What is the point of the BMW X6?

RealMiniDriver wrote: I've been tempted to mark chalk stripes alongside a double-parker and write “Shiny Happy Person Parking Only" at the end of the space.

Oh genius. And there's a mall near my office where they always do this, where the parking spaces are only marked by slightly different colored tiles.

At least it isn't a 5 series GT .......I thought the Gestapo took that cars designer out back and shot him, but then I saw they now have a 6 series 4 door

It is just bmw going after Mercedes. This shift has taken time, but they are doing what MB does......make E36 M3 for the sake of making E36 M3.

Duke wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: Wow, so much hate for a company building a high-performance vehicle **that has to overcome crippling size, weight, and height compromises, but without any of the traditional advantages in utility and interior space typically associated with those tradeoffs. ** Shame, shame on BMW!!

There, I added in the part you missed, which is what's generating all the vitriol.

Funny, you could almost insert "Nissan GT-R" in place of BMW X6 in that statement.

Yet we don't bitch about THAT overweight obscene pig.

Swank Force One wrote: You're all silly. I'd rock the E36 M3 out of an X6M if i had the silly disposable cash. All that power? YUSS PLZ. There's only two of us. Epic road trip car/suv/whatever.

I'd just buy the X5M and enjoy the cargo space whilst traveling to dinner at 135mph.

93EXCivic wrote:

beans wrote: BMW built it because they could. I'm OK with that. The technology that thing has in it to make it turn like it does is astonishing. Completely pointless? Absolutely. I'm only talking about the X6M though, all the others can DIAF.

Swank Force One wrote: You're all silly. I'd rock the E36 M3 out of an X6M if i had the silly disposable cash. All that power? YUSS PLZ. There's only two of us. Epic road trip car/suv/whatever.

+1 to that. I would not be satisfied with "only" 555hp out of that thing, though. Must. Eat. GTR's.

What is wrong with BMW X5M? I mean that has the same power and a useable back seat and doesn't look completely stupid.

Nothing.

I'd just rather have the X6M because it's more ludicrous and i don't need a usable back seat.

Keith Tanner wrote: Look at it this way: the X6 makes money for BMW. They then have the freedom to build low-volume, low-profit cars for us, like M3s with carbon roofs. It's like Porsche with the Cayenne - thanks to the Cayenne, we have the 911 GT3 RS. I am okay with that.

That only works so long, until the manufacturer realizes that they can just skip the interesting cars and go straight to the idiot/douchebag cars that have huge markups. More money is more money!

I actually kind of like the new trend in crossovers. I think it's the final realization that no one was ever going to take an SUV off road, so why should we continue to build them out of trucks? In my mind it's the transition between the bulky, truck-based SUVs we'd become accustomed to and a station wagon.

I think people also underestimate what a HUGE selling point it is that a vehicle have some "tallness." I bet if you interviewed a random sampling of drivers, the ability to see over traffic would be one of their top five wants in a vehicle.

But, yeah. Screw BMW for building something that people might want and trying to make money. Next thing you know they'll be selling ads to sound insulation companies.

jg

So we're all destined to drive the automotive equivalent of a concert where everybody has to stand up all the time , because a few idiots in the front won't just sit in their seats?

For fun, I'll just leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh5dXat3Ec First one, Performance out the ass there.

Swank Force One wrote:

Duke wrote:

David S. Wallens wrote: Wow, so much hate for a company building a high-performance vehicle **that has to overcome crippling size, weight, and height compromises, but without any of the traditional advantages in utility and interior space typically associated with those tradeoffs. ** Shame, shame on BMW!!

There, I added in the part you missed, which is what's generating all the vitriol.

Funny, you could almost insert "Nissan GT-R" in place of BMW X6 in that statement. Yet we don't bitch about THAT overweight obscene pig.

You forgot about the GT5 threads.

This just in: 700hp is more than 670hp?

Duke wrote: So we're destined to all drive the automotive equivalent of a concert where *everybody* has to stand up *all the time* , because a few idiots in the front won't just sit in their seats?

Easy solution: Stop going to the lame Jimmy Buffet concerts. There's plenty of other niche bands playing smaller venues. The big crowds will always flock to the big arenas to see the big artists because they give them what they want. But people with more specific tastes will always have a place to see what they love.

jg

I guess what really shocked me was the sheer size of the thing. If it enables an M3 with a carbon fiber roof, I have no real complaints I guess.

As far as the parking, we have tons of people who park all over the place. There's at least 5 people who take up 2 spaces every single day. One time someone drove his motorcycle up the wheelchair ramp and parked it in front of the main door. I think it's because we rent out the bottom 2 floors of the building, apparently to douchebags exclusively.

Swank Force One wrote: This just in: 700hp is more than 670hp?

Yes it is, the Jeep is also lighter than the M car. Still, I mostly posted it because it's awesome to watch SUVs beat on things like that.

Like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weh5dXat3Ec

JG Pasterjak wrote:

Duke wrote: So we're destined to all drive the automotive equivalent of a concert where *everybody* has to stand up *all the time* , because a few idiots in the front won't just sit in their seats?

Easy solution: Stop going to the lame Jimmy Buffet concerts. There's plenty of other niche bands playing smaller venues. The big crowds will always flock to the big arenas to see the big artists because they give them what they want. But people with more specific tastes will always have a place to see what they love. jg

Well, that's great, except how do I drive my Miata to work on the "smaller venue" roads, unless I live and work on my own property?

Whoa! Hate the player, not the game. The X6M is an amazing piece of machinery. Sure, it's an answer to a question no one asked, and it is driven by people who were douchy but graduated to being complete cu*ts, but it's still a great vehicle. If I won one somehow, I would totally rock it! It defies physics and is insanely fast. Then I would sell it and buy an M3 with some upgrades.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Man we're a bunch of haters. I dig it, I love the look of the thing. I look at it and think it would be an awesome mile eating road trip car. There's a red 'M' version with the plate X6M that I see so often it has to live within a few streets of me, I'm just not sure where yet. It draws my eyes in every time I see it. Great looking car. I think the days of even pretending that SUV's are off road vehicles is long gone, they are the family wagons of yesteryear. As far as people parking in handicapped spots, I never ever see late model luxury vehicles doing that. The only cars (other than those with handicapped stickers in them) I see in those spots are ancient falling to pieces POS that people obviously don't care about the car, themselves or anyone else, or young teen/early 20's kids who still think the world revolves around them and them alone. Also what’s wrong with BMW, Audi or anyone else building multiple versions of a platform in slightly different ways. Some people want sedans, some want hatches, some want wagons some want big engines, some want fuel sippers. Since when was choice a bad thing?

Agreed. it's completely pointless, but I love it. Especially in black.

Swank Force One wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

beans wrote: BMW built it because they could. I'm OK with that. The technology that thing has in it to make it turn like it does is astonishing. Completely pointless? Absolutely. I'm only talking about the X6M though, all the others can DIAF.

Swank Force One wrote: You're all silly. I'd rock the E36 M3 out of an X6M if i had the silly disposable cash. All that power? YUSS PLZ. There's only two of us. Epic road trip car/suv/whatever.

+1 to that. I would not be satisfied with "only" 555hp out of that thing, though. Must. Eat. GTR's.

What is wrong with BMW X5M? I mean that has the same power and a useable back seat and doesn't look completely stupid.

Nothing. I'd just rather have the X6M because it's more ludicrous and i don't need a usable back seat.

Let's just go practice karate in the garage and let them argue about silly things.

Swank Force One wrote: Funny, you could almost insert "Nissan GT-R" in place of BMW X6 in that statement. Yet we don't bitch about THAT overweight obscene pig.

Where have you been? We bitch about that overweight pig quite regularly on this forum.

As for the X5, I'd rock one. Especially if I can get the diesel and tow package. X6? Not my cup of tea. Strangely, I suppose I'm not the target market.

beans wrote:

Swank Force One wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

beans wrote: BMW built it because they could. I'm OK with that. The technology that thing has in it to make it turn like it does is astonishing. Completely pointless? Absolutely. I'm only talking about the X6M though, all the others can DIAF.

Swank Force One wrote: You're all silly. I'd rock the E36 M3 out of an X6M if i had the silly disposable cash. All that power? YUSS PLZ. There's only two of us. Epic road trip car/suv/whatever.

+1 to that. I would not be satisfied with "only" 555hp out of that thing, though. Must. Eat. GTR's.

What is wrong with BMW X5M? I mean that has the same power and a useable back seat and doesn't look completely stupid.

Nothing. I'd just rather have the X6M because it's more ludicrous and i don't need a usable back seat.

Let's just go practice karate in the garage and let them argue about silly things.

This is the internet. It was invented for arguing silly things and p0rn.

Then again I do like the MB G63 AMG so who am I to argue with the X6?

Aeromoto wrote: Any BMW SUV is just for badge-whore douchebaggery. What a brilliant idea- Lets buy an SUV from a company famous for their fast, road holding sedans, but the SUV does not share these traits, and it's also horrible at off roading, but it'll look great double parked at Target. The BMW SUV is to douchebaggery what Hummer is to repressed homosexuality.

I will say that I don't agree here. Give me a 5 series diesel wagon that can tow 5000 lbs and I'm with you. That's what the X35d is to me, and I'm considering it for our next vehicle- oh and it even has 3rd row option, which I don't think the 5 wagon even has. Apparently it sucks in the offroad dept, but that wouldn't be its main purpose anyway.

What's the competition for such vehicle (can be easily used in city driving, has capacity for 7, diesel MPG, and can tow 5k+ lbs)? Touareg, Merc 320 somethingorother, JGC, and?

Believe me, I don't want BMW nameplate any more than the next guy, but even without the diesel, find me an SUV that does the above, has good street manners, and a manual as an option (on the 3.0)?

^^^^ as to the above, when towing 5k, or lets just be honest- a race car on a trailer, which is what we GRM'ers do- I've tried it with both, and these frou-frou German SUVs, while they might have the rating, they just don't tow like a good ole' Suburban or domestic full size pick up, and certainly won't keep towing it as long without deep 4 figure repair bills. As far as mileage, yes it's a concern, but I'd rather have something that gives me confidence in pulling, turning, and stopping a trailer .

The tallness thing is an arms race where everybody downgrades until nobody can see again, and now everybody's vehicle is 6"+ taller than it should be, which when you start looking at large samples, probably makes a measurable difference in how many people end up on their heads in the median.

Tall like a Transit Connect? Sure! Give me that height inside the vehicle, where it improves cargo capacity and ergonomics.

Car-based SUVs make more sense for most than truck-based SUVs, but it just seems like the logical evolution is to drop the ridiculous ride heights and finish turning back into cars...

There is, at this point, a demand. I think it's not as much an aggravation with BMW for building SUVs (not that I like it), but with the auto industry's marketeers for stoking the fire for an upsell that is a downgrade for most people. If you don't have a feature, you can't charge for it. To get a larger number on the sticker, you ask if they want fries with that, or ride height, or 19" wheels... SUVs are one way to tack on perceived value which can be billed for with a minimum of investment. And we all lose relative to the manufacturers differentiating with improved cars.

Argle, bargle, fargle, anyhow... That's my perception. It may not be entirely right, and we certainly have folks here who are better informed with regard to the manufacturers' motivations.

ransom wrote: The tallness thing is an arms race where everybody downgrades until nobody can see again, and now everybody's vehicle is 6"+ taller than it should be, which when you start looking at large samples, probably makes a measurable difference in how many people end up on their heads in the median. Tall like a Transit Connect? Sure! Give me that height *inside the vehicle*, where it improves cargo capacity and ergonomics. Car-based SUVs make more sense for most than truck-based SUVs, but it just seems like the logical evolution is to drop the ridiculous ride heights and finish turning back into cars... There is, at this point, a demand. I think it's not as much an aggravation with BMW for building SUVs (not that I like it), but with the auto industry's marketeers for stoking the fire for an upsell that is a downgrade for most people. If you don't have a feature, you can't charge for it. To get a larger number on the sticker, you ask if they want fries with that, or ride height, or 19" wheels... SUVs are one way to tack on perceived value which can be billed for with a minimum of investment. And we all lose relative to the manufacturers differentiating with improved cars. Argle, bargle, fargle, anyhow... That's my perception. It may not be entirely right, and we certainly have folks here who are better informed with regard to the manufacturers' motivations.

^^^^^^ THIS. ^^^^^^

It's the automotive equivalent of the McMansion. Ostentatious, oversized, yet still sucks at fulfilling its core function. Compromised and made inefficient by the "must-have" frivolities. Developed exclusively for curb appeal and profitability.

The problem is that as each generation grows up with the idea of "this is what a house is", the products drift further and further away from what the optimal solution could be. We could live so much better for the same money, but 98% of the time we can only buy what is offered, so that is what they sell... because people buy it. It's a self-fulfilling feedback loop that drives the product away from something that could be so much better at what it does.

How the X6 came to be:

During Octoberfest a BMW designer was lamenting the absence of Bangle, and his "distinctive" designs that had defined BMW for a decade or more. Being a holiday, the designer was drinking his share of delicious German beer.....maybe more than his fair share. Then, while surfing the interwebs, he came across this:

Eureka!

Joe Gearin wrote: How the X6 came to be: Eureka! **Now lets move the shoulder line up a foot, then crush the roofline down to get rid of that pesky cargo area, and so the back seat is about the same size and usefulness as an appendix. We'll sell a million of them! **