IL Track Tested: 2010 BMW X6 M

The stats are amazing, but it's just waaay too ugly. The X6/X6M are just pointless vehicles.

Its a beast. Its not going to haul your fifth-wheel but for rich soccer moms who want 555hp/500torque it'll deliver.

Nice to know BMW is using money from 335 sales to fund pointless expeditions like this

Is 12.6 in the 1/4 correct? Is this the fastest SUV?

bmw can make this thing go fast, but not the sedan, wtf?

not only are those acceleration numbers impressive, look at that slalom! for a 5000+ vehicle, that's impressive. but yes it's still ugly...and terribly expensive

it is terribly expensive but you are forgetting its only competition, the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, is about as fast but it costs 30k MORE and that's before you go into options. As for the styling... well there's always the X5M if you still haven't warmed up to the idea of a "sports activity coupe"

Do BMW cars have to be so ugly? Personal opinion: BMW doesn't have a single good looking car in its entire portfolio, barring the 335i Coupe.... sigh....

M Michael
http://easyclicks.wordpress.com/

I was wondering where the 30 or so HP missing from under the hood of my 128i Sport 6M went. Now I know. Thanks a lot BMW, for giving it to some rich soccer mom instead of an actual driving enthusiast...

I am in complete shock that a 5000+ lb SUV (SAV, excuse me) is this fast and this nimble.

Doesn't the X6 have an AWD system similar to the Acura SH-awd? If so, that alone significantly contributes to its handling.

The numbers don't make up for the existence of this vehicle.

> Transmission Type: Six-speed manual

I almost choked on my cereal when I saw this. Alas, it is just wishful thinking. Dumb automatic.

I do like the way it looks, a lot.

If the BMW turbo engine makes a 5000+ SUV fly, just imagine the wonders that engine will do in the new M-5. Watchout CTS-V.

These numbers aren't new or shocking. The vehicle costs almost $100k.

iskch:

The M5 will be lighter but probably won't have AWD. AWD always helps 0-60 times. Even if the M5 is faster to 60 (if it has AWD) it likely would have a 1/4 mile trap speed close to that of the CTS-V. Besides, they could always bump the CTS-V to 600hp if necessary.

iskch:

One other M5 point- even if it catches the CTS-V you can rest assured its still going to be $30k more expensive. Advantage: Cadillac. I'm don't think an extra tenth in the 1/4 mile is worth 30 grand.

I always thought AWD hurt 0-60 times because AWD vehicles tend to bog of the line. I have no data to back this up, but this tends to be the case with 911 C2 vs. C4, and I assume other high performance cars that offer both setups. No matter, this is an impressive engineering feet, and, of course, an impressive price tag to go with...

@337, yeah, AWD usually hurts 0-60 times.

I think this car is really good looking in the flesh. I noticed people staring/turning heads at the rare site of one in traffic.

I think so too! i drove past one of these the other day and though it looked great I had to take a second take.

I'm not a fan of SAV's/SUV's/Crossovers ... but this nasty beast makes the $139k Cayenne Turbo S really look BAD. I'm impressed with BMW.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2009/08/il-track-tested-2007-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt8-vs-2009-porsche-cayenne-turbo-s.html

and did you notice the X6M is also quieter? ;) haha

since we cannot get the RS6 Avant, I think the X6M might be the baddest bad-ass vehicle that, when I win the lottery, I will try to convince the wife it's a good family hauler. hahahahahaha

"Watchout CTS-V."

Watch out iskch, because 1487 is tracking everything that is being posted about GM vehicles on this site and none who dare challenge their products will escape his watchful eye.

It's like GM blogging dictatorship, you know.

337:

AWD helps launches because you have superior traction. Check out the GT-R for an example. Same with 911 Turbo vs RWD supercars like ZR-1. There is more drag with AWD but you get superior launches.

ctpax:

Except for the fact that nothing you said has anything to do with the facts I presented you are 100% correct. The chances of the next M5 surpassing the CTS-v are slim and it definitely wont be done without charging tens of thousands more. Do something other than shadow my posts.

ah and so the debate begins.

First of all, all the facts you presented are false, which means you should probably leave this discussion altogether or at least keep quite and not stroke your ego by replying to other posts that might compromise the CTS-V's so called absolute domination of other sports sedans.

You said AWD always helps 0-60 times. No lamborghini or Porsche has ever been faster than a Ferrari 599, which is 2wd and has its own launch control. Open your eyes and come down to earth.

Not sure if you're aware of this but the Murcielago is actually more expensive, lighter and more powerful than the 599. In fact, the awd murcielago is not even significantly faster than a zr1 if at all.

So there you have it - you don't know much about high performance so please save your 'facts' for people who know little about cars.

You also said the numbers posted for X5 are not shocking. They are very much shocking as this is the best performance numbers a 5000 lbs. SUV has posted to date. Just because you don't want to acknowledge others' success doesn't mean it's any less significant. Get off your high horse and learn to appreciate real engineering effort. You're not 5 y.o. anymore.

And why did you even fathom the idea of M5 having awd? I don't know which dimension your mind exists in but it's not ours.

How ignorant and out of touch with reality can you be to even say things like "chances of the next M5 surpassing the CTS-v are slim" after witnessing the same powertrain work miracles in a vehicle that's not even suitable for a racetrack.

"Do something other than shadow my posts. "

It's all about you again isn't it? Just how self centered are you in your own little world?

1. The GTR has laid down 0-60 times consistent with the 599 even though it has far less hp. Why? AWD.

2. The 911 Turbo has put down 3.5sec runs to 60 which is on par with the 638hp ZR-1 which weighs slightly less. Why? AWD.

3. I said the numbers aren't shocking because C&D and others have already tested this vehicle and most BMWs seem to be packing more hp than listed. Not sure why BMW does this but dyno tests show BMWs make more hp than the specs claim.

4. I didn't say the performance wasn't impressive, I said its not impressive for $100k. Learn to read and comprehend.

5. I noted the M5 likely wont have AWD which means it wont have the traction advantaged of the X6M. See #1 on my list.

6. The M5, CTS-V and E63 are approaching the limts of what one can expect for a street legal sports sedan weighing 4000lbs or more. None of these cars are going to leapfrog one another. The E63 is very impressive but the bottom line is that its performance is pretty much on par with the CTS-V. Same applies to XF-R. The next gen M5 will likely have more power and even be slightly faster but there isn't much more than can be done with these cars. Choosing one over the other is a matter of which style or price tag you prefer.

The fact that you don't like me doesn't change the facts. Get mad, call me names, do whatever you have to do. The facts still stand.

I have yet to grasp the point of posts that have nothing to do with the subject at hand and are instead vain attempts to criticize or attack other posters. Its not all about me- its about you making pointless entries attempting to convince others that I am some sort of evil entity. Just stick to the car being discussed. Your personal interpretations of what my objectives are or predictions about what I'm going to say next are superfluous.

Do they have a time # for it on Nurburgring? Faster than M5?

The funny thing is that it has more grip and faster through cones than an M5. Maybe I should get this one to track day. Or even someday when we saw this one in BTCC or DTM racing rather than the M3...... :o

The GT-R's advantage is also very aggressive gearing and early power delivery. Amazing how you love to omit most important features and focus on the ones you like. Wait a minute, that's not amazing at all because all your arguments focus on attacking the other poster instead of constructively pointing out correct information.

The RWD GT3 with 415hp gets from 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, which is .3 seconds slower than a 480 hp AWD Turbo. Read that again and make sure you don't think I'm making an pointless entry. I am merely pointing out that none of your arguments hold water.

"I didn't say the performance wasn't impressive, I said its not impressive for $100k."

Here you are simply refusing to accept reality. Such performance is always impressive for an SUV that weighs over 5000 lbs. And what's even more impressive is that it costs less than 100K. If you deny this you're not from this planet. And then you even have the guts to tell me to read and comprehend. Sorry but your attempt to discourage my attention from your chauvinism towards other automakers didn't work.

First you said the chances of M5 surpassing CTS-V are slim (btw nobody knows what gave you that idea. Another baseless fact?) and then you declare that "The next gen M5 will likely have more power and even be slightly faster". Which one is it? Make a choice. But make sure you stick to it so that I don't have to come back and retype this because it's getting old while trying to talk some sense into you.

"The fact that you don't like me doesn't change the facts. Get mad, call me names, do whatever you have to do."

You are again switching the conversation to your persona. I've told you this before: this is not about you. Read it again. This is not about you. Calm down your ego and understand that this is about your lack of credible knowledge and as a result of that - false information being posted here.

I never called you any names, never said I'm angry at you, and I never said I don't like you. So stop making things up already. This is no way to argue. And no, your facts do not stand. Read my post from the beginning.

"I have yet to grasp the point of posts that have nothing to do with the subject at hand and are instead vain attempts to criticize or attack other posters." So you're saying you can't comprehend your own actions? What does that reveal about you?

I think you are maniacally fixed on yourself, constantly expecting some sort of attack on you or GM, which prompts you to spit out superfluous things like "you making pointless entries attempting to convince others that I am some sort of evil entity".

ctpax:

Here is the bottom line: you are woefully ignorant if you honestly believe that AWD does not enhance launches for performance cars. I did not make this up, this has been stated MANY times in reviews, especially with regards to the GTR. MT or C&D raced several high hp cars and teh GT-R got off the line quickly but was soon passed by the higher hp cars. This is a well known fact. It's not up for debate.

"The RWD GT3 with 415hp gets from 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, which is .3 seconds slower than a 480 hp AWD Turbo. Read that again and make sure you don't think I'm making an pointless entry. I am merely pointing out that none of your arguments hold water."

WTF are you talking about? C&D has timed the 911 Turbo as quick as 3.5secs. The RWD GT3 is lighter and has more hp than the 911 Turbo and thus is faster once it gets rolling.

"First you said the chances of M5 surpassing CTS-V are slim (btw nobody knows what gave you that idea. Another baseless fact?) and then you declare that "The next gen M5 will likely have more power and even be slightly faster". Which one is it? Make a choice."

No choice. As I said, learn how to read. I said the next M5 will likely be somewhat faster than the current one but likely wont surpass the CTS-V in any appreciable manner. I explained the reason for that in my last post. The performance of the XF-R, E63 and CTS-V is very similar because they all have excellent chassis and over 500hp.

"You are again switching the conversation to your persona. I've told you this before: this is not about you. Read it again. This is not about you. "

Actually it is about me when you post about me without even referring to the topic at hand. Like I said- stick to the cars and you will be fine. I assure you have no urge to ever warn anyone about what you might post or what you might be thinking. Not my concern.

"This is no way to argue. And no, your facts do not stand. Read my post from the beginning."

read it and you're still poorly informed.

"So you're saying you can't comprehend your own actions? What does that reveal about you?"

I don't comment on personalities, I comment about the vehicles and I correct erroneous information if I can. That has nothing to do with your post. Zilch. Here's a tip: If you are going to attempt to ridicule me (or anyone else) without provocation be sure to know what you are talking about.

"I think you are maniacally fixed on yourself, constantly expecting some sort of attack on you or GM, which prompts you to spit out superfluous things like "you making pointless entries attempting to convince others that I am some sort of evil entity"."

And yet you were unable to discredit anything I said. Stop getting bent out of shape because you think someone took a swipe at BMW. There aren't many poorly performing 100k vehicles. The X6M is just one more example of that.

1487:

I will attempt to prove your incompetence once more but given that you so fiercely refuse to accept reality I have little hope for you.

You clearly stated that AWD always helps 0-60 times, which is ignorant at best. There are plenty of examples out there where awd is practically obsolete when talking 0-60. There will always be power losses when talking AWD. Take your own example. The 3.5s in turbo 911 was achieved with the optional PDK. The manual version of the same car is .1-.2 seconds slower, which puts it right up there with the RWD GT3, which has much less hp, torque, and traction. Another example is Murcielago LP670-4's superior 0-60 time as compared to its LP640 counterpart with better traction and awd. Same cars but different propelling wheels layout. I could go on... are you following?

And what is it you said about this not being up for debate? If you don't want to talk about it then just say it out right. Don't hide behind false "empirical" evidence that would support your uninformed opinion. There is absolutely no universal formula about getting the best time out of performance cars. If there was one - everybody would be using - understand that much, can you?

AWD/RWD/Turbo/etc is constantly being fiddled with in order to cut those .2 seconds off. This seems to be obvious to everyone except you.

Basically what you said identifies you as a novice, but it's nothing to be ashamed about. It's important to admit your mistakes, which is useful in real adult world. Keep working on it.

Now going further:

Excuse me, but WTF are YOU talking about? Saying that GT3 has more hp than the Turbo is at the very least 100% ignorant. Like you always say "get your facts straight". Go get your facts straight and when you come back maybe I'll talk to you but in the meantime stop wasting my time with your misinformation and amateur claims. This is really not a place for you to discuss things if you are so far from the truth.

The bottom line about the next M5 surpassing the CTS-V is it will happen, no matter how bad you don't want it to. You said that the chances of that happening are slim and only assuming M5 has awd, which is again an incredibly serious mistake on your part. Any kind of superior 0-60 or Nurburgring lap time or handling advantage will mean the CTS-V is surpassed, thus iskch's wording, which dented your ego so much, to the CTS-V to watch out, is very much valid. What, are you going to try to deny that as well??

I think all of us here know the way you comment so if you think you sound believable in the second half of your post you are only fooling yourself. Wake up and look at reality the way it is. I'm not the first one to tell you that and surely won't be the last. If this does not discredit everything you said I don't know what will but then again you're not known for listening to people and we have little hope for you.

Got your panties in a pinch, 1487? Your blessed CTS-V will be surpassed by the next M5, and you can't handle it. Poor little boy.

"The chances of the next M5 surpassing the CTS-v are slim "

1487, as usual you always find some way to downplay any competitor (which is usually Honda or BMW) to GM . You continuously suggest to others to be more open minded when it comes to judging GM products yet on certain occasions you are just as closed minded.

You always factor price in the equation which is certainly valid yet you give no reason as to why that certain competitor is more expensive. Don't just tell us whats on the surface, get to the details as that's where the money is.

In regards to the current M5 vs CTS-V price difference, I think its very evident why the M5 is more expensive than the CTS-V and that starts with its more complicated and much more expensive M exclusive drivetrain. The V10 engine was designed specifically for the M5/6 as it doesn't share any parts with BMW's more mainstream products. The M3's V8 uses the V10's basic architecture.

On the contrary, the CTS-V shares its basic architecture with GM's LS series V8 which is found in various vehicles in various price ranges throughout GM's overall lineup. Mass production and the fact that the LS series V8's are much cheaper to produce help make the CTS-V cheaper. Of course engine R&D alone isn't the only culprit as I didn't even touch on BMW's SMGIII 7 speed transmission which is M exclusive and expensive to develop and produce. I'm sure I could find more reasons if I chose to dig for more information. I'm certainly not suggesting the M5's higher price of entry is 100% justified as I'm just giving potential and valid reasons for the higher price.

You have to recognize and respect that competing models with similar performance often choose to take different and more complicated/expensive paths to deliver that performance. If all competitors used the same methods and techniques there would be no competition as the performance given would be equal and delivered in the same manner. Diversity is your friend!

"it definitely wont be done without charging tens of thousands more."

The next M5 may be more expensive vs the CTS-V however the next M5 may be cheaper than the current M5 due to it sharing engine architecture with other M and non M BMW vehicles. However, none of us know this to be factual.

As I've told you before, the CTS-V probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for BMW's M5 as Cadillac wouldn't have had anything to benchmark. To simply think that BMW (or any other legit competitor) would not be able to duplicate or exceed the CTS-V's performance is pure ignorance on your behalf.

"Besides, they could always bump the CTS-V to 600hp if necessary."

Power is only part of the equation as there are so many other factors that make a great product.

"If the BMW turbo engine makes a 5000+ SUV fly, just imagine the wonders that engine will do in the new M-5."

Iskch, the next M5 is reported to sport a larger 4.8L twin turbo V8 (vs the X6M's 550hp 4.4L unit) and is reported to have around 600hp. Torque figures should be around what the CTS-V spits out (550ftlbs) but with an even flatter torque curve. Hopefully the next M5 will retain its high level of finesse and technique while remaining a legit rival to the overly beastly and overly brute CTS-V! Should be a good fight.

"AWD usually hurts 0-60 times."

Civilag, incorrect. AWD aids in traction which helps deliver solid 0-60 times vs FWD and RWD. However, once moving all that extra driveline mass comes into play and slows you down.

Example: Nissan GT-R will get to 60 faster than a Z06 due to its superior traction. However, the Z06 will catch up and pass the GTR and have about a 3-5 mph trap speed advantage at the end of the 1/4 as the Z06 has a much better power to weight ratio. In the end trap speeds give you a much better indication of how powerful a car really is not 0-60 measurements.

Good God, who cares??????? Anybody who gets that emotionally attached to a car company needs a life transplant. GM, Nissan, Honda do not care about you at all......why get so emotional about them?

That being said, this vehicle is as stupid as it is ugly and expensive. They just have to be kidding.

Wow, the saga continues, and the main artist is the now infamous 1487.

Back on topic, the 1/4mile says: 12.6
Where is the trap speed?

AWD does not hurt 0-60 times, it helps it, although it slows the car in the 1/4 and at higher speeds. For Example a 480-horspower 4wd 4000 lb. Nissan GTR can hit 60 in 3.2, a 640-horsepower 2wd 3200 lb Corvette ZR1 has never matched or beaten that time and averages 3.3-3.8 depending on surface traction, although the Vette mauls the GTR at higher speeds as it should. 0-60 is more about traction rather than horsepower!! AWD>2WD in 0-60, 2WD>AWD in 1/4 mile is the most common equation. What the heck are these guys talking about when they say the AWD bogs cars down off the line, thats faster than having wheel spin the whole time ur accelerating:P. A 265-horspower 4WD Subaru Impreza with a 2.5 liter Four-cylinder with a relatively low pressure turbo (and a five speed manual!!) hits 60 mph in 4.7 seconds!!While the mighty 540-horsepower(!!!!) RWD(2WD) Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 with a comparatively massive 5.4 liter supercharged V8 takes a whole day of runs and a professional driver to get to 60 in 4.6 seconds, although it overtakes the WRX at illegal speeds, well then again it has no excuse not too since it has over twice the power.

hondacura4;

Excllent post, but you forgot the one major advantage that the CTS-V has over its German competitors- A Cadiilac dealer is equipped to fit a cloth cabriolet roof and 22" gold wheels prior to delivery...

Those are pretty impressive numbers, but I would buy Cayenne Turbo if I was going to buy fast SUV. Besides, Porsche Cayenne can do all of that on road, plus OFF Road. Also, I believe Cayenne is bit tougher built vehicle. In my opinion, X6M is built for people with small dicks who wants to sit higher to make up for their shortcomings. Real men buy a M3, M5 or 911, not some boxter.

"1487, as usual you always find some way to downplay any competitor (which is usually Honda or BMW) to GM . You continuously suggest to others to be more open minded when it comes to judging GM products yet on certain occasions you are just as closed minded."

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. When the current M5 costs about $30k more than the CTS-V I would love to know how everyone is predicting the next M5 will surpass the current CTS-V without incurring a greater price penalty. How does that work? When does BMW EVER lower prices on new, higher performing models. the current M3 experienced a major price increase with the new engine and technology. Even if we assume the next M5 is capable of slightly exceeding the CTS-V the price is going to be a factor. It will come down to buying 2% more performance for an extra $30k-$40k. And this is all assuming the CTS-V remains unchanged over the next 2 years.

ctpax:

You continue to igmore the performance of the GTR, statements from auto magazines that tout the advantage of AWD and you have not posted any links to back up your assertions thatr RWD cars are faster in spite of having traction issues. I think that sums it up pretty well. Do you have any links to support all your claims of RWD cars being faster? Parasitic losses from AWD are not going to be much of a factor in a 0-60 race lasting less than 4 seconds. Sure the weight and driveline drag will affect top speed or top end acceleration but its not going to affect a 0-60 time on a car with 400-600hp. The numbers back this up. I want to know how the GTR is getting to 60 in 3.3-3.5 secs with 480hp if AWD doesn't help it put its power to the ground. I want to know why there are several AWD cars with far less hp than the 3400lb ZR-1 that can match that car's acceleration to 60 only to get left in the dust by the quarter mile. Can you explain that professor? Thanks.

"Excllent post, but you forgot the one major advantage that the CTS-V has over its German competitors- A Cadiilac dealer is equipped to fit a cloth cabriolet roof and 22" gold wheels prior to delivery..."

Hilarious! can't knock the performance so you fall back on jokes about cabriolet roofs. Because we know most CTS-Vs are sold with those! The hits keep on coming.

30cL:

thank you for injecting sanity here. AWD guarantees a perfect launch everytime and thus you can consistently nail great 0-60 runs because all the power is being put to the pavement. RWD cars require expert modulation of the brakes and throttle to nail a perfect launch with no wheelspin. A modern AWD system manages the power for you and helps launch the car with no wasted motion. This is one reason why the 2010 Vette has a launch control system to limit wheelspin and help drivers get consistent launches.

HondaAcura:

Please do not presume that I am ignorant as to the inner workings of the M5 or any other car we are discussing. At no point did I suggest I didn't grasp why the M5 is so expensive. I just don't care. Its BMWs choice to use an exclusive V10 engine that is expensive to build. At the end of the day that engine does not get the job done any better than the AMG 6.3L or the LSA- both of which are likely much cheaper to produce. The M5 does have a more complex transmission but its not a good transmission and most auto writers prefer the manual which is smoother and more gratifying to drive. BMW never delivers any product with value in mind and I suppose that is part of the appeal for owners who like to feel exclusive. Cadillac chose to look for economies of scale where possible in order to bring the cost down and make the performance more accessible.

If you bothered to read my posts you would note WHY I said the M5 is unlikely to deliver much more performance than the V8 supersedans already on the market. All automakers are working to achieve certain price, performance and mileage targets. If you review the specs, weights and performance figures of the CTS-V, E63 and XF-R they are remarkably similar. The CTS-V is slightly better than the XF-R. The E63 has yet to be directly compared but appears to pack performance that is on par with the V. There is going to be parity to some degree because all of these vehicles will be similar. If you follow developments from BMW you can predict certain things about the M5. It likely will have a turbo (all but confirmed), lower redline, more weight, more hp, better mileage and more gadgets aimed at increasing safety and handling. All of those issues plus cost targets lead me to believe the car's performance will be in the ballpark of the other's I mentioned. Could it be better in some categories? Sure. Will it show up and obliterate the competition with magic BMW technology? Probably not. I also question why we think GM, MB and Jaguar will be sitting around leaving their vehicles inchanged waiting for BMW to crush them.

An additional comment on gauge layout:

In my opinion, the problem with the C-class is myyour eye is not immediately drawn to the most relevant information - ie the speedo or tach. When I look at those gauges, all I see is the screen. The speedo is there, but its not the focus of attention. This is generally why I prefer equally an sized speedometer and tachometer. Both that data is relevant, and I want it staring me in the face. It can lead to confusion. Obviously, you can get used to any gauge arrangement. Hell, before my current car i drove a MINI which has some of the most controversial gauges ever.

To 1487 - The email address on your account is no longer valid. Keeping a valid email address on your account is a requirement per the Membership Agreement. You have until the end of today to update or we will need to put it on your account hold.

I never thought the horsepower race would begin to bore me. Cars like this and even the Ecoboost Flex are downright silly. What is the point?

Sexy beast. Speed sexy. Looks beastly.

AWD versions of most car models are usually slightly slower to 60 -- 335i vs xDrive, Infiniti G or M, etc. with the same transmission, engine, etc. Making a logical comparison means changing one variable at a time.

It's fun to see that the X5M was also just tested by IL. Again, I don't like SUVs/SAVs/crossovers; but the 35.8 cu-ft of cargo room in the X5M is pretty nice (although I see 21.9 cu-ft from another source). It looks like an appealing way to haul a family on trips. X5M or X6M? hahaha What a waste of nearly $100k.

@ e34bmwlover, to point out the obvious, the X6M and Cayenne both have seats that are higher up than sedans/sports cars. You would actually make sense if you did not have a preference for any of these stupid things and stuck to your M3/5/911. Also, please watch your language (and grammar).

I ask one more time, but it was probably lost in the nonsense thread jack, which is the trap speed of this amazingly quick X6M?

Done.

"Watch out iskch, because 1487 is tracking everything that is being posted about GM vehicles on this site and none who dare challenge their products will escape his watchful eye.

It's like GM blogging dictatorship, you know."

^^
+1

I find this costly piece of powerful engineering stylish. Not exactly my cup of tea but...

The X5 M & X6 M are misguided - in my view, as travesties of the ///M heritage - but most certainly not pointless from BMW's perspective.

BMW - like Merc, Audi et al - make all their money from more powerful, larger models.

The Cayenne is Porche AG's most profitable model (the body comes from VW!)

BMW will be making a nice profit on the X6 M.

Ok, thats great, like the flex whats the point.

imagine what these engineers could do without having to carry around an extra 2000lbs, and 6 feet of height?

That would be amazing.

Otherwise like the flex, good engineering effort. But pointless vechicals that should not be created.

I drove the X5 M's immediate ancestor(the 4.6 is) at the press intro back in 2001. At that time the BMW line was that the truck wasn't an ///M variant- simply a more sporting permutation. I had one for ten days and it was a four star hoot to drive; the engine had been filched from the Alpina B10 and the suspension tuning was spot on. I had a blast worrying Boxsters on on-ramps and blowing off more than a few musclecars at the stoplight Grand Prix. No, the X6 M isn't a "real" M car, but I'd love to have one just for giggles. M Brand Manager Larry Koch told me that BMW wants a slice of the Cayenne Turbo market as that's where the money and action is. If trucks like the X5 M and X6 M can subsidize more traditional M vehicles, then I'll have no complaints.

"The chances of the next M5 surpassing the CTS-v are slim and it definitely wont be done without charging tens of thousands more."

1487, Once again you try to twist your own posts into something else. Please reread your sentence above carefully. Explain to me how the chances are slim without talking about the price as your sentence contained 2 separate pieces of information.

"When the current M5 costs about $30k more than the CTS-V I would love to know how everyone is predicting the next M5 will surpass the current CTS-V without incurring a greater price penalty."

As far as price is concerned most all cars have increased in price not just the M5. I'm sure the current CTS-V has a higher entry price vs the last generation. Yes...no?

"At no point did I suggest I didn't grasp why the M5 is so expensive. I just don't care."

I find that hard to believe as with any BMW M to Cadillac V comparison "PRICE" is usually the first word out of your mouth.

hey editors, trap speed of the 1/4 mile time..........??????