[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.