Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.
Say you have $95,000 to spend on an odd-looking crossover thing. Unlike most luxury manufacturers, BMW has not one, but two models to choose from. On the one hand, there's the X6 M, a Motorsport-tuned version that will embarrass sports cars that are half its weight.
And then there's the X6 ActiveHybrid, an equally expensive but slightly less nimble X6 that trades some performance for fuel-efficiency. Not much fuel-efficiency, mind you. On the highway, the X6 Hybrid's EPA number goes up two notches, but it still doesn't crack 20 mpg (its 19 mpg) while the city numbers goes from a paltry 12 mpg to a more respectable 17 mpg.
So day to day, the X6 Hybrid will drain your wallet at a slightly slower pace. Then again, all those batteries assure that you'll be moving at a slightly slower pace as well. The weight gain is nearly 500 pounds, which wouldn't be so shocking if the X6 M wasn't already a bit hefty on its own. Still, neither crossover is a slouch in the performance department as you can see from the numbers that appear after the jump. You just have to decide which numbers you care more about.
|
|
X6 H | X6 M |
|
|
|
|
| 0 - 30 (sec): | 2.2 | 1.7 |
| 0 - 45 (sec): | 3.6 | 2.9 |
| 0 - 60 (sec): | 5.5 | 4.3 |
| 0 - 75 (sec): | 7.6 | 6.4 |
| 1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): | 13.6 | 12.6 |
| 0-60 With 1 Foot of Rollout (sec): | 5.2 | 4.1 |
| 30 - 0 (ft): | 29 | 28 |
| 60 - 0 (ft): | 117 | 107 |
| Slalom (mph): | 61.1 | 68.6 |
| Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): | 0.81 | 0.91 |
Vehicle: 2010 BMW X6 Hybrid
Odometer:1,622
Date: 2/2/2010
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $92,325
Specifications:
Drive Type: All-wheel drive
Transmission Type: 7-speed automatic
Engine Type: V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4,395cc (268cu-in)
Redline (rpm): 6,500
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 480 @ 5,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 575 @ 1,750
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Ventilated disc
Steering System: Electric speed proportional power steering
Suspension Type (front): Double wishbone
Suspension Type (rear): Multilink
Tire Size (front): 275/40R20 106W
Tire Size (rear): 315/35R20 110W
Tire Brand: Dunlop
Tire Model: SP Sportmaxx
Tire Type: Summer
Wheel Size: 20 x 10 front - 20 x 11 rear
Wheel Material (front/rear): alloy
As Tested Curb Weight (lb): 5,705
Test Results:
0 - 30 (sec): 2.2
0 - 45 (sec): 3.6
0 - 60 (sec): 5.5
0 - 75 (sec): 7.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.6 @ 104.7
0 - 60 With 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.2
30 - 0 (ft): 29
60 - 0 (ft): 117
Braking Rating: Very Good
Slalom (mph): 61.1
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.81
Handling Rating: Good
Db @ Idle: 42.6
Db @ Full Throttle: 74.2
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 65.8
Acceleration Coments: No matter what I tried, the quickest runs were in Drive. I tried Drive Sport, manual shifting, brake torquing and they were all slower. Upshifts are smooth, but are very slow despite the "burp" between gears. I noticed the batteries recharged very quickly after each run so the trap speeds remained relatively consistent.
Braking Comments: Uncharacteristically soft, long-travel pedal for a BMW, but fade was not an issue at all. Straight, steady stops and zero ABS flutter/buzz.
Handling Comments: Skid pad: With undefeatable DSC, On versus Off were virtually identical with mild understeer kept in check with a closing throttle. Steering gets rather heavy. Slalom: Feels more capable than it truly is, and the undefeatable DSC makes one run completely different than another. Smooth input is the key, but any midcourse adjustment/correction causes massive DSC intrusion. Understeer creeps in as the limited approaches.
estreka says:
03:39 AM, 02/17/10
Sorry for the misplaced comment, but I found this report important:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_on_bi_ge/toyota_recall
Looks like Toyota is at it again.
pat1usmc says:
04:49 AM, 02/17/10
^^Estreka, what are you sorry about? You posted it on purpose and its completely off-topic.
I agree a little with notabigdeal. Although its interesting to see these tests sometimes, I would like to see more tests of practical cars that more people would be interested in purchasing. Even if I had $95k + to burn through, I can't imagine how far down the list this X6H would be. It does post good numbers, but for the price, it should. Except of course for fuel efficiency which as discussed defeats the whole purpose.
throwback says:
05:14 AM, 02/17/10
Are there people who would spend 95k on this? Instead of a S class, Panamera or BMW 750? PT Barnum or whomever said it was right, there is one born evey minute.
dougtheeng says:
06:00 AM, 02/17/10
agree with pat and notabig deal
more 'normal' car reviews would be nice.
noflash1 says:
06:19 AM, 02/17/10
Fail.
cr_driver says:
08:28 AM, 02/17/10
OK let me tell ya something
This test was meant to be since the dyno numbers of this X6 were somewhat dubious!
And now this guys deliver! Thank you very much!
So watching this numbers, gotta tell you, this thing flies buddy, just flies.
Incredible numbers, 117 ft 60-0 ....WOW, just WOW, this X6 weighs 5700 pounds for gods sake!
A stupid accord uses 133 ft more or less to do the same. that deserves a BIG FAIL
The acceleration numbers are unbelievable for its weight
In fact pulls better numbers than the car and driver test of the X6 50i
1/4 mile 13.8 secs at 102 mph, despite being 500 pounds skinnier.
So you got something with 400 hp, u add 500 pounds more of weight, and yet it is faster?
How much hp u gotta add to overcome that weight? how many lbs-ft of torque?
BMW was onto something, this hybrid really packs amazing power. They delivered indeed.
And 40% better fuel economy in the city to boot.
Value on the other hand, its another issue, but ain`t the matter here cause this thread is about track numbers.
Color me impressed.
esoterica says:
09:14 AM, 02/17/10
Let me get this straight, the X6H vehicle starts at over $15,000 more than the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, weighs 300 lbs less, is substantially smaller, seats 5 instead of 7 or 8, uses essentially the same hybrid system co-developed by GM, can't tow, and yet gets substantially worse fuel economy, and Edmunds completely eviscerates the Escalade Hybrid on the premise of pointlessness while having apparently nothing to say at all about the complete psychosis and utter hubris that BMW must have possessed to develop the X6 ActiveHybrid?
There is nothing -- NOTHING -- impressive about this vehicle that doesn't have to be qualified with "for its weight," yet for some reason many people see that as a reason to be impressed rather than a reason to blast BMW for making some of the heaviest vehicles by class in the world.
e90_m3 says:
09:52 AM, 02/17/10
When the X6 first came out many questioned what the point was. The point was that the dealers I talked to all say they sell as many X6 as they can get, even in this market.
Many cars are pointless depending on one's perspective. As long as it makes a buck for the manufacturer why not?
mikedrud says:
09:54 AM, 02/17/10
notabigdeal:
Speaking of the Sonata, see this:
http://www.insideline.com/hyundai/sonata/2011/2011-hyundai-sonata-presentation-webcast.html
angry_mushroom says:
04:33 PM, 02/17/10
A 13.6 second quarter mile German Prius? Interesting times indeed.
roadburner says:
05:24 AM, 02/18/10
e90_m3;
I view the X6 the way many Porsche enthusiasts view the Cayenne. I don't really like it, but if its sales help pay the freight for some enthusiast focused cars, more power to them.
charlesb says:
12:24 PM, 02/25/10
I sat in one of these at the San Jose show and the interior (leather, fit & finish, comfort) was top notch. The ~$100K price was a bit hard to swallow but it was nice.