 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / April 2004I saw the new 6 around my place
I did not know they were out yet. And wrost, the one I saw was a gold/with beige. i went to the website and there were no gold/configuration. Any thoughts how this guy managed to get a 6 in gold? Thanks >I did not know they were out yet. And wrost, the one I saw was a gold/with >beige. http://www.bmw.com/generic/de/de/products/equipment/individual/index.html Possible the bodycolor "messing metallic" of the BMW Individual Color rang, although it not yet availiable for the 6series C.K. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wenn du hier kein Bild siehst,hast du vielleicht noch kein "Flash" - Plug-In. Bitte deine Eltern, "Flash" über den Download-Button zu installieren." aus: www.kinderkanal.de > I did not know they were out yet. And wrost, the one I saw was a gold/with > beige. > > i went to the website and there were no gold/configuration. Any thoughts how > this > guy managed to get a 6 in gold? There were 50 sold through Marcus-Neiman xmas catalog, IIRC. Floyd Is it just me or does the 6 convertible look like a Chrysler Sebring? It just seems that BMW's are losing more and more of their distinctive look with every new model release. > > I did not know they were out yet. And wrost, the one I saw was a gold/with > > beige. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Floyd actually..i respect bmw.....but you are some how right with 6 and the chrysl I have the new bmw 525 04 and not to offend any one..but the grandprix or gran-am (do know much about american cars) looks a bit like the 5 series. > Is it just me or does the 6 convertible look like a Chrysler Sebring? It > just seems that BMW's are losing more and more of their distinctive look [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Floyd > actually..i respect bmw.....but you are some how right with 6 and the chrysl > > I have the new bmw 525 04 and not to offend any one..but the grandprix or > gran-am (do know much about > american cars) looks a bit like the 5 series. This has always been the case...ever since Pontiac adopted the split kidney front grill. It isn't by mistake that some Pontiacs bear some resemblance to BMW's. Other American and Japanese manufacturers have done it as well with both BMW and Mercedes. By the way, anyone notice that Car and Driver ran a comparo with the 645, Maserati and AMG CLK55? I found it rather interesting that they compared Merc's tuner car with BMW's standard coupe offering. Right now, no matter what happens, it seems that American magazines' love affair with BMW has wilted, they're taking every shot at the marquee they can. I don't particularly like the 6, but it would seem more fair to compare it to the CLK500 or even the CL500, or better yet wait until the M6 arrives later this year. Usually they compare one factory tuner to another: AMG vs. M vs. GmbH (of course Audi has no corresponding coupe). This is the first time I've seen them do a test in this way. [snipped] >By the way, anyone notice that Car and Driver ran a comparo with the 645, >Maserati and AMG CLK55? I found it rather interesting that they compared [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >M vs. GmbH (of course Audi has no corresponding coupe). This is the first >time I've seen them do a test in this way. An RS6 would tear the 645's head off and spit down it's neck... > [snipped] > >By the way, anyone notice that Car and Driver ran a comparo with the 645, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > An RS6 would tear the 645's head off and spit down it's neck... When did the RS6 suddenly become a coupe? But if talking about sedans or wagons: yes the RS6 is a fast car, but anyone can make a fast car....anyone. The bottom line though is it's not about what you have done, but how you have done it. So personally I don't care much about a car with auto tranny, forced induction, with 60% of it's weight on the front wheels, that is slower than the other blown German sedan and needs more than 170 feet to halt from 70 mph. At this price point V8 cars should make major power with rpms breathing ambient and possess brakes that bring that power and speed to a dead stop in 150 to 160 feet. In Audi's case a V8 that spins at 6400 ain't gonna get it done, so they shortcut to the turbos, and they never have made cars that brake with the same authority as their competitors. But I realize some people don't care about these things. >"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >But I realize some people don't care about these things. You said it, brother. The Audi approach is the cheap crap approach, and doesn't result in the same drive as the better car. >>"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >You said it, brother. The Audi approach is the cheap crap approach, >and doesn't result in the same drive as the better car. lol the 323 pilot speaks ;-) I know it pisses you off that the S4 and RS6 have consistantly been winning the comparos against Merc and BMW. But it must make your brain explode that the same comparos rated the Audi's higher on the track. Deal with it ;-) > >You said it, brother. The Audi approach is the cheap crap approach, > >and doesn't result in the same drive as the better car. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I know it pisses you off that the S4 and RS6 have consistantly been winning > the comparos against Merc and BMW. I can't speak for dizzy, but it certainly doesn't bother me. I can think and decide for myself and as I have stated in other threads before this...the magazine guys are pinheads. Even the ones who like BMWs. And the only reason they have any credibility at all is because people with weak self-esteem seemed particulalry smitten when the mags bestow comparo wins on their car of choice. Dizzy is right, Audi took a cheap approach to the car. It was probably a great business move since there are those who decided close to 90 grand, with an option or two, was a reasonable price for the RS6. On the other hand there are people who care more for suspensions and brakes as fast as the motor, rather than a great 0-60 sprint. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong. I am simply saying that the RS6 is essentially a "boy racer" car and a great one for that genre. >> >You said it, brother. The Audi approach is the cheap crap approach, >> >and doesn't result in the same drive as the better car. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I am simply saying that the RS6 is essentially a "boy racer" car and a great >one for that genre. Yeah, it's so easy to dismiss the assembled work of some fairly notable drivers. Curiously, given your apparent point, you snipped the part that the S4 and RS6 have both been rated higher track performers, which would seem to belie your alleged point vis a vis braking and suspensions. Have you actually even read any of these comparisons? Or is your mind already made up? btw, I'm sure everyone is eager to read your list of what Audi did that was "cheap" on the S4 and RS6. It should be good for a laugh or two anyway ;-) > >I am simply saying that the RS6 is essentially a "boy racer" car and a > >great one for that genre. > > Yeah, it's so easy to dismiss the assembled work of some fairly notable > drivers. I can see you've never driven one. I don't understand the value in speaking about that which you have no experience, just as I don't see the importance of referring to track results and implying that they translate to roadgoing capability. Here's the bottom line. The RS6 can be fast, but the responsibility of managing that speed wasn't completely honored by Audi. The RS6 is ponderous in transition making it is quite difficult to handle in close twisties. It's braking from 70 mph is the worst in class at over 170 feet from 70 mph (but feels worse than that). Despite not having a suspension fast enough to handle the cars weight at engine speed in tight transitions (compared to M and AMG) it's ride quality is also not compliant in the manner of BMW's and Mercedes. There are people who suggest more weight on the rears is better than 50/50 balance, and a case can be made for that, but I haven't yet found someone who claims 60/40 makes much sense. Apparently Audi didn't want to spend the time or money making this fast car safer and better on this point. This car definately suffers turbo-lag, it's short, but it's there. I suspect this results in the obvious low speed lunge the car delivers, which is hardly the thing controlled driving in traffic is made of. It isn't faster than the E55. And on top of all that Audi made it in on the cheap (in a comparative sense), which is precisely why the brakes and suspension can't match the engine and the engine is forcibly inducted with bolt-on turbo's rather than spinning the necessary rpms for power at 14.7 PSI. Regarding your need for magazine references (your need, not mine): Car and Driver, Motortrend, Automobile and Auto Week all agree it can't cut a corner like the 7 year old M5, it isn't as fast in a straight line as the E55, it isn't as fast in a slalom as the 7 year old M5, it is not as comfortable and compliant on road as either M or AMG and it costs more than both. The RS6 had it's moment. It was that short timeframe when the E55 wasn't yet out and the M5 was 6 or 7 years old. That will all change shortly. As I said, it is the ultimate boy-racer. Very fast but unbalanced in many of the other things that make a sedan, a sports sedan. Fast, but unequal. > Curiously, given your apparent point, you snipped the part that the S4 and RS6 > have both been rated higher track performers, which would seem to belie your > alleged point vis a vis braking and suspensions. First, I don't comment about the S4 because I have never driven one. Second, a track ain't a road...and these are road cars were are speaking of. Taking a twisty or sweeping turn on a track is not the same as taking a tight corner on a rutted road with a transitional crown. > Have you actually even read any of these comparisons? No, I've never read a magazine compare that included the RS6. Geez.......... > Or is your mind already made up? My mind was close to made up around the 2nd week with the RS6. It was heading that way in the couple days. The pull in the first drive or two was indeed intoxicating, but then reality set in. > btw, I'm sure everyone is eager to read your list of what Audi did that was > "cheap" on the S4 and RS6. It should be good for a laugh or two anyway ;-) Everyone already knows what Audi did on the "cheap", and many have already laughed at the RS6. > By the way, anyone notice that Car and Driver ran a comparo with the 645, > Maserati and AMG CLK55? I found it rather interesting that they compared [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > M vs. GmbH (of course Audi has no corresponding coupe). This is the first > time I've seen them do a test in this way. It's the price range - you can buy the AMG CLK55 for about the same money as the 645i, so it's a valid comparison in terms of price. I think it just highlights that BMW is charging too much of a premium for the coupe. The price of the M6 will probably put it in Aston Martin territory. --Neil >By the way, anyone notice that Car and Driver ran a comparo with the 645, >Maserati and AMG CLK55? Yes. The Maserati won, by a landslide, IMO. >I found it rather interesting that they compared >Merc's tuner car with BMW's standard coupe offering. Well, Merc seems to think that you can stuff monster motors into boring cars and make them less boring. Maybe so, but not enough, especially for the money. Excuse my hignorance, but what's (or who is) GmbH (besides Gesellschaft mit beschr?nkter Haftung, of course)? Thx. DAS  SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- ][.........] Usually they compare one factory tuner to another: AMG vs. > M vs. GmbH (of course Audi has no corresponding coupe). This is the first > time I've seen them do a test in this way. > Excuse my hignorance, but what's (or who is) GmbH (besides Gesellschaft mit > beschränkter Haftung, of course)? > > Thx. > DAS It's German for "company with limited liability [for its owners]" not an in-house tuner at any marque! Yes, dear That doesn't answer my question, since I already excluded Gesellschaft mit beschr?nkter Haftung. My post did not become visible on my server so I am not sure if it was unclear on what I was commenting. Anyway, I was replying to daytripper who referred to "AMG vs. M vs. GmbH". To what is he referring? DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > > Excuse my hignorance, but what's (or who is) GmbH (besides Gesellschaft mit > > beschr?nkter Haftung, of course)? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's German for "company with limited liability [for its owners]" not > an in-house tuner at any marque! > Yes, dear > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > To what is he referring? That was me, not daytripper, and the engineering arm of Quattro GbmH is indeed instrumental in the development of Audi S and RS cars. Sorry, I didn't think I had to spell it out. Thanks. As you can see, referring to a company as GmbH is similar to saying "Ltd" or "Inc", not very illuminating except, perhaps, to a handful of insiders. DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [......] > That was me, not daytripper, and the engineering arm of Quattro GbmH is > indeed instrumental in the development of Audi S and RS cars. Sorry, I > didn't think I had to spell it out. No, I realize what GmbH means, I was just replying in brevity, if possible, and don't even remember if I intended to put "Quattro before or just decided anyone here would have understood I was speaking of Audi's tuner division, or at least the engineering arm of their tuner division. Come on...be honest...you were just picking a nit :^) > Thanks. > > As you can see, referring to a company as GmbH is similar to saying "Ltd" or > "Inc", not very illuminating except, perhaps, to a handful of insiders. > > DAS ACTUALLY..., as I am not an Audi expert I was genuinely curious to know who/what "GmbH" was. Come on...be honest...you were just addressing a handful of people... :-) DAS SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > No, I realize what GmbH means, I was just replying in brevity, if possible, > and don't even remember if I intended to put "Quattro before or just decided > anyone here would have understood I was speaking of Audi's tuner division, > or at least the engineering arm of their tuner division. > > Come on...be honest...you were just picking a nit :^) ................. > Come on...be honest...you were just addressing a > handful of people... :-) Actually the only one I was addressing was "daytripper". >> Come on...be honest...you were just addressing a >> handful of people... :-) > >Actually the only one I was addressing was "daytripper". You should strive for a wider audience, as you bored me right into a nap ;-) > >> Come on...be honest...you were just addressing a > >> handful of people... :-) > > > >Actually the only one I was addressing was "daytripper". > > You should strive for a wider audience, as you bored me right into a nap ;-) Good on me then, as your never more sufferable than when unheard. >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:54:55 -0600, "Jess Englewood" <pleasen@spam.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Good on me then, as your never more sufferable than when unheard. zzzzzzzzzzz > I did not know they were out yet. And wrost, the one I saw was a gold/with > beige. My first "in person" look at a 645i was at the Denver Auto Show and that car was a convertible, gold exterior, with biege interior. I saw one at the Allison BMW dealership in mountain view. Was unlocked, I sat in it in different positions. Feels like my 330 but a tad bigger I'd say. Had no power so couldn't pop the trunk. >I did not know they were out yet. And wrost, the one I saw was a gold/with >beige. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thanks |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.