BMW X5/X6 M; Watch out Cayenne Turbo!

  • Thread starter rollazn
  • 26 comments
  • 5,172 views

Which looks do you prefer?


  • Total voters
    21
3,760
rollazn
X5 M

bmw-x5-m-2010-roading-front-main_w800.jpg

bmw-x5-m-2010-tail-close_w800.jpg


X6 M

bmw-x6-m-2010-front-in-shadows_w800.jpg

bmw-x6-m-2010-rear-quarter-blur_w800.jpg



Front Engine, AWD
6 Speed M Sport Paddle-Shifted Automanual
Electronic front and rear LSD
Direct injection 4.4L Twin Turbo V8
555 bhp @ 6000 rpm (5 hp more than Cayenne Turbo)
500 lb-ft. @ 1500 to 5650 rpm
Acceleration 0-60 mph 4.5 seconds

Some will consider the announcement of the M versions of the BMW X5 and X6 arriving this fall to be heresy, a crime against the enthusiast faithful not seen since the debut of the Porsche Cayenne. Well suck it up fanboy, because the X6 M will lap the Nürburgring faster than the E46 M3. And if you really want to throw stones, blame the success of the Porsche, which demonstrated to BMW that a market exists for sporty SUVs. Both Bimmers—the powertrains are identical—put out 555 hp from a twin-turbo V-8, which is a 5-hp middle finger to the Cayenne Turbo S. The 500 lb-ft of torque in the BMWs, however, is 53 short of that of the top-level Cayenne.

The Mighty Boost

The heart of the X5/X6 M, as in all M cars, is the engine. And the heart of this engine is a trick exhaust manifold and a pair of twin-scroll turbochargers. Of course this is BMW, so there has to be an acronym: Cylinder-bank Comprehensive Manifold, or CCM. The direct-injection 4.4-liter V-8 is based on BMW’s regular production engine, adding new pistons, a new intake manifold, and revised intake cam timing. Compression has been lowered slightly, to 9.3:1 from 10.0:1. The alloy used for the cylinder heads has been altered for greater strength, the oil pan is now aluminum with integrated cooling fins, and both the intercoolers and radiator have been enlarged to deal with increased engine heat. At max boost, the Garrett turbochargers produce 21 psi of pressurized air.

An Automatic M?

The X5/X6 M will only be available with a six-speed automatic transmission similar to the one in the standard X5 and X6. (No manual! Feel free to play the heresy card again.) The M version (dubbed M Sports Automatic) works with the engine computer to cut ignition in some cylinders during a gear change to affect faster shifts. Like in other M cars that lack a clutch pedal, the X5 M and X6 M have steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters and will hold the selected gear at the engine redline in manual mode. The SUVs also feature an economy mode that keeps the engine below 4500 rpm unless you push the gas pedal all the way to the floor. There’s also a launch-control mode, which sets the revs at 3000 for a better jump off the line and shifts automatically while at full throttle. BMW claims a 0-to-60-mph time of 4.5 seconds.

An Eminently Classy Chassis

The xDrive all-wheel-drive system is physically unchanged.

These are the first M models to use run-flat tires, with 275/40-20 Bridgestones at the front and 315/35-20 rubber at the rear. The X5/X6 M will also be the only M versions without cross-drilled rotors, a concession towards durability. Front rotors measure 15.6 inches (up 0.8 inch versus the xDrive50i’s) and 15.2 inches in the rear (up 1.6). Internals in the master cylinder have been replaced with a single-ratio valve to provide consistent brake-pedal feel throughout its entire travel.

Somewhat Sinister Styling

Distinctive gills in the front fenders and new front and rear fascias, with the characteristic quad tailpipes at the back, separate the X5/X6 M from their more plebeian counterparts, but the rest of the bodywork is unchanged. The interior changes are subtle as well, limited to a few M-themed accents and the M Drive button on the steering wheel. The X6 already looks wild enough in stock form, so the M transformation is more effective on the X5, in our opinion.


As silly as these things seem, we’re looking forward to getting some test numbers; that should prove very interesting.

The X5 M will start at $85,400 while X6 M will cost $88,900. While they are certainly expensive, both models manage to undercut key rivals such as the $90,100 Mercedes ML63 AMG and the $124,800 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S.



http://www.caranddriver.com/news/au...oduction_debuts/2010_bmw_x6_m_x5_m_auto_shows
 
555 bhp @ 6000 rpm (5 hp more than Cayenne Turbo)
500 lb-ft. @ 1500 to 5650 rpm
Acceleration 0-60 mph 4.5 seconds

It could have a million horsepower and do 0-60mph in the Planck Time, but it'll never outrun pigugly.
 
Waiting for Niky to chime in here, I believe he had a blast driving an X6(M?) on a track and said its AWD system was all sorts of fun. So I'm going with the X6. Partially for its uniqueness, which we can at least agree on...:lol:
 
Granted I'd take the SRT-8 over either--I'd sadly take the Cayenne Turbo over all of them. Call me a sucker for a fast Porsche. The X6M looks ok, the X5 is fugly.
 
Isn't this pretty old news?

I'd take the X5 of the two, but I think the Cayenne Turbo of that V10 Touareg TDI have it beat in my book.
 
Can I get a old 80" Land Rover with a decent engine transplant for the offroad part and an RS6 for transporting the kids ?... (If I had the need that is)
 
Agreed.
Though, I will admit the X5M doesn't look TOO bad. I'd rather rock the bad ass looking Grand Cherokee SRT-8, possibly with a Hennessey upgrade :sly:

That Jeep thing is hideous...

I actually like the look of the X6 quite a bit. Yeah, I dunno why but I do.
 
"Stop, Logic time" does not apply!... Fail..

Are you suggesting a Box on wheels, with a Box in front of it with an engine in it, with some poorly molded fender flares, is appealing? Or a Chrysler product is for that matter?

Further, logic does not apply to personal taste in aesthetics. However, if one were to argue that the Jeep has a higher build quality, then logic would quickly show them to be in error.
 
Azuremen is a BMW owner. He has a much higher tolerance for hideousness than the rest of us when it comes to BMWs. :sly:
 
Azuremen is a BMW owner. He has a much higher tolerance for hideousness than the rest of us when it comes to BMWs. :sly:

Respectively, you have a much higher tolerance for manufacturing defects.
 
Reventón;3435380
Sadly, straight line speed is all its good at.

Meh. Considering that a 2.5 Ton SUV is able to pull 0.88g on the skidpad and hits 60 MPH in 4.5 seconds... I'd come away satisfied.

Lulz ensued when I found out about the 3500 lb towing capacity. The Corvette-powered Trailblazer blew that away handily.



Everyone knows that the correct choice for this category comes from Sweden.
 
Since those cars are so huge on the inside, I think they were purpose-built for basketball players.
 
While I did have fun in the X6 ("35" twin turbo I6 variant), I recognize the ridiculousness of calling any such vehicle an "M".

They're too big, too heavy. Despite the amazing abilities of that AWD system, they're still trucks that weigh nearly 3 tons. They push in slow corners and wear out their brakes too quickly for extended track sessions... They can never be more than toys for that rare backroads thrash where you have more than two lanes of road (because they take up 1.5 lanes of roadway each)...

What's worrying is... I don't actually care. I'd take the X5M, simply because you have space for one extra, terrified, passenger for such jaunts. But if they start calling them MX5 and MX6, I'll have lost all faith in BMW... :lol:
 
You mean the M division whoring itself out for a bit of extra cash? Yeah, it's pretty old news. Not as old as Porsche doing pretty much the same since 2002, though.


M

Well it's kept them alive...


This.

To be frank, choosing which looks better out of the two options feels akin to choosing whether I'd like to die in a helicopter crash or a road accident.
 
Respectively, you have a much higher tolerance for manufacturing defects.

Calm down. Even I could see that was a friendly jab. You didn't have to get back at him for that.

Honestly, the X5M makes more sense to me than the X6M, but I always thought the X5 was fast enough anyway, and the X6 a failed attempt to revive the Eagle.
 
Back