[E82tt6]

There has to be a car for dudes who like rollin on duubzz while driving way to fast in a pseudo truck.

Originally Posted by MJC///M3

+1. It is obvious BMW has done their homework and feel there is enough of a demographic out there that is willing to spend 90K+ on a high performance SUV.

As far as watering the M badge down, I am somewhat indifferent towards that notion. Ultimately, I would rather see BMW stay a viable and innovative entity in these extremely trying times rather than just remain 'another car manufacturer.' It is the innovation and creativity that makes BMW unique, especially the M division. From a purist standpoint, I can certaintly understand the qualms about throwing M badges and a turbo-charged engine into an enormous SUV; after all the Spirit of M is Naturally Aspirated performace cars that offer the perfect blend of luxury and performance. At the same time, if manufacturing/selling these SUV's will lead to increased revenue/profits for BMW, than I am all for it.

Mabye with this increased revenue, enough R&D can be implemented so that the next generation M3 will be truly The ULTIMATE!!!

Only time will tell gents... only time we tell.....

[footie]

The X6M may be ultra quick and will probably lap quicker than a Cayenne Turbo S, but unlike the Porsche it's a one trick pony with no off-road capability at all and even with this added benefit the Porsche is still fun to drive quickly.

I would bet even the mighty Q7 v12TDI would be more fun than the X6M.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by footie

I would bet even the mighty Q7 v12TDI would be more fun than the X6M.

Please, that's stretching it.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

Please, that's stretching it.

The big Q7 diesel is a beast, it can accelerate from 60mph to 155mph in only 14 seconds.

[u2b]8uJ-qLPzXxg&feature=fvw[/u2b]

Not only is it mighty quick, it's got one of the best turn-in of any SUV in the world. At a £100K it's way over priced but secondhand I would pick this before an X5/6M but I would ultimately pick the big Cayenne before any of them.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by footie

The big Q7 diesel is a beast, it can accelerate from 60mph to 155mph in only 14 seconds.

[u2b]8uJ-qLPzXxg&feature=fvw[/u2b]

Not only is it mighty quick, it's got one of the best turn-in of any SUV in the world. At a £100K it's way over priced but secondhand I would pick this before an X5/6M but I would ultimately pick the big Cayenne before any of them.

Ok, but that says nothing about it being fun. And I'm sure that V12 diesel weighs the nose down even more.

It's a cool car, I just disagree with your previous post.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

Ok, but that says nothing about it being fun. And I'm sure that V12 diesel weighs the nose down even more.

It's a cool car, I just disagree with your previous post.

I've spent both a lot of time behind the wheel of a Q7 3.0TDi and the brother's X6 35d and I can tell you that for all the Q7's faults it is the more enjoyable car to drive, it might not corner as quickly or have as good of steering feel but it feels the better planted on the road and isn't thrown off line mid-corner like the X6 is.

To tell you the truth, if Audi brings out the Q5 with that 400hp 3.0TFSI under the bonnet then that would be the SUV to own because it's by far the best handling SUV currently on sale. Maybe the X3 will readdress the balance back to them but for now it's the one to beat.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I don't have time to do an assignment because you can't be bothered.

Here, I'll get you started:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...o-be-true.html
Porsche hires ex-Toyota employees as consultants for lean production methods

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

For starters, with out the Cayenne there would have been no facility to build the Carrera GT in.

You don't know that for a fact. The CGT was an extremely low volume, largely hand-produced car. How do you know it could not have been built at Zuffenhausen, or partially assembled at Porsche's plant in Finland?

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

The govt. regulation I was referring to is fuel economy/pollution and the switch from NA to FI because of it.

Fuel economy/pollution standards which are largely mandated by CAFE and EU regs; in which case heavy, bloated vehicles like the X5/X6 and their M variants would hurt BMW's effort to produce more fuel efficient vehicles across their lineup. It wouldn't help it. If you are trying to push the idea that gov't regs brought about BMW's decision to produce the X5/6 M's and not BMW's desire to cash in on the SUV fad, then you're going to have to make a stronger case for such a connection.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

Nice try, but you don't have me pegged. I am certainly not one of the "kids" on the board, nor am I new to BMW.

M is BMWs performance division, and I understand what they are doing from a business point of view. Trying to make money. Besides, does an M6 convertible really fit in with the original M DNA?

The powerplant very much has original M DNA. Lets not forget about great M classics like the M635CSi. 6 series has a long standing history. And remember the verts are always an afterthought for the M-divison. When they develop a car all R&D, performance testing, etc is done in hardtop form.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Guibo

Here, I'll get you started:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...o-be-true.html
Porsche hires ex-Toyota employees as consultants for lean production methods



You don't know that for a fact. The CGT was an extremely low volume, largely hand-produced car. How do you know it could not have been built at Zuffenhausen, or partially assembled at Porsche's plant in Finland?



Fuel economy/pollution standards which are largely mandated by CAFE and EU regs; in which case heavy, bloated vehicles like the X5/X6 and their M variants would hurt BMW's effort to produce more fuel efficient vehicles across their lineup. It wouldn't help it. If you are trying to push the idea that gov't regs brought about BMW's decision to produce the X5/6 M's and not BMW's desire to cash in on the SUV fad, then you're going to have to make a stronger case for such a connection.

All very good points.