12-25-2015, 02:34 AM | #67 |
Private First Class
21
Rep 130
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 02:42 AM | #68 | |
Private First Class
21
Rep 130
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
2
|
12-25-2015, 02:45 AM | #69 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
752
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
It is a big mean looking machine, with great sound, and the ride is not harsh like the X5/6Ms. The Xs performs great on the track, but BMW sacrificed some comfort in order to achieve it. That's why I said if I were in the market for one, it will be a tough choice between the two, they both have qualities that I like. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 03:18 AM | #70 | |
Second Lieutenant
103
Rep 252
Posts
Drives: Anything with a locking diff
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Europe, mainly Germany
|
Quote:
EDIT: http://cdn2.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/...?itok=AptoV0tL Here is a picture trying to detail my point. Here it actually looks good, but in the flesh its just a mess, I cant find a picture to express this. Can you see how wide and pushed apart the rear tires are, like on an M car, but because the rear isnt flared, the tires stick out from the side, making it just look bad IMO, eventhough the car looks good in the pictures.
__________________
Owned: E60 M5, E71 X6M
Own: E65 745i, F06 M6 GC Probably will own: M235i or Jag F-type Last edited by FilipMPower; 12-25-2015 at 03:26 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 04:59 AM | #71 | |
Banned
42
Rep 101
Posts |
Quote:
Also another important factor that most people don't consider is the off road ability. Cayennes are very capable in the sand, and most people here in UAE who buy SUV's (including myself) prefer to take them off road, and taking an X5 or X6 for dune bashing is simply asking for trouble. In fact all the other cars in that comparison test (LRRRSSVR, GLE and Cayenne) are better off roaders than the X5/6. I personally wouldn't buy one because I don't believe in "SUVs" that are never meant to leave the road. There are better purpose built sports cars for that. Maybe the American perspective on things is different. Just my two cents. |
|
Appreciate
1
|
12-25-2015, 06:45 AM | #72 | |
Private First Class
16
Rep 122
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 10:16 AM | #74 | ||
Brigadier General
1387
Rep 3,834
Posts |
Quote:
As for SUVs, I bought it for speed, practicability, and safety. In the US, there are a lot of trucks on the road. You don't want to get T-boned in small car. My brother is an ER doc, he also drives an X5 after seeing many fatal car crash cases gone through his hospital.
__________________
Daily: G12 750 MSPORT Weekend Car: E90 M3
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 10:47 AM | #75 | ||
Banned
80
Rep 381
Posts |
Quote:
Again, the cayenne turbo S embarrasses an x6m on the ring and there was something very off with the performance of the turbo S in this test. Just compare to the car and driver test they did on the turbo S. It nearly matches the x6m in a straight line despite that the x6m is far underrated. Maybe we will see more tests but all signs point to point to the ages cayenne still being the best based on what it can do on road and on track and off-road. That's usually how it's been. Bmw comes out with the new x5/6m when the cayenne is at the end of its generation and the cayenne still has the best performance. I also did hear the new cayenne will be here in 2017. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-s-test-review Test of the 2014 Cayenne Turbo S (550 hp). Zero to 60 mph: 4.1 sec Zero to 100 mph: 9.6 sec Zero to 150 mph: 25.7 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.9 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.6 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.0 sec Standing ¼-mile: 12.5 sec @ 113 mph The new one is NOT slower and likely traps 114/115 so something def up with those numbers. Anyone who believes differently is severely mistaken. Last edited by EfEightyM3; 12-25-2015 at 11:05 AM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 12:33 PM | #77 | |
Private First Class
46
Rep 123
Posts |
Quote:
I had a 2014 Range Rover Sport Supercharged and a 2015 911 Turbo at the same time. I did not like the Range Rover after getting the 911 because it made me realize just how awful the steering was in that truck. Test drove the X5M when it first came out. Loved it. Almost made a deal to trade my Range Rover Sport for the X5M, but it didn't work out. Biggest issue for me was the lack of height adjustment in the X5M. We had lots of snow last winter, and folks just could not keep up - parking lots, driveways, etc. On snow tires, I was able to raise my Range and climb out of most driveways and park in parking spaces with a foot of snow. The front lip on the X5M is just too low to do that. I wanted a performance truck that drove like a sports car and could take me anywhere. And I didn't want to come to find that replacing the front spoiler of the X5M was now part of my routine maintenance. So I stopped by my Porsche dealer for the one year service on my 911 in June. They had a brand new 2016 Cayenne Turbo S. Made the deal right there to trade in both my Range Rover and 911 Turbo for the Cayenne Turbo S. I love the truck. It feels like a 911 with a periscope. Yes - there is some turbo lag, no doubt. That was the hardest thing to get used to. But God does it handle great. Steering is so precise, tracking on corners is great. Brakes GRAB and GRAB. The PDCC (Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control) is a revelation. Car stays perfectly flat on highway curves at 90 mph plus. Amazing sense of stability. Quiet on the inside (did not come with performance exhaust) but loud on the outside. Very high quality components and interior. You can see the effort in assembly. And it manages to have more room in the back seat, hold more in the hatch than my Range but still cast a much smaller shadow. I am sure that in a different climate I would be completely satisfied and in love with the X5M, but the inability to raise the front spoiler was a deal breaker for me. I did miss having a dedicated sports car - so I picked up a 16 Z06 with Z07 package. Why run 12s when you can run 10s? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 12:41 PM | #78 | |
Private
26
Rep 89
Posts |
Quote:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.7 sec Zero to 100 mph: 9.0 sec Zero to 150 mph: 24.5 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.6 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.0 sec Standing ¼-mile: 12.1 sec @ 115 mph |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 01:31 PM | #79 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
752
Rep 1,857
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 03:48 PM | #81 | ||
Banned
673
Rep 2,219
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 04:01 PM | #82 | |
Captain
359
Rep 729
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
1
|
12-25-2015, 04:50 PM | #83 | ||
Banned
673
Rep 2,219
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 05:57 PM | #84 |
Lieutenant
244
Rep 553
Posts |
Drive one and you won't have any issue again!
__________________
2015 F82 M4 :: BSM/Black :: ESS Flash Tune :: 19" HRE FF01 Satin Black :: H&R Sport Spring & 12mm/15mm Spacers :: Eisenmann Sport Exhaust Gloss Black / Down Pipes :: SOLD
2016 F85 X5M :: Donnington Grey/Mugello Red :: SOLD 2016 F85 X5M :: Mineral White/Mugello Red :: Stock...for now |
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2015, 08:46 PM | #85 |
Colonel
576
Rep 2,353
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2015, 02:36 AM | #86 |
First Lieutenant
37
Rep 378
Posts |
I think its incredible that these sort of vehicles exist in the mainstream...faster than dedicated sports car like the M3 or a Lambo...the line is blurred. I'm not sure how many will track their X5 but it just shows what can be achieved.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2015, 06:30 AM | #87 |
Second Lieutenant
103
Rep 252
Posts
Drives: Anything with a locking diff
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Europe, mainly Germany
|
I know, it's shocking. I thought it was because of the HP advantage on the straights. But then again, the M5/6 are slower as well. A really impressive beast has been made by m division. Let's hope the new M5 will be inspired by it.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|