The New M5... No... The New MX5...Er...

L-M

Bmw X5 is now planned to have a "M"...

autoblog.com wrote:

The teaser site's tag line reads, "M. Welcome to the next chapter." The now official X5 M and X6 M will certainly be something we've never read in the book of BMW high performance vehicles. Recent chapters have featured high-horsepower, rear-wheel-drive cars like the M3, M5 and M6 as their main protagonist, but these new Ms will be big, weigh over 5,000 lbs apiece and use all-wheel drive. In addition to the new teaser site that rounds up all available info on the two newest Ms, BMW has released a first official teaser video in which the M division's Bernd Limmer reveals that the X5 M and X6 M will be powered by versions of the existing twin-turbo 4.4L V8, likely tuned to around 500 horsepower. Being an M car has always required more than just high horses, however, and we can expect the X vehicles to feature heavily tuned suspensions and all-wheel-drive systems with a rear bias for better handling. Throw in better brakes, bigger wheels and tires and subtly revised styling, and consider the next chapter of M read until the official reveal takes place in early April. Follow the jump to watch BMW's official teaser for the X5 M and X6 M.

UPDATE: Jalopnik noticed that the source code of the minisite revealed a tag cloud with such interesting tags as "550 bhp", "Twin Scroll Twin Turbo", "V8" and, our favorite, "gills".

Zube

Limerick man wrote: »

Bmw X5 is now planned to have a "M"...

To quote from the current CAR on the X5M and X6M:

"We can't help but like both of these two for standing and facing head-on into the grey-green current of public opinion, their middle fingers extended,; misguided, brave and probably doomed".

Big Nasty

Never understood why they never built an M7! :mad:

Anan1

Zube wrote: »

To quote from the current CAR on the X5M and X6M:

"We can't help but like both of these two for standing and facing head-on into the grey-green current of public opinion, their middle fingers extended,; misguided, brave and probably doomed".

Which is complete bollox - BMW developed an intrinsically pointless car which is now deeply unfashionable, that's all.;)

copacetic

wasn't there a few threads on these a couple of months back?

Johnboy Mac

Anan1 wrote: »

Which is complete bollox - BMW developed an intrinsically pointless car which is now deeply unfashionable, that's all.;)

BMW are no fools. They will be aiming for the Middle East, Russia and possibily Chinese markets with these 'M' 4x4's and I presume take a few sales from Porsche Cayenne's even in Europe.

I'd say from investment point of view it ain't costing BMW a hole lot as they have the basic cars and power plants already.

But that X6 is an ugly looking thing, each to their own I suppose..........

Mr.David

The M division have sold out....they canned a new M3 CSL to do these heaps of junk. Ya they're fast, but they arent "M" cars in the pure sense of what the M brand used to be.

Boo.....

bazz26

Now the yummy mummies will have some serious performance figures to compare while waiting outside the creche.

Zube

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I'd say from investment point of view it ain't costing BMW a hole lot as they have the basic cars and power plants already.

I think it makes sense: the sort of jackass who'd buy an X6 doesn't know or care about cars. Why make a real M model for people who can't tell the difference? Just tart it up a bit, add an M badge and gouge them on the price.

Real M car drivers won't be fooled, but I don't think the real M cars will be devalued, either.

Biro

Mr.David wrote: »

The M division have sold out....they canned a new M3 CSL to do these heaps of junk. Ya they're fast, but they arent "M" cars in the pure sense of what the M brand used to be.

Boo.....

Damn straight. These things are a sham. An insult to and a degradation of the M brand.

Biro

Zube wrote: »

I think it makes sense: the sort of jackass who'd buy an X6 doesn't know or care about cars. Why make a real M model for people who can't tell the difference? Just tart it up a bit, add an M badge and gouge them on the price.

Real M car drivers won't be fooled, but I don't think the real M cars will be devalued, either.

I see what you're saying, but the point is the jackass you mention won't know what an "M car" is. That's the problem. They should have just shoved a 5 litre V12 in with the option of a "sports pack", and left out the M conversion.
Kind of like Merc. You have a CL AMG if you want, but if you like to be slightly more unassuming about your car then there's the CL 600 instead. Practically the same performance without the compromise on ride quality and no fancy spoilers or alloys.

bazz26

Zube wrote: »

I think it makes sense: the sort of jackass who'd buy an X6 doesn't know or care about cars. Why make a real M model for people who can't tell the difference? Just tart it up a bit, add an M badge and gouge them on the price.

Real M car drivers won't be fooled, but I don't think the real M cars will be devalued, either.

Isn't that what the M Sport trim is for though?

Victor_M

Mr.David wrote: »

The M division have sold out....they canned a new M3 CSL to do these heaps of junk. Ya they're fast, but they arent "M" cars in the pure sense of what the M brand used to be.

Boo.....

Have they canned the CSL?? I hope not:(

There isn't enough of a performance improvement over the E46 M3 with the E92 for that to be the end of it's development. Every ounce of the new M3's potential straight line performance benefits have been lost to excess weight.

A CSL version is the only way of seeing the full potential of the E92's V8.

Johnboy Mac

Mr.David wrote: »

The M division have sold out....they canned a new M3 CSL to do these heaps of junk. Ya they're fast, but they arent "M" cars in the pure sense of what the M brand used to be.

Boo.....

As usual Mr.David I agree.

Imo BMW are devaluing their 'M' division and I'm sure there are some staff members there not too happy about these 'M' 4X4's. Again it seems the marketing and sales divisions rule the roost over the true petrol heads & engineers.
A pity.

I reckon Alpina's (provided Alpina don't get involved with 4x4's) will become even more cherished on the back of this 'M' division abuse by BMW.

No matter what they produce now from the 'M' division there is for me only 2 or 3 'M' cars I'd want and none were built after '92 so I need not worry.

Victor_M

To their credit, during the last 10 years BMW resisted sticking M engines into every car in their range like Mercedes/AMG, regardless of how appropriate/useful or not they were.
I can't believe they are doing it now, at a time when they won't sell any (or not nearly as many as 10 years ago anyway) and they will just further dilute what an M car is supposed to be about.

VolvoMan

Victor_M wrote: »

I can't believe they are doing it now, at a time when they won't sell any (or not nearly as many as 10 years ago anyway) and they will just further dilute what an M car is supposed to be about.

You have to bear in mind that these cars were probably signed off before there was any sign of a recession at all. They still shouldn't have gone ahead with them though. With the exception of maybe the Middle East, I really can see no market for these cars.

Drummerboy08

Argue all you want, cos nobody in this country will be able to afford the road tax and insurance on one, never mind actually buying one.

Just buy the diesel, and dont make yourself look like a twat.

Pointless car IMO.

Johnboy Mac

VolvoMan wrote: »

You have to bear in mind that these cars were probably signed off before there was any sign of a recession at all. They still shouldn't have gone ahead with them though. With the exception of maybe the Middle East, I really can see no market for these cars.

I think there is a market for them as BMW would'nt have been taking massive numbers even when things were booming to make it worthwhile making these models. Remember, as I mentioned Russia is a good market and buys a large amount of very expensive cars, China should be good for few, the Middle East as you mentioned, the US (still plenty of wealthy people there) and for sure Europeans will buy them especially the people who still can afford Porsche Cayenne's.

The more choice BMW gives customers in theory the more they can sell.

They'll be a nice conversation piece at dinner for some, after all image has not gone out of fashion.

Johnboy Mac

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Argue all you want, cos nobody in this country will be able to afford the road tax and insurance on one, never mind actually buying one.

Just buy the diesel, and dont make yourself look like a twat.

Pointless car IMO.

The Irish market is not really relevant to BMW for these 'M' vehicles.

VolvoMan

Johnboy Mac wrote: »

I think there is a market for them as BMW would'nt have been taking massive numbers even when things were booming to make it worthwhile making these models. Remember, as I mentioned Russia is a good market and buys a large amount of very expensive cars, China should be good for few, the Middle East as you mentioned, the US (still plenty of wealthy people there) and for sure Europeans will buy them especially the people who still can afford Porsche Cayenne's.

I don't know about any of the other countries, but I've heard sales in Russia have fallen by around 60%.

NiSmO

This post has been deleted.

Beast ASI

X6, you hate when you see online pictures, look stunning in real life!

the 3.0 Twin-Turbo XDrive model that they have already is already brilliant, not really much point in the 4.4 twin turbo!

Big Nasty

Victor_M wrote: »

To their credit, during the last 10 years BMW resisted sticking M engines into every car in their range like Mercedes/AMG, regardless of how appropriate/useful or not they were.
I can't believe they are doing it now, at a time when they won't sell any (or not nearly as many as 10 years ago anyway) and they will just further dilute what an M car is supposed to be about.

What!?!

M3
M5
M6
X5M
X6M

Practically every model bar the 7! Who would want an M1 (I mean 1 series obv - not the original).

X5/6M - Pah!

Personally I think it was way wrong they never did an M7!

Victor_M

MCMLXXV wrote: »

What!?!

M3
M5
M6
X5M
X6M

Practically every model bar the 7! Who would want an M1 (I mean 1 series obv - not the original).

X5/6M - Pah!

Personally I think it was way wrong they never did an M7!

What would an M7 have been able to do that a 760 couldn't? Why would some one in the market for a prestige saloon luxobarge want an uncomfortable, firm handling 2 tonne saloon that can't take a corner at high speed due to the limitations of physics?

M cars are built for the track, with the exception of the F1 pace cars I haven't ever seen or heard of an AMG Merc on a track, they are bought (IMHO) by people who want the most expensive merc money can buy, but don't really give a damn about the driving experience.

Yeah an M1 would be great, and there has been a massive calling for one, the 135i seems to be the closest thing to the original E30 M3.

M cars are supposed to be high revving, agile, nurburgring lapping sports cars, not obese vehicles with huge engines just for the sake of it.

Big Nasty

Victor_M wrote: »

What would an M7 have been able to do that a 760 couldn't? Why would some one in the market for a prestige saloon luxobarge want an uncomfortable, firm handling 2 tonne saloon that can't take a corner at high speed due to the limitations of physics?

M cars are built for the track, with the exception of the F1 pace cars I haven't ever seen or heard of an AMG Merc on a track, they are bought (IMHO) by people who want the most expensive merc money can buy, but don't really give a damn about the driving experience.

Yeah an M1 would be great, and there has been a massive calling for one, the 135i seems to be the closest thing to the original E30 M3.

M cars are supposed to be high revving, agile, nurburgring lapping sports cars, not obese vehicles with huge engines just for the sake of it.

Ever driven an S8?

Eric Cartman

i have to say the x6 was always a horrible car , but i like the x5 (provided it keeps away from the idrive system and stays with the nicer older nav system) but whats wrong with an M-X5 , if it has a performance boost over the standard x5 , has the higher trim level and other improvments i dont see what the problem is, the M5 and M3 are great cars , but what makes them ok and an M-X5 not , i have to say id drive one, the advantages of an SUV with high performance

Victor_M

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Ever driven an S8?

The S Audi's have always had a different appeal/focus then the M BMW's have had.

Up until recently, as in the the current RS range, they hadn't been a patch on the M cars from a driving/Handling perspective.

Getting back to the M cars they are supposed to be agile, which a 2 tonne RWD saloon can't be. So putting a 5-600 Bhp engine into a 2 tonne car just because you have the engine and to keep up with the Jones' hasn't really been their way (until now seemingly).

Fizman

It was rumoured that the X6 made baby jesus cry.

Well mini JC is gonna need a lot more tissues with the arrival of the x6m.

Big Nasty

Victor_M wrote: »

The S Audi's have always had a different appeal/focus then the M BMW's have had.

Up until recently, as in the the current RS range, they hadn't been a patch on the M cars from a driving/Handling perspective.

Getting back to the M cars they are supposed to be agile, which a 2 tonne RWD saloon can't be. So putting a 5-600 Bhp engine into a 2 tonne car just because you have the engine and to keep up with the Jones' hasn't really been their way (until now seemingly).

Fair enough point Victor! So whaddaya reckon would be more practical - M7 or X5/6M!?!

Victor_M

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Fair enough point Victor! So whaddaya reckon would be more practical - M7 or X5/6M!?!

An M5 Touring:D If this recession ever ends, or I win the lotto which ever comes first I'll buy my self an M5 touring.

if I had to choose between an M7 or an MSUV, it would have to be the 7, the lower centre of gravity alone would give it some chance of taking a corner at speed.

Big Nasty

Victor_M wrote: »

An M5 Touring:D If this recession ever ends, or I win the lotto which ever comes first I'll buy my self an M5 touring.

if I had to choose between an M7 or an MSUV, it would have to be the 7, the lower centre of gravity alone would give it some chance of taking a corner at speed.

I knew you would come around eventually!

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i have to say id drive one, the advantages of an SUV with high performance

For when you really need to cross that field as fast as possible?

Matt Simis

Victor_M wrote: »

M cars are built for the track..
Getting back to the M cars they are supposed to be agile, which a 2 tonne RWD saloon can't be. So putting a 5-600 Bhp engine into a 2 tonne car just because you have the engine and to keep up with the Jones' hasn't really been their way (until now seemingly).

You guys forgot the 850CSI, kinda bucks that trend.. It had an Msport engine, RWD and weighed 2tons, making it a not-great-track car. Its just as much an "M" car as the X5M. Screw that, moreso even, its a bloody sports coupe car afterall and it was even labeled as an M8 on the car sales/info sticker:

Whats your theory on that one!?

Remove the rubbish '90s era Cat. and its pushing out over 400bhp in an era where the almighty M5 was putting out 335bhp (in its highest performing guise).

IMO it demonstrates that perhaps BMW dont have the same intentions for Msport that fans do. At the very least "M" cars are about taking the good and making it better, through handcrafted handling and performance enhancements, much more like Audi's RS range (not S, big big difference) than you suggested.
This perceived track orientation is more a recent phenomenon. The only "track" focused BMWs are of course CSLs.


PS: Just incase of confusion, Im not defending X5/X6Ms!

Victor_M

Matt Simis wrote: »

You guys forgot the 850CSI, kinda bucks that trend.. It had an Msport engine, RWD and weighed 2tons, making it a not-great-track car. Its just as much an "M" car as the X5M. Screw that, moreso even, its a bloody sports coupe car afterall and it was even labeled as an M8 on the car sales/info sticker:

Whats your theory on that one!?

Remove the rubbish '90s era Cat. and its pushing out over 400bhp in an era where the almighty M5 was putting out 335bhp (in its highest performing guise).

IMO it demonstrates that perhaps BMW dont have the same intentions for Msport that fans do. At the very least "M" cars are about taking the good and making it better, through handcrafted handling and performance enhancements, much more like Audi's RS range (not S, big big difference) than you suggested.
This perceived track orientation is more a recent phenomenon. The only "track" focused BMWs are of course CSLs.


PS: Just incase of confusion, Im not defending X5/X6Ms!

My theory on the M8/850Csi, is that for the very reason you stated, it was a 2 tonne RWD car that had circa 400 Bhp, but because it wasn't a car that you could throw around a track comfortably, they didn't just stick firm suspension into it, bigger brakes, a few m badges and sell it as an M8 for that very reason, it wasn't good enough to be an M car.

Same goes (IMO) with the 7 series and SUV's until recently apparently, It's wasn't just about how much Bhp they can stick under the bonnet, as AMG do, it's about the driving experience, ala the E30 M3 and to a lesser degree with each M3 since then, but they also have to change with the times a bit so sticking by their guns and designing high revving 4 pot engines like the E30 wasn't practical with the added weight that modern safety equipment and toys brought.

Every car Merc make has an AMG version available, It's a joke, most of them are rubbish at anything other than going in a straight line or burning up tyres, plus, no one that buys a Merc tends to drive them like they should do anyway other than the journalists that test them and the garage staff that sell them! They don't have any ambition to be taken seriously as drivers cars, they just want to look flash and let the owners brag about Bhp figures in the golf club. AMG have diluted themselves completely from a crowd that took a good car as you said earlier and made it better, now they are just a marketing tool, for regular bog standard merc's to look like.

I really hope BMW don't go that way as things between themselves and Audi have gotten really interesting over the last 4 years with the RS4 and soon RS5

Johnboy Mac

Matt Simis wrote: »

You guys forgot the 850CSI, kinda bucks that trend.. It had an Msport engine, RWD and weighed 2tons, making it a not-great-track car. Its just as much an "M" car as the X5M. Screw that, moreso even, its a bloody sports coupe car afterall and it was even labeled as an M8 on the car sales/info sticker:

Whats your theory on that one!?

Remove the rubbish '90s era Cat. and its pushing out over 400bhp in an era where the almighty M5 was putting out 335bhp (in its highest performing guise).

IMO it demonstrates that perhaps BMW dont have the same intentions for Msport that fans do. At the very least "M" cars are about taking the good and making it better, through handcrafted handling and performance enhancements, much more like Audi's RS range (not S, big big difference) than you suggested.
This perceived track orientation is more a recent phenomenon. The only "track" focused BMWs are of course CSLs.


PS: Just incase of confusion, Im not defending X5/X6Ms!

850CSI is a proper grand tourer (GT) just like a 928GTS, well that's my theory anyway and I would'nt say no.
Track focused BMW? Don't forget the M1.

Matt Simis

Victor_M wrote: »

My theory on the M8/850Csi, is that for the very reason you stated, it was a 2 tonne RWD car that had circa 400 Bhp, but because it wasn't a car that you could throw around a track comfortably, they didn't just stick firm suspension into it, bigger brakes, a few m badges and sell it as an M8 for that very reason, it wasn't good enough as a track focused M car.

A compelling argument alright. I guess the history was rooted in bring Race cars to the consumer (ie Track cars). Maybe you are right, this is what it was and they just kinda threw it out the Window.

RobAMerc

I admit I am not with the trend on hating SUV's so my opinion is probably less tainted than some, but having read reviews of how good the X5m and X6m are to drive, does no one else admire these cars for the engineering brilliance they are ?
I mean sticking a big engine in is not all they have done here - that doesn't work. BMW have managed to make a 2 tonne car thats 10ft tall handle and perform like a sports car.
(A couple of years after Porsche managed it with the Cayenne to be fair).

Think of this from a purely engineering perspective - BMW again have moved motoring on when some sports manufacturers can't even make their coupes handle properly.

Matt Simis

How do that compare head to head with an M5 on the same track? Are they really at that level?

Zube

Victor_M wrote: »

M cars are supposed to be high revving, agile, nurburgring lapping sports cars,

CAR reports (May issue) that during their test, a BMW engineer told them that the X6M lapped the 'ring faster than the current M3.

Voodoomelon

Some more rumours surrounding an M7:

http://jalopnik.com/5127182/bmw-m7-possibly-spied-lurking-about-in-the-dark

Biro

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i have to say the x6 was always a horrible car , but i like the x5 (provided it keeps away from the idrive system and stays with the nicer older nav system) but whats wrong with an M-X5 , if it has a performance boost over the standard x5 , has the higher trim level and other improvments i dont see what the problem is, the M5 and M3 are great cars , but what makes them ok and an M-X5 not , i have to say id drive one, the advantages of an SUV with high performance

The problem is BMW have made an X5, and tried to make it as close as possible handle like a car. The reason it's a problem is that they already have a car that even sets a benchmark for handling in mid-sized saloons, it's called the 5-series. Therefore, what's the point in the X5? It can never match the 5-series for handling. People buy X5's because they like the look (for some strange reason). Not because they like they handling. They don't have 7 seats, or at least I've never seen one that did. Therefore a 5 series touring is a better buy for space.
Seeing as people like to buy the X5 due to the way it looks, there's no harm in trying to make it as drivable as possible. However making an M version is pointless, as X5 owners already stated their love for looks and status over handling, and pointless because you can only go so far with a high centre of gravity vehicle. Sure you can lash power and advanced 4wd systems to make it go around a track quicker than an M3, but whats the point if the handling is useless?
(And handling is quantified by characteristics and feel, not by stopwatches).

Zube

Biro wrote: »

Sure you can lash power and advanced 4wd systems to make it go around a track quicker than an M3, but whats the point if the handling is useless?

Given that customers want them, it seems reasonable that BMW should make sporty tractors as well as sporty coupés, saloons and estates. The Cayenne has been a big money spinner for Porsche even though it is an abomination.

Biro

Zube wrote: »

Given that customers want them, it seems reasonable that BMW should make sporty tractors as well as sporty coupés, saloons and estates. The Cayenne has been a big money spinner for Porsche even though it is an abomination.

True, but making an M version is pointless, as if they just stuck in a 5 litre V10 and added an "M-Sport pack" to it, it would sell just as much as an M version cause the owners wouldn't know or care about the difference, and they wouldn't offend the true enthusiasts by diluting the heritage of the M brand by making it.
I think Porsche copped out with that abomination, but more so when they introduced the 3 litre Audi diesel into it. They should have at least put the 4.2 V8 diesel in, but I'd have restricted them to the 6 litre V12 diesel only if they had to have one.

Zube

Biro wrote: »

True, but making an M version is pointless, as if they just stuck in a 5 litre V10 and added an "M-Sport pack" to it, it would sell just as much as an M version cause the owners wouldn't know or care about the difference, and they wouldn't offend the true enthusiasts by diluting the heritage of the M brand by making it.

But that's the point made earlier: the X6M doesn't have a bespoke engine, it's just a tuned version of the standard motor. BMW aren't making an "MX5" the way they make an M3 or an M5, their just cashing in on the M brand for a tractor with go-faster stripes. I don't think the buyers of "real" M cars will be bothered, since they DO know the difference, just as 911 fans don't care about the Cayenne except that it helps keep Porsche in business.

Good luck to BMW, I say. The more cash they extract from tractor fans the better.

Big Nasty

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Some more rumours surrounding an M7:

http://jalopnik.com/5127182/bmw-m7-possibly-spied-lurking-about-in-the-dark

Too little too late! I woulda wanted an ME38!:(

Biro

Zube wrote: »

But that's the point made earlier: the X6M doesn't have a bespoke engine, it's just a tuned version of the standard motor. BMW aren't making an "MX5" the way they make an M3 or an M5, their just cashing in on the M brand for a tractor with go-faster stripes. I don't think the buyers of "real" M cars will be bothered, since they DO know the difference, just as 911 fans don't care about the Cayenne except that it helps keep Porsche in business.

Good luck to BMW, I say. The more cash they extract from tractor fans the better.

Ya, you have a fair point alright. I just thought that the "M-Sport" versions already did that.

Zube

Biro wrote: »

Ya, you have a fair point alright.

Hey, you're not allowed do that on the motors forum

Voodoomelon

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Too little too late! I woulda wanted an ME38!:(

The Alpina B12 is the closest you'll get and will still cost you €25,000. Does over 300kmph, not bad for a 2 tonne car.



http://alpina.me/sales/coda/