RE: X6-based M Model On the Way

[Vedrfolner]

fluffyducky said:

Vedrfolner said:

fluffyducky said:

Vedrfolner said:

Think about that, the next time you waste your and everyone else's time by proclaiming that this and that car is ugly.

Your going to get flamed for that sir. I can't argue with words, pictures will do.

I can guarantee that if you look at the threads of all of those cars, they will be filled with people calling them all kinds of nasty stuff. You just helped me emphasize my point.

Edited by Vedrfolner on Thursday 31st July 11:46

There's always going to be someone who will make a comment about a vehicle to provoke a reaction. Thank the gods no one has started another fwd/4wd/awd/rwd war. However I would say the consensus regarding the images of the cars I posted is that they are beautiful cars. When not in financial strife I buy cars with the heart then the head. Yes, I loved the look of my Mazda! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Someone out there thinks Kelly Brooke is fugly too but the majority would disagree.

I got the impression that the majority in here is bashing every image that comes in their way, even the Alfa C8.

It is like the same persons are criticizing the X6M concept because it is not a light-weight track-day Super7 derivative, while at the same time criticize the Atom 500whatever concept (Caparo engine) because it doesn't have any luxury bits and isn't a daily driver, while at the same time criticize VW Golf GTI because it is not a light-weight track-day toy _and_ don't come with enough luggage space and luxury bits... and if it did it would cost too much.

It just gets dumber and dumber every day.

[cowellsj]

ASBO said:

Sod it,

As a form of transport for the 99th percentile where you're not honing your lap times to perfection, this car makes sense. It's big, looks cool and offers good visability. It's what people want clearly as BMW can't make enough of them.

I think the //M version could be quite a tool.

Maybe, but I suspect you'll look quite a tool behind the wheel too.

[cowellsj]

sleep envy said:

dickkark said:

You can`t polish a TURD!

nope, but you can roll it in glitter

[Mr Whippy]

chris_w666 said:

I would never buy one of these as a main car but the idea of fast off roaders makes me grin everytime I see one. Especially the big ones like the Cayenne Turbo.

Problem is the X6 isn't really an off-roader. It's an on-roader made to LOOK like an off-roader, with all the downsides of looking like one (high CofG, big cross section and poor drag performance etc), without actually performing like one, and because of that also not performing as well as it could on the road.

It's basically a bit stupid, it is flawed in both respects as a road car and an off-roader.

It's a wellington boot and a ballet shoe, that is flawed for ballet, and flawed as a wellington, but great for someone who does ballet in mud, which is errr, no one.

I believe it is ugly, and I think it is purely a marketing exercise to sell a fashion item, since it is fairly common for fashion and appearance to dictate over function, which this car does more than any other I know of at this price range.

Show me another car with such contradictory goals in it's brief.

What next, an M7 CSL?

Dave

[Mar10]

Fondue said:

Going back to the flame war, didn't Evo take both an Elise and a Cayenne (or was it an ML63) on track and the SUV won?

As I recall, yes, the SUVs won (they tested both that you mention - Cayenne Turbo and ML63)I think they concluded it was by virtue of their straight line performance but were quite impressed with them through the corners nonetheless. I still have the article at home, I'll dig it out when I get home and see what it says....

[general190]

Pugsey said:

general190 said:

Pugsey said:

general190 said:

H22K said:

mat205125 said:

H22K said:

LewisR said:

In nearly all walks of life, efficiency is the key. This car isn't that. Ditch it.
Can we have an M1?

Great arguement, because the M1 will be terriffic on fuel, no doubt.

Nice one chap, have a biscuit.

Efficient performance. Making the most of the energy it possesses. Generating that energy would use a lot of fuel, but that energy would result in supercar performance in an M1. instead of bludgeoning 2.5 tonnes of fake tan along the road to a 155 limiter.

An M1 with the same powerplant as this monster will get would be three point something to 60, and run past 200mph if they let it. It would be BMW's Gallardo alternative.

• sigh*

stick the kids and the luggage in the back of the M1 would you, and the skis on the roof-rack, we're off to the alps.

..not a very efficient way to transport all that clobber up a snowy mountain road now, is it.

If you're going to pick random arguements it could go on all day.

In fact, based on the arguement, why do we bother with having big cars at all? Surely the most efficient way of doing things, by the numbers-generated-from-engine-capability, surely a veyron engine in an elise would be the way forward?

yeah thought not.

It all depends on the priorities you want from the car!!!

Yes, so again if you want a big powerful car with lots of room that drives well buy an M5, RS6!

If you want a big car for wafting along in with a high view point buy a Range Rover/X5/Q7 etc.

If you feel the need to a massive (external dimentioned) 4x4 which cant go off road, doesnt have the same towing capacity as a Range Rover, has less space and one less seat than the equivalent 4x4, handles well (for a 2+ tonne SUV) and cost more than the equivalent X5 and look like an idiot with to much money and an Inferiority complex im sure this would be perfect!

Actually it costs a tad LESS than the equivalent X5 - I know because I'm chopping my X5 in for one. I don't need the fifth seat, it handles very well for a large saloon and utterly superbly for an SUV - which you'd know if you'd driven one. As regards you abilty to judge an individuals character and worth by what he drives that's obviously crap as on other days you may see me in my Caterham, ClioV6 battered old Defender or whatever else happens to be in my ownership at the time. Thanks for the insult though - nice.

Oh, better qualify above by saying I'm going for diesel version.

Edited by Pugsey on Wednesday 30th July 18:05

Sorry, was generalising horrificaly due to the people you usually see driving such vehicles (prob due to being cut up on a daily/hourly basis by similar vehicles) Loving the list of cars to! cant beat a battred old defender!

Its not my indention to ofend people, i apologise. good to know its less than the X5 though, would have thought BMW would have charged more for it. what diesel lump do you get in it? is it the 3.0ltr tiwn turbo straight 6?

Appreciate your post mate. No prob really - it's only a car after all and even I don't take them THAT seriously! I kind of knew what you meant anyway. Yep, if I go somewhere posh I love going in the Landie. Pull up at the Hotel, chuck the doorman the keys and ask him to arrange for it to be cleaned! Yes that's the lump - it's already got more torque than the current V8 and for very little money you can get it chipped and another 70ish bhp. I'm really not sure why you'd go for the V8 tbo.

No im not sure why you would go for the V8 ether, especially in a car that heavy you want all the torque you can get! But pointless realy having a highly tuned V8 in it, esp if its guna be a high revving job. Got a 330cd convertable, great fun watching ppl trying to keep up with that in their 'Hot' Hatches! they hate being left standing out of a corner by a diesel!

With regards to the landie, yea and watch him struggle with the heavy clutch and two gear knobs! lol! the amount of my friends who have been confused by that when i had one! lol.

[tim200sx]

Mr Whippy said:

chris_w666 said:

I would never buy one of these as a main car but the idea of fast off roaders makes me grin everytime I see one. Especially the big ones like the Cayenne Turbo.

Problem is the X6 isn't really an off-roader. It's an on-roader made to LOOK like an off-roader, with all the downsides of looking like one (high CofG, big cross section and poor drag performance etc), without actually performing like one, and because of that also not performing as well as it could on the road.

It's basically a bit stupid, it is flawed in both respects as a road car and an off-roader.

It's a wellington boot and a ballet shoe, that is flawed for ballet, and flawed as a wellington, but great for someone who does ballet in mud, which is errr, no one.

I believe it is ugly, and I think it is purely a marketing exercise to sell a fashion item, since it is fairly common for fashion and appearance to dictate over function, which this car does more than any other I know of at this price range.

Show me another car with such contradictory goals in it's brief.

What next, an M7 CSL?

Dave

That sums up my feelings towards this car completely. Due to trying to do everything, it ends up compromised at everything...
I'm all for freedom of choice, but it doesn't mean I have to like the st churned out for those people who lack sense and taste.
And magners_ph, I think you'll find yourself given as an example in the dictionary under "fan-boy". You seem to be blindly applauding everything bee-emm do whether it is actually any good or not.

[mat205125]

tim200sx said:

Mr Whippy said:

chris_w666 said:

I would never buy one of these as a main car but the idea of fast off roaders makes me grin everytime I see one. Especially the big ones like the Cayenne Turbo.

Problem is the X6 isn't really an off-roader. It's an on-roader made to LOOK like an off-roader, with all the downsides of looking like one (high CofG, big cross section and poor drag performance etc), without actually performing like one, and because of that also not performing as well as it could on the road.

It's basically a bit stupid, it is flawed in both respects as a road car and an off-roader.

It's a wellington boot and a ballet shoe, that is flawed for ballet, and flawed as a wellington, but great for someone who does ballet in mud, which is errr, no one.

I believe it is ugly, and I think it is purely a marketing exercise to sell a fashion item, since it is fairly common for fashion and appearance to dictate over function, which this car does more than any other I know of at this price range.

Show me another car with such contradictory goals in it's brief.

What next, an M7 CSL?

Dave

That sums up my feelings towards this car completely. Due to trying to do everything, it ends up compromised at everything...
I'm all for freedom of choice, but it doesn't mean I have to like the st churned out for those people who lack sense and taste.
And magners_ph, I think you'll find yourself given as an example in the dictionary under "fan-boy". You seem to be blindly applauding everything bee-emm do whether it is actually any good or not.

That's a great way to sum up the vehicle Mr Whippy, and I agree whole heartedly. I go along with the freedom of choice for the consumer thing too. My biggest gripe is that, as a self appointed petrolhead (like the majority on here), brands and heritage like the M brand hold a special meaning in my heart, in a similar way to Fords RS and Cosworth brandings, Porsche's RS branding, amongst many others. Those badges and names conger images and memories of battles between touring, GT, and rally cars that were raced on Sunday and had direct (to various extents) decendants in the showrooms Monday.

Things move on, of course, and now the grid / stage to road car homologations are less strict (in most cases), and therefore the component cross over is smaller. The technology cross over, it could be argued, is closer than ever ... e.g. V10 F1 tech in M5s (despite no parts being interchangable).

For me, however, this M-X6 is a step too far for the M brand, and a sign that the parent puppet master is ready to prostitute their heritage to sell their aspiration brands more that I would in their position.

Our "emotional share" in branding is very subjective and personal Perhaps this is a bit part in the seemingly wide range of opinions of this vehicle we've seen in the last 8 pages or so.

[Magners P.H]

Mr Whippy, do you have a flip chart of functional criteria that you need to tick before you buy a car?

You are looking at the X6 from the wrong perspective.

[Pugsey]

mat205125 said:

tim200sx said:

Mr Whippy said:

chris_w666 said:

I would never buy one of these as a main car but the idea of fast off roaders makes me grin everytime I see one. Especially the big ones like the Cayenne Turbo.

Problem is the X6 isn't really an off-roader. It's an on-roader made to LOOK like an off-roader, with all the downsides of looking like one (high CofG, big cross section and poor drag performance etc), without actually performing like one, and because of that also not performing as well as it could on the road.

It's basically a bit stupid, it is flawed in both respects as a road car and an off-roader.

It's a wellington boot and a ballet shoe, that is flawed for ballet, and flawed as a wellington, but great for someone who does ballet in mud, which is errr, no one.

I believe it is ugly, and I think it is purely a marketing exercise to sell a fashion item, since it is fairly common for fashion and appearance to dictate over function, which this car does more than any other I know of at this price range.

Show me another car with such contradictory goals in it's brief.

What next, an M7 CSL?

Dave

That sums up my feelings towards this car completely. Due to trying to do everything, it ends up compromised at everything...
I'm all for freedom of choice, but it doesn't mean I have to like the st churned out for those people who lack sense and taste.
And magners_ph, I think you'll find yourself given as an example in the dictionary under "fan-boy". You seem to be blindly applauding everything bee-emm do whether it is actually any good or not.

That's a great way to sum up the vehicle Mr Whippy, and I agree whole heartedly. I go along with the freedom of choice for the consumer thing too. My biggest gripe is that, as a self appointed petrolhead (like the majority on here), brands and heritage like the M brand hold a special meaning in my heart, in a similar way to Fords RS and Cosworth brandings, Porsche's RS branding, amongst many others. Those badges and names conger images and memories of battles between touring, GT, and rally cars that were raced on Sunday and had direct (to various extents) decendants in the showrooms Monday.

Things move on, of course, and now the grid / stage to road car homologations are less strict (in most cases), and therefore the component cross over is smaller. The technology cross over, it could be argued, is closer than ever ... e.g. V10 F1 tech in M5s (despite no parts being interchangable).

For me, however, this M-X6 is a step too far for the M brand, and a sign that the parent puppet master is ready to prostitute their heritage to sell their aspiration brands more that I would in their position.

Our "emotional share" in branding is very subjective and personal Perhaps this is a bit part in the seemingly wide range of opinions of this vehicle we've seen in the last 8 pages or so.

I can see where you're coming from but shouldn't the discussion here be whether this is a good car or not. Irrespective of what badge some marketing clown puts on it? Some seem to be knocking the car because of the M association rather than dynamic/quality/whatever reasons.

By the way, where on earth do EELS come in to it?

Edited by Pugsey on Thursday 31st July 15:42

[mat205125]

Pugsey said:

I can see where you're coming from but shouldn't the discussion here be whether this is a good car or not. Irrespective of what badge some marketing clown puts on it? Some seem to be knocking the car because of the M association rather than dynamic/quality/whatever reasons.

By the way, where on earth do EELS come in to it?

EELS? Have I leant on the wrong buttons again?

I've no doubt that the car will drive faultlessly, and be as quick and amazingly nimble as all these other monsters are reputed to be - EVO mag have already confirmed as much with the standard car. I wonder whether Newton would have been as pleased with his laws of motion had he been taken for a spin in this type of vehicle ... For every action I thought that there would have been an equal and opposite reaction, however it appears that for every action there is actually barely any action in the opposite direction ????????

If I were one of the family that own BMW, I'd keep the draw containing the M badges guarded by some nice big rat traps to snap at the fingers of the marketing clowns

ETA Ah! I get it

Edited by mat205125 on Thursday 31st July 16:07

[FWDRacer]

Magners P.H said:

Mr Whippy, do you have a flip chart of functional criteria that you need to tick before you buy a car?

You are looking at the X6 from the wrong perspective.

If he does it is completely at his own discretion and buying a car for function rather than statement is hardly the preserve of just Mr Whippy is it?

Anyway - back to the flip chart - he'll not tick the "causing abject vulgarity and intimidation in other road users" box and thankfully walk away...

Ph Magners - trousers pulled down would not have rusty sheriffs badge like the rest of us, but a puckered up little BMW roundel.

Edited by FWDRacer on Thursday 31st July 16:37

[5lab]

general190 said:

BUT! I realy just dont see the point of the X6! why take the big X5 and lower the roofline and reduce the number of seats!!?? its completely pointless! wats next? a coupe MPV, used to have seven seats but a company lowers the roof takes some seats out and charges more money for it!!

a deliberate reference to the aventime??

[gumsie]

Seen a few of these now and although I quit like it. Every time I see one I think to myself,
"It'll be nice when it's finished".
It just looks as though anything above the roof was completely forgotten about. You know like it's actually supposed to have a proper roofline.

[Mr Whippy]

Magners P.H said:

Mr Whippy, do you have a flip chart of functional criteria that you need to tick before you buy a car?

You are looking at the X6 from the wrong perspective.

Which perspective should I look at it from?

If I want a performance M car, I'll be wanting a sports car, which by definition will need to be small(ish), light, low and have a good power to weight, along with all the rest wrt to feel and communication and nice looks etc.

For me, all good sensibility aside, it's ugly, and not 'sporty'

If I had the £80,000+ to buy one I'd assume I was pretty well off, and I'd actually buy two cars, a decent off-roader, and a decent sports car, rather than this thing.

The badge and price (bestest most expensive vulgar BMW going) will be what makes it sell if it does well, not it's supposed stunning all-round capability, but doing no one thing really well, ie, Motorsport capability.

Yes, a single lap time might be had from it, but get it to do 10, with typical under-braked BMW M brakes, tyres bald after five laps of having a 2 tonne+ behemoth to point around.
It's nice to 'pretend' it's sporty or Motorsporty because it has a big engine, but it'll actually be a big turd. Fast in a line, fast on the road, but far from a road natured track car which is what BMW M used to be about.

Dave

[general190]

5lab said:

general190 said:

BUT! I realy just dont see the point of the X6! why take the big X5 and lower the roofline and reduce the number of seats!!?? its completely pointless! wats next? a coupe MPV, used to have seven seats but a company lowers the roof takes some seats out and charges more money for it!!

a deliberate reference to the aventime??

yep! forgot to add it had already happened! i rrecon next it will be 4x4 coupe convertables with two seats, stripped interior and a racing diesel lump! lol! now that is a neiche market! i could charge bmw millions for an idea like that!

[Pugsey]

Mr Whippy said:

Magners P.H said:

Mr Whippy, do you have a flip chart of functional criteria that you need to tick before you buy a car?

You are looking at the X6 from the wrong perspective.

Which perspective should I look at it from?

If I want a performance M car, I'll be wanting a sports car, which by definition will need to be small(ish), light, low and have a good power to weight, along with all the rest wrt to feel and communication and nice looks etc.

For me, all good sensibility aside, it's ugly, and not 'sporty'

If I had the £80,000+ to buy one I'd assume I was pretty well off, and I'd actually buy two cars, a decent off-roader, and a decent sports car, rather than this thing.

The badge and price (bestest most expensive vulgar BMW going) will be what makes it sell if it does well, not it's supposed stunning all-round capability, but doing no one thing really well, ie, Motorsport capability.

Yes, a single lap time might be had from it, but get it to do 10, with typical under-braked BMW M brakes, tyres bald after five laps of having a 2 tonne+ behemoth to point around.
It's nice to 'pretend' it's sporty or Motorsporty because it has a big engine, but it'll actually be a big turd. Fast in a line, fast on the road, but far from a road natured track car which is what BMW M used to be about.

Dave

But I'm not sure your two car theory would work either if it came to it. You've described your ideal sports car - which you would also expect to perform well and consistantly on track. That being the case it isn't going to be the best mode of transport for say a 400 mile round trip on motorways carrying a decent load or for doing the shopping. And if your second car is a real off roader then that won't do the day to day/long journey job very well either. Tell me if you find the solution - I've been trying for years and just ended up building more and more garages!

In the meantime the X6 does the job for me. Does everything day to day - limo, fast mile muncher, load carrier, better than hot hatch performance, a bit different etc etc. Leaves room for any other car in my garage to be more 'extreme' or biased towards whatever sort of use I want it for.

[Mr Whippy]

Pugsey said:

Mr Whippy said:

Magners P.H said:

Mr Whippy, do you have a flip chart of functional criteria that you need to tick before you buy a car?

You are looking at the X6 from the wrong perspective.

Which perspective should I look at it from?

If I want a performance M car, I'll be wanting a sports car, which by definition will need to be small(ish), light, low and have a good power to weight, along with all the rest wrt to feel and communication and nice looks etc.

For me, all good sensibility aside, it's ugly, and not 'sporty'

If I had the £80,000+ to buy one I'd assume I was pretty well off, and I'd actually buy two cars, a decent off-roader, and a decent sports car, rather than this thing.

The badge and price (bestest most expensive vulgar BMW going) will be what makes it sell if it does well, not it's supposed stunning all-round capability, but doing no one thing really well, ie, Motorsport capability.

Yes, a single lap time might be had from it, but get it to do 10, with typical under-braked BMW M brakes, tyres bald after five laps of having a 2 tonne+ behemoth to point around.
It's nice to 'pretend' it's sporty or Motorsporty because it has a big engine, but it'll actually be a big turd. Fast in a line, fast on the road, but far from a road natured track car which is what BMW M used to be about.

Dave

But I'm not sure your two car theory would work either if it came to it. You've described your ideal sports car - which you would also expect to perform well and consistantly on track. That being the case it isn't going to be the best mode of transport for say a 400 mile round trip on motorways carrying a decent load or for doing the shopping. And if your second car is a real off roader then that won't do the day to day/long journey job very well either. Tell me if you find the solution - I've been trying for years and just ended up building more and more garages!

In the meantime the X6 does the job for me. Does everything day to day - limo, fast mile muncher, load carrier, better than hot hatch performance, a bit different etc etc. Leaves room for any other car in my garage to be more 'extreme' or biased towards whatever sort of use I want it for.

M3 CSL, perfectly fine for shopping, bit cramped in the back but not massively so, about the same as my Peugeot 306 and I've done 200 miles each way trips with two adults in the back of my car comfortably enough in the same day.
Perfect car imho.
Off-road, hmmm, a few year old Range Rover. Low range box, 3.5tonne towing weight if you want to tow stuff, full diff locking, great ground clearance etc.

But thats just me. Two fine looking, capable, relatively cheap cars that do a wide range of things pretty damn well. Why I'd want a compromise of each in the form on an X M6 is beyond me, but clearly there is a market for it. That doesn't mean it's a good idea however...

Ie, Ford Kuga is the best of it's type, but the 'type' is still ultimately crap.

Dave

[Vedrfolner]

Pugsey said:

Mr Whippy said:

Magners P.H said:

Mr Whippy, do you have a flip chart of functional criteria that you need to tick before you buy a car?

You are looking at the X6 from the wrong perspective.

Which perspective should I look at it from?

If I want a performance M car, I'll be wanting a sports car, which by definition will need to be small(ish), light, low and have a good power to weight, along with all the rest wrt to feel and communication and nice looks etc.

For me, all good sensibility aside, it's ugly, and not 'sporty'

If I had the £80,000+ to buy one I'd assume I was pretty well off, and I'd actually buy two cars, a decent off-roader, and a decent sports car, rather than this thing.

The badge and price (bestest most expensive vulgar BMW going) will be what makes it sell if it does well, not it's supposed stunning all-round capability, but doing no one thing really well, ie, Motorsport capability.

Yes, a single lap time might be had from it, but get it to do 10, with typical under-braked BMW M brakes, tyres bald after five laps of having a 2 tonne+ behemoth to point around.
It's nice to 'pretend' it's sporty or Motorsporty because it has a big engine, but it'll actually be a big turd. Fast in a line, fast on the road, but far from a road natured track car which is what BMW M used to be about.

Dave

But I'm not sure your two car theory would work either if it came to it. You've described your ideal sports car - which you would also expect to perform well and consistantly on track. That being the case it isn't going to be the best mode of transport for say a 400 mile round trip on motorways carrying a decent load or for doing the shopping. And if your second car is a real off roader then that won't do the day to day/long journey job very well either. Tell me if you find the solution - I've been trying for years and just ended up building more and more garages!

In the meantime the X6 does the job for me. Does everything day to day - limo, fast mile muncher, load carrier, better than hot hatch performance, a bit different etc etc. Leaves room for any other car in my garage to be more 'extreme' or biased towards whatever sort of use I want it for.

What this boils down to is that each car needs to be considered on its own terms. The BMW X6 is a huge, luxurious 5-seater with a high ride position and thus a high center of gravity. It isn't a sports car, a shopping trolley, a track-day toy, a supercar, or anything else you can imagine. The fact that they do come with powerful engines and costs a lot of money does not change that. What does it come with? 400bhp v8? Is that enough for a luxury car of the highest echelon these days? Doesn't the Cayenne come with 550? So no, 400 bhp isn't enough. It needs more. And ta-da there comes the M-version.

It is all about what is expected of a car. If you expect a big, tall car with everything in technology and a powerful engine, you get it in the BMW X6 - and there is more of the same in the X6M version.

If you like a car, your opinion is valuable since you are a possible buyer. If you don't like said car, your opinion is worthless since you are not a possible buyer. Car manufacturers don't develop new concepts based on disinterest in a non-existing market.

[Mr Whippy]

Vedrfolner said:

If you like a car, your opinion is valuable since you are a possible buyer. If you don't like said car, your opinion is worthless since you are not a possible buyer. Car manufacturers don't develop new concepts based on disinterest in a non-existing market.

Hmmmm...

I'm sure the opinions of people who don't like cars are important.

BMW may well alter their car to please more people to improve sales, rather than ignore them.

Give it 500bhp by all means, but it's not worthy of an M badge because it's powerful with big wheels and brakes. Just call it an X6 5.0 or whatever it will be. Porsche didn't call their Cayenne a GT2 because it was the most powerful expensive one for example.

Dave