Originally Posted by Remonster
Performance isn't what an M car is about, it's about the way it feels in your hands, the way it sounds, etc.
Those of us arguing against chasing fuel efficiency are only against it because you usually end up sacrificing the things we care more about. I saw the new M6 at my local dealer the other day and heard it rev and, when someone else test drove it, heard it fly by me and it sounds ok but it wasn't very exciting. The first time I heard an S85 V10 I wanted nothing more than to get behind the wheel and drive it but the new M6 didn't have that effect on me. I wasn't very interested in it at all, the performance numbers are hugely impressive but personally I would rather buy an M6 with the 5.5L V10 with 575 horsepower they were supposedly working on than one with the TTV8 even if the V8 gets me further on a tank of gas.
Simply put, for me and for a lot of other enthusiasts the added excitement of a screaming N/A engine outweighs the minor inconvenience of spending a bit more time and money at the pump.
That V10 was built and completed but was never green lighted- closer to 580hp. It was the precursor to the 4.4l S62. The only car to publicly display it was the 25th anniversary edition version of the E 60 M5. But you would have needed a gas tanker to follow you around and that is no fun regardless of the performance offered.
To the OP- The gearing and DI are what gave that Audi motor that suspect MPG- M did not go DI with the high rev engines bc of issues with carbon build up and longevity- they also used close ratio gearing which is ridiculous considering there is NO track you ever would use a short sixth on ( you can occasionally hit 5th for a brief time but that is it on the longest of straights), moving forward I bet they change this thinking and make 6th taller and get that extra few MPG as there is no other reason for it.