hugo:

 Well i actually think the written report is quite well presented and the results are well motivated as per usual for Car,it is what it is ... 

 

Says somebody who owns a Cayenne Turbo... Smiley

I drove them all and especially the Cayenne Turbo and X5M in comparison and the description of the X5 M is just completely wrong. It is actually the first review I read about the X5 M stating this bull. Most reviews I read actually confirm my experience with the X5 M.

The only thing they are right with, is that the X5 M starts off faster than the Cayenne Turbo but from 0-200 kph, there is already a 0.2 seconds gap between both in favor of the X5 M and even if this is actually nothing, at speeds from 200 to aprox. 240 kph, the X5 M is already one car length ahead. They also don't mention that there is a 275 kph speed limit raise available as an option for the X5 M.

Claiming that the X5 M feels "overpowered" with that 555 HP engine is just ridiculous. On the contrary, the engine "feels" more like 350 HP or so, I need to look on the speedo to realize on how fast the car is actually moving, especially when accelerating. The brakes are absolutely great too, I drove with a fully loaded X5 M several times at very high speeds and never had any complaints about the brake. You should actually experience the brake system of my wife's M3 Cab DKG in comparison, a catastrophy on four wheels, horrible.

Btw: my ranking would be first place for the Cayenne Turbo and second place for the X5 M, despite the fact that I consider the X5 M to be the better bang for the buck like we say here. Smiley The X5 M interior is indeed a bit boring and BMW could have achieved a sportier chassis setup, especially with different tires. On the other hand, the Runflat tires have a huge advantage, especially in Romania. Smiley


--

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 997 Turbo, BMW X5 M, BMW M3 Cab DKG, Mini Cooper S JCW