the Z4 is an exception, not the rule. The regulations were "fixed" after BMW managed to homologate the Z4, so they couldn't simply shoehorn the P63 in to the M4.

Could BMW have raced with a 3.0L I6tt engine package? Sure. The P63 produces up to 585 HP though, and it is designed to do so for 24 hours on end. Lap after lap, after lap. To do the same with just 3.0L of displacement would have been a lot more expensive. The M6 is actually less expensive than the Z4 GT3. That's important if you want GT racing to grow. Other manufacturers are chasing the same trend. Porsche's latest GT3 spec 911 is less expensive too. Gotta keep up.

At the end of the day, the M6 isn't the GT car I wanted to see from BMW, but I looked for answers and I found them. I've shared those answers with you. If you still think that the M4 would have made a "better" GT car, then that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but the facts I've outlined above make it really hard to build a solid rational argument against the M6.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Law

Okay look, cute Wikipedia link, but you're spewing a bunch of crap about the E30 M3 that everyone already knows while failing to strengthen your argument.

You know what's even more cute? The fact that you never answered my question: How many races have the recent M6 platforms (E63, F12) been used in vs the # of races that the recent M3 platforms have been used in?

And if the all the stuff I'm spewing is utter "crap" how then does everyone else already know it? My points about the E30 and the other M3's racing histories are either true, and thus not "crap," or false and then thus "crap."

Originally Posted by Law

You're really contradicting yourself here. On one hand, you're saying the "M3" nameplate has such a long and successful history while discrediting the "M6" nameplate.
On the other, you're saying that the modern cars are vastly different and that namesakes such as "M4" are arbitrary.

So which is it? Because the entire time you've been arguing about how the "M3" name has so much pedigree that it should partially justify why BMW shouldn't race an M6.

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Changing the M3 coupe's name to "M4" was an arbitrary name change....everyone knows that the current M4 is the modern successor the earlier versions of the M3 coupe.

Modern cars all across the board are vastly different from the older ones you and I were referencing. But I don't see the modern M6 as ideal as a racing platform as a Corvette or 911 for all the reasons previously mentioned.

Originally Posted by Law

LOL WUT...
You're still not getting it...the importance of drivetrain and engine configuration in the homologation process of GT racing.
Chevy doesn't race the Impala in GT racing because it would mean homologating the Impala's drivetrain, a FWD transverse V6 at best.
Porsche's racing high-strung flat-6 engines are homologated based on...**newsflash** flat-6 engines.
I don't ever recall seeing a Panamera with a flat-6 engine so your point here is completely irrelevant.

BMW, then, chose the M6 for its engine, 4.4L V8, which for all the reasons already discussed and acknowledged in this thread, is a better choice than a 3.0L I-6.

No, you don't get it.

Chevy didn't choose the Corvette as a starting point simply because it had a more ideal engine and drivetrain, as there have been other Sedans in the GM family that have had very similar powertrains as the Corvette lineup (Cadillac CTS-V).

Similarly, Porsche hasn't been using the 911 all this time, just because of its flat 6. After all, the Panamera's 4.8l V8 would offer pretty much the same advantages that the M6's S63 does.

Both companies chose their current platforms because they presented better overall packages for racing (chassis, size, wheel base, balance, drivetrain, ect.).

The only reason that has been presented in regards to BMW choosing the M6 over the M4 is the larger displacement engine, which I acknowledge can be considered an advantage. But I've also pointed out that we've never seen anyone built up a race-oriented version of the S55, so it's not as if we have a direct comparison of the 2 engines (and overall platforms) in that application. Engine aside, I would think that BMW has a lot more obstacles to overcome in order to make the M6 into a semi-decent racing platform as compared to what Corvette and Porsche (among others) have to do to make their platforms race ready.

Originally Posted by Law

BMW's touring cars have mostly been based on sedan platforms.
Mind you, even the M3 and M4 are/were sedan platforms.
You want to talk about the success and pedigree of BMW in racing? Its touring cars...based on sedans

The answers to your question were presented long ago on page one.
Yet, you won't accept the answers presented.

bradleyland is right to question your objective here.
You didn't get the answer you wanted to hear so you keep fishing for it.

Yes, but BMW's racing has been based on smaller more nimble sedans, quite often ones that had similar footprint and size to contemporary sports car platforms.

FWIW's, most car enthusiasts consider the recent E46, E92, and F82 coupe platforms to be more sports car-like (or at least sports coupe-like) more than a sporty sedan.

But, yes, technically all of those coupe variants were based off of sedan versions. Again I ask you, are you really going to sit here and pretend that the F12 platform is just as ideal a platform as the M4 for track/race use?

How many races have the E63 and F12 M6's been used in vs how many the recent versions of the M3 have been used in? I think you already know the answer, but yet seem reluctant to say it.

Up to this point, there's a reason BMW, and other teams, have been using the smaller M3 platform for their racing applications.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

That's just my preference though. The difference between my preference and reality is that there are quantifiable reasons why the M6 was chosen, and I acknowledge those reasons. I'm going to list them (again) below. These are facts. They're not opinions. They can't be disputed. They're just facts.

Fact 1: The weight of the production M6 is irrelevant in the IMSA SportsCar Championship series. The minimum weight of the cars is part of the GT3 spec. Manufacturers are free to strip the cars down replace parts with CF to the minimum weight threshold. All the manufacturers do this.

Now you can argue that the car is dimensionally larger, but dimensions don't have that much of an impact. Any difference in frontal area and Cd are minor compared to the impact of the aero package. We're talking fractions of a percentage point in the context of GTLM car aero.

We are talking about GTLM as well, not just GT3 spec cars (GT3 falls within IMSA's GT-D semi-amateur class). But yes, I understand what you are saying about teams stripping out the weight. But if you are starting with a lighter platform to begin with (like the 911 or Corvette), then by comparison won't the M6 still be a bit heavier on the circuit even after the weight reduction?

I'm not following you on the dimensions aspect. I've heard that dimensions (wheel base, physical size/footprint, center of gravity, ect.) play a huge role especially in the technical, twisty road courses. If dimensions play no role, then what's to prevent a team from racing a heavily modified crossover SUV or a station wagon?

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Fact 2: Current homologation requirements would require BMW to run the 3.0L S55 block as a base for their racing engine. This would have given them the smallest displacement engine in the entire series by 500cc. The example of the S65 in the Z4 is an exception, not the rule. The regulations were "fixed" after BMW managed to homologate the Z4, so they couldn't simply shoehorn the P63 in to the M4.

Could BMW have raced with a 3.0L I6tt engine package? Sure. The P63 produces up to 585 HP though, and it is designed to do so for 24 hours on end. Lap after lap, after lap. To do the same with just 3.0L of displacement would have been a lot more expensive. The M6 is actually less expensive than the Z4 GT3. That's important if you want GT racing to grow. Other manufacturers are chasing the same trend. Porsche's latest GT3 spec 911 is less expensive too. Gotta keep up.

Where is your source for this (that the M4's engine development would have cost a lot more)? I agree that the M6's turbo v8 has its own advantages for racing, but have we seen anyone even attempt to make a racing-version of the S55? How do we know anything about its cost and/or reliability on the track?

I'm not surprised that the M6 platform costs less than the Z4 GT3; the Z4 was basically hodge-podge of components and had to built from scratch as they were not mass-producing Z4's (with the S65) for consumer sales (it was basically a unique custom built M-variant of the Z4). The real question is how much does the M6 cost relative to the E92 M3 GT3 GTLM or a notional M4 GT3 GTLM?

Originally Posted by bradleyland

At the end of the day, the M6 isn't the GT car I wanted to see from BMW, but I looked for answers and I found them. I've shared those answers with you. If you still think that the M4 would have made a "better" GT car, then that's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but the facts I've outlined above make it really hard to build a solid rational argument against the M6.

Where did you find some of these answers and facts? I've asked why the M6 was used in place of the M4. The answers you provided deal more with the inherent characteristics of the M6; much of what you say about the M4 is speculation and opinion, because, as stated before, we don't have a M4 racing platform to compare the M6 to.

[Dalko43]

Back to my original post, am I the only one here who regularly watches the IMSA races?

Some people here on this forum act as if my question and skepticism is sacrilegious to the BMW cult.

I've watched the M6's in GTLM and GTD. They simply look big and bulky going around the corners compared to the other cars, and the commentators and analysts have made note of that.

Granted Turner's M6 in GTD is currently at 4th place, we'll see if they can maintain or improve that standing. But the BMW team in GTLM hasn't been doing nearly as well.

[Law]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

You know what's even more cute? The fact that you never answered my question: How many races have the recent M6 platforms (E63, F12) been used in vs the # of races that the recent M3 platforms have been used in?

And if the all the stuff I'm spewing is utter "crap" how then does everyone else already know it? My points about the E30 and the other M3's racing histories are either true, and thus not "crap," or false and then thus "crap."

Changing the M3 coupe's name to "M4" was an arbitrary name change....everyone knows that the current M4 is the modern successor the earlier versions of the M3 coupe.

Modern cars all across the board are vastly different from the older ones you and I were referencing. But I don't see the modern M6 as ideal as a racing platform as a Corvette or 911 for all the reasons previously mentioned.

No, you don't get it.

Chevy didn't choose the Corvette as a starting point simply because it had a more ideal engine and drivetrain, as there have been other Sedans in the GM family that have had very similar powertrains as the Corvette lineup (Cadillac CTS-V).

Similarly, Porsche hasn't been using the 911 all this time, just because of its flat 6. After all, the Panamera's 4.8l V8 would offer pretty much the same advantages that the M6's S63 does.

Both companies chose their current platforms because they presented better overall packages for racing (chassis, size, wheel base, balance, drivetrain, ect.).

The only reason that has been presented in regards to BMW choosing the M6 over the M4 is the larger displacement engine, which I acknowledge can be considered an advantage. But I've also pointed out that we've never seen anyone built up a race-oriented version of the S55, so it's not as if we have a direct comparison of the 2 engines (and overall platforms) in that application. Engine aside, I would think that BMW has a lot more obstacles to overcome in order to make the M6 into a semi-decent racing platform as compared to what Corvette and Porsche (among others) have to do to make their platforms race ready.

Yes, but BMW's racing has been based on smaller more nimble sedans, quite often ones that had similar footprint and size to contemporary sports car platforms.

FWIW's, most car enthusiasts consider the recent E46, E92, and F82 coupe platforms to be more sports car-like (or at least sports coupe-like) more than a sporty sedan.

But, yes, technically all of those coupe variants were based off of sedan versions. Again I ask you, are you really going to sit here and pretend that the F12 platform is just as ideal a platform as the M4 for track/race use?

How many races have the E63 and F12 M6's been used in vs how many the recent versions of the M3 have been used in? I think you already know the answer, but yet seem reluctant to say it.

Up to this point, there's a reason BMW, and other teams, have been using the smaller M3 platform for their racing applications.

We are talking about GTLM as well, not just GT3 spec cars (GT3 falls within IMSA's GT-D semi-amateur class). But yes, I understand what you are saying about teams stripping out the weight. But if you are starting with a lighter platform to begin with (like the 911 or Corvette), then by comparison won't the M6 still be a bit heavier on the circuit even after the weight reduction?

I'm not following you on the dimensions aspect. I've heard that dimensions (wheel base, physical size/footprint, center of gravity, ect.) play a huge role especially in the technical, twisty road courses. If dimensions play no role, then what's to prevent a team from racing a heavily modified crossover SUV or a station wagon?

Where is your source for this (that the M4's engine development would have cost a lot more)? I agree that the M6's turbo v8 has its own advantages for racing, but have we seen anyone even attempt to make a racing-version of the S55? How do we know anything about its cost and/or reliability on the track?

I'm not surprised that the M6 platform costs less than the Z4 GT3; the Z4 was basically hodge-podge of components and had to built from scratch as they were not mass-producing Z4's (with the S65) for consumer sales (it was basically a unique custom built M-variant of the Z4). The real question is how much does the M6 cost relative to the E92 M3 GT3 GTLM or a notional M4 GT3 GTLM?

Where did you find some of these answers and facts? I've asked why the M6 was used in place of the M4. The answers you provided deal more with the inherent characteristics of the M6; much of what you say about the M4 is speculation and opinion, because, as stated before, we don't have a M4 racing platform to compare the M6 to.

Just stop.
All the answers were given to you time and again beginning on the first page.
You're acting like a child. Stop embarrassing yourself

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Law

Just stop.
All the answers were given to you time and again beginning on the first page.
You're acting like a child. Stop embarrassing yourself

The more your posts devolve into childish, sophomoric insults, the more I begin to suspect that you watch very little, if any, IMSA or sports car endurance racing.

This very issue has been brought up and discussed on air during some of these races.

Also, feel free to stop side-stepping my question and actually answer it: How many races have the recent M6 versions (E63, F12) been used in vs how many the recent M3 platforms have been used in?

[Law]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

The more your posts devolve into childish, sophomoric insults, the more I begin to suspect that you watch very little, if any, IMSA or sports car endurance racing.

This very issue has been brought up and discussed on air during some of these races.

Also, feel free to stop side-stepping my question and actually answer it: How many races have the recent M6 versions (E63, F12) been used in vs how many the recent M3 platforms have been used in?

How is that question relevant to why BMW chose the M6?
BMW Motorsport doesn't sit around and say "hey guys, which namesake has won the most titles? Let's race that one!"
They choose whatever platform is the best suited overall at the time.
The E63 M6 wasn't chosen because the S65/E9X M3 provided an ample platform at the time and BMW was later able to use a loophole to merge the drivetrain with a modified E89 chassis.
As for the F12, it is currently in use.

Look, you seem mad that BMW chose the M6 instead of your beloved "M3" platform.
Everyone else on this thread has already gave you pretty much every single reason why BMW went this route.
Precisely because racing the S55B30 would be a liability (as aforementioned infinite times on this thread) compared to the S63.
The M3/4 is not produced with an S63, hence, by default the M6 is chosen.
What part of that concept is so hard to grasp?

All your other bickering is childish yes.
Because everything else you've talked about has little relevance to BMW's decision to go with the M6.
They can care less about which nameplate has more historical winning titles in their decision-making; BMW is trying to win races going forward, not in retrospect.
But even in the M6, those who are knowledgeable about BMW racing history know that the M6 story began long before the M3. Its something you just learned on this thread, so you're welcome.
BMW Motorsport is in it to win races and they chose their best available platform & that's the end of it.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

We are talking about GTLM as well, not just GT3 spec cars (GT3 falls within IMSA's GT-D semi-amateur class). But yes, I understand what you are saying about teams stripping out the weight. But if you are starting with a lighter platform to begin with (like the 911 or Corvette), then by comparison won't the M6 still be a bit heavier on the circuit even after the weight reduction?

It doesn't matter if we're talking about GTLM, GTE, GTD, or GT3. They're all homologation race cars with minimum weight requirements. I lump them together as "GT cars", because GTLM, GTE, GTD, GT3, whatever all use conceptually similar regulations. You can get all pedantic about which regulations we're referring to, but none of that refutes the actual fact, which I will restate again below.

The weight of the production car is irrelevant, because they manufacturers are easily able to hit the weight targets using composite components. These days, GT cars contain massive amounts of carbon fiber.

Fire up a search engine some time. It's elucidating.

IMSA "Classes" page states:

GTLM WEIGHT: 2,745 minimum
GTD WEIGHT: 2,700 pounds

From there, BoP may add mass to cars based on their performance relative to competitors.

There is no problem at all getting a race version of the M6 down to those weight targets, and even if the cars don't hit those targets, BoP makes up the difference. Even if BMW started with an i3, they'd have to meet weight minimums, and BoP would be applied to bring it in line with the rest of the cars in that spec. So again, the production car weight is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I'm not following you on the dimensions aspect. I've heard that dimensions (wheel base, physical size/footprint, center of gravity, ect.) play a huge role especially in the technical, twisty road courses. If dimensions play no role, then what's to prevent a team from racing a heavily modified crossover SUV or a station wagon?

Dimensions do play a role, but if you listen to all the hype, commentary during races, etc, they all play up the longer wheelbase of the M6 as an advantage because it's more stable. The only race where it was a "concern" was at Long Beach, because the course is kind of tight in areas. It's all hype to me though, because none of it makes that much of a difference.

The cars are all regulated and BoP'd to within a few tenths of each other. Winning and losing on race day comes down to strategy (fuel, pitting, etc), reliability, and gaming the system (knowing when to put on your best performance, and when not to). The best teams are the teams that balance all these equally. BMW is currently failing (primarily) at reliability and strategy. Tangentially, I'm not sure the M4 would have fixed either of these.

Think of it this way, if the car you started with mattered, the Ferrari teams would be wiping the floor with the M6 by wide margins on every lap, because the 488 is such a vastly superior car in stock form, yet the top M6 qualified better than the top 488 at Daytona, Sebring, and Long Beach.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Where is your source for this (that the M4's engine development would have cost a lot more)? I agree that the M6's turbo v8 has its own advantages for racing, but have we seen anyone even attempt to make a racing-version of the S55? How do we know anything about its cost and/or reliability on the track?

I don't need a citation, it's simple thermodynamics. The larger the displacement, the more power you can make (all things being equal). The displacement of the S55 is 15% smaller than any other car in the series, and is 46% smaller than the P63. It costs money to make up that deficit. When you stress components more, you have to use more expensive materials. I also didn't say "a lot" more; I only said more, because obviously we don't have any real world examples to work from.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I'm not surprised that the M6 platform costs less than the Z4 GT3; the Z4 was basically hodge-podge of components and had to built from scratch as they were not mass-producing Z4's (with the S65) for consumer sales (it was basically a unique custom built M-variant of the Z4). The real question is how much does the M6 cost relative to the E92 M3 GT3 GTLM or a notional M4 GT3 GTLM?

That's a great question. Why don't you fire up a search engine for once and provide some answers. Be sure to adjust for inflation. Please also share any methodology you use to arrive at a hypothetical M4 GT3/GTLM price.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Where did you find some of these answers and facts? I've asked why the M6 was used in place of the M4. The answers you provided deal more with the inherent characteristics of the M6; much of what you say about the M4 is speculation and opinion, because, as stated before, we don't have a M4 racing platform to compare the M6 to.

I've provided two core facts, both of which stand on their own.

1) The weight of the production car is irrelevant.
2) The M6 platform has a larger engine displacement from which BMW Motorsport can build from.

It is from this that we can draw very reasonable conclusions, but ultimately, it is speculation. The only people who can really answer your question are BMW, and they won't go on record (for obvious reasons). But you don't seem to want an answer to your question. You want to make an assertion. I wish you would just come out and say it:

"I think the M4 would have made a better racing platform."

To which I would say, " OK." Outside of the displacement issue, I don't disagree with you. I've already said once that I'd have rather seen an M4 GT car than an M6, but that's not what we got.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

It doesn't matter if we're talking about GTLM, GTE, GTD, or GT3. They're all homologation race cars with minimum weight requirements. I lump them together as "GT cars", because GTLM, GTE, GTD, GT3, whatever all use conceptually similar regulations. You can get all pedantic about which regulations we're referring to, but none of that refutes the actual fact, which I will restate again below.

The weight of the production car is irrelevant, because they manufacturers are easily able to hit the weight targets using composite components. These days, GT cars contain massive amounts of carbon fiber.

Fire up a search engine some time. It's elucidating.

IMSA "Classes" page states:

GTLM WEIGHT: 2,745 minimum
GTD WEIGHT: 2,700 pounds

From there, BoP may add mass to cars based on their performance relative to competitors.

There is no problem at all getting a race version of the M6 down to those weight targets, and even if the cars don't hit those targets, BoP makes up the difference. Even if BMW started with an i3, they'd have to meet weight minimums, and BoP would be applied to bring it in line with the rest of the cars in that spec. So again, the production car weight is irrelevant.

The GTLM weight you listed is the minimum weight, so theoretically cars could be somewhat higher than that. BMW lists their GTLM m6 at ~2756lbs, empty, so they aren't far off from that. My comment on that specific issue was a question more than anything else, so I now understand the weight and BoP issues which you brought up.

BTW, BMW themselves did an interesting writeup on both their GT3 and GTLM platforms: http://www.bmw-motorsport.com/en/cars/bmw-m6-gtlm.html

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Dimensions do play a role, but if you listen to all the hype, commentary during races, etc, they all play up the longer wheelbase of the M6 as an advantage because it's more stable. The only race where it was a "concern" was at Long Beach, because the course is kind of tight in areas. It's all hype to me though, because none of it makes that much of a difference.

Well, that's why I started this post: to discuss the decision behind using the M6 and whether certain commentary was hype or legitimate analysis. The longer wheel base of the M6 was noted as a possible issue in a previous race, not just Long Beach, because I remember the commentators mentioning it (I believe it was the 12 hours of Sebring). And I wouldn't be surprised if it was brought up again for Sahlen's 6 hours of the Glen and LimeRock. That's the thing about traditional road courses; they tend to have tight turns and corners.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

The cars are all regulated and BoP'd to within a few tenths of each other. Winning and losing on race day comes down to strategy (fuel, pitting, etc), reliability, and gaming the system (knowing when to put on your best performance, and when not to). The best teams are the teams that balance all these equally. BMW is currently failing (primarily) at reliability and strategy. Tangentially, I'm not sure the M4 would have fixed either of these.

1) Strategy and reliability and playing the "game" no doubt play a part, and BoP tries to emphasize driver and team performance and strategy over simply letting the richest, best supported team dominate the series (as is the case in certain other racing organizations). But the engines, transmissions, chassis setup and the overall vehicle design still play a huge role in determining how cars perform. BoP might make the performance seem nearly equal on paper, but do you really think that the M6 GTLM handles and drives the same, or even similarly, to the older Z4 GTLM? Or to the C7.R GTLM or 911 GTLM? All of the driver interviews and commentary I've seen and read suggests that despite the BoP regulations, there is quite a bit of difference between how the different cars actually perform and handle on the track. I remember watching video where the old Z4 GTLM's high-reving V8 had trouble keeping up with the C7.R on transitions from certain corners into straight-aways because its peaky power delivery was vastly different from that of C7.R's push-rod V8. Just one example, I know, but hopefully you see what I am getting at.

2) I'm not sure that the M4 platform would have solved any of BMW's current issues either. My only reason for questioning the use of the M6, was because, engine aside, it seems like a lot more work is required to get such a big car ready for GTLM and GT3 use.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Think of it this way, if the car you started with mattered, the Ferrari teams would be wiping the floor with the M6 by wide margins on every lap, because the 488 is such a vastly superior car in stock form, yet the top M6 qualified better than the top 488 at Daytona, Sebring, and Long Beach.

I agree that BoP equalizes some things, but I still think the inherent characteristics and pro's/con's of each car/setup play some measurable role in determining how the different teams and manufacturers perform. It's not purely about the strategy and driver skill, in the same way that something like NASCAR or DTM are.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I don't need a citation, it's simple thermodynamics. The larger the displacement, the more power you can make (all things being equal). The displacement of the S55 is 15% smaller than any other car in the series, and is 46% smaller than the P63. It costs money to make up that deficit. When you stress components more, you have to use more expensive materials. I also didn't say "a lot" more; I only said more, because obviously we don't have any real world examples to work from.

Hasn't F1 paved the way for using small displacement turbo engines in racing applications? I thought they were employing that kind of technology back in the 80's, if not earlier?

I'm not sure if the a notional M4 GTLM would cost more than a comparable M6 GTLM; I'm asking the questions because I haven't seen much if any commentary on that subject. In general, I agree with what you are saying on this issue though; a larger displacement turbo V8 seems like a better starting point for building a race car.

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I've provided two core facts, both of which stand on their own.

1) The weight of the production car is irrelevant.
2) The M6 platform has a larger engine displacement from which BMW Motorsport can build from.

It is from this that we can draw very reasonable conclusions, but ultimately, it is speculation. The only people who can really answer your question are BMW, and they won't go on record (for obvious reasons). But you don't seem to want an answer to your question. You want to make an assertion. I wish you would just come out and say it:

"I think the M4 would have made a better racing platform."

To which I would say, " OK." Outside of the displacement issue, I don't disagree with you. I've already said once that I'd have rather seen an M4 GT car than an M6, but that's not what we got.

Like I said earlier, I can only guess and speculate as to whether the M4 would make a better racing platform. I'm trying to understand if BMW's decision to use the M6 was purely because of the better performance potential it offered or if there was some cost/marketing issues taken into account.

I agree that the M6's engine offers a better starting platform to work with (even though we have no direct comparison with a racing version of the S55).

I understand that the M6's weight can be reduced to make it at least comparable to other cars in the series.

Those 2 issues aside, what did BMW really see in the M6 that made them decide to use that as the foundation for their GT3 and GTLM cars? It just didn't seem like the obvious choice to me when they first came out with those cars.

[DieGrüneHölle]

I feel the M6 GTLM is a stopgap solution, until the next Z4 is released. Which is rumored to be called the Z5, it will have larger dimensions and be moving up market to compete against F-type, 911, etc. They will need to market the vehicle, what better than to take it racing.