GregW / Oregon

BMW is introducing an M Performance version of thei 3L diesel with "tri-turbos." Output is extremely impressive with 375 hp and 546 lb ft. The X5 M50d is good for 5.4s 0-60 (4.7s for the 5-Series sedan) with a weight of only 4,730 lb. That's an increase of 41% power and 28% torque over their standard 3L turbo diesel. Not sure if/when we'll se these in the US, but if fuel prices keep climbing we probably will.

Okay, Daimler, your move!

Interesting technical video here (sound not working, though):

caf

That's pretty cool tech. I would be happy if MB could just match the lighter weight.

jweezy

I saw this last year pretty impressive. I don't really think gas prices would matter much because the X6 M already starts in the 90K range. People who can spend that kind of money shouldn't care about gas/diesel prices -

Thing about fuel, is that if one goes up they all go up. So, regardless if the price of gas rises diesel will rise even more.

From a logical marketing standpoint BMW wouldn't bring this SUV here for MPG reasons. When prices, and mpg together are a concern marketing a vehicle that is cheap(er) and saves money is for people who are money conscience thats why they brought 1-series and soon to bring a even smaller series / light series

When you are talking about 100,000 SUV, marketing the MPG is not a good tactic. It is not by any means breaking any benchmarks. 40mpg is a benchmark these days. Breaking 20mpg will not induce someone to go out and spend 100,000 bucks on a 4wd on-road SUV.

Mercedes does not sale the ML63 for its MPG stats. It sells it on performance.

The reasons why BMW would bring it to the US is, competition with ML63/ JGC SRT8 and new diesel baseline for a version of the X5 M Diesel. A show of technology to the states, a flagship SUV sort of thing.

With the economy the way it is, and the numbers they would sell of this vehicle BMW would not be making a respectable amount of money when its said and done. The X6 sales actually are one of the worst in the BMW lineup. If people won't buy it for 50K, they won't buy it for 100,000 in the states.

If fuel prices keep rising thats makes it more of a tough sale overall. SUVs plain out do horrible in bad economy + high fuel prices. Not attempting to contradict what I mentioned earlier, its basically consumers who want to go out and spend 100,000, its a catch 22 almost. MPG will steer them away, not make them come and buy it. Performance will give the intention to buy.

I am sure most ML63 buyers didn't spend 100,000 to get 22mpg average. They bought it for how fast it can go and the sexy looks.

I doubt we will see something like this anytime soon, BMW is putting most of its money in fuel saving gas engines for U.S. and also marketing their next line of electric/hybrid vehicles.

serge01

right on. fuel economy is alot about h.p. less h.p. better fuel milage,but that doesnt sell as well.all this being said that engine appears to be great.i have been driving ford deisel trucks since 1998 and every new engine brings more h.p. and torque but never betting fuel milage that older engine from my experience anyway and i travel 50 000 to 60 000 km per year.can`t wait to see how my bleutec compares to x5 bmw diesel, i have a freind who has one for the past 1.5 year

caf

I like tech, and the performance it breeds.

To me, fuel mileage IS a form of performance. As a winter commuter car, I like trying to see how much economy I can wring out of my 5000 lb. all wheel drive Benz.

In the summer, I like drifting around on ramps with my sports car, playing with throttle steering.

Two different types of performance, I enjoy them both (though the sports car is clearly mor e fun). If I can get adequate performance out of a truck AND get good economy that's a cool bonus.

GregW / Oregon

I still think there would be a good percentage of the market that would choose a performance diesel over gas. It's not necessarily about the $ savings but about image and "green washing." No matter how much I had, saving 20 -25% on fuel while not giving up performance is a good thing.

jweezy

While I understand your point. Putting the word "green" in a performance SUV I don't see matching up. I would consider a performance machine green if its full electric or something that doesn't use full in the first place.

I still think the (GAS) ML63 is a better buy. It's faster and will probably put up the same performance numbers if not better than this diesel by BMW.

I respect your opinion, however.

GregW / Oregon

Until we know the price on the BMW, I don't think you can speculate that it's "a better buy." And what do you mean by "faster?" That usually refers to top speed. The BMW and the ML63 are both electronically limited to 155 mph. As far as "quickness," the X5 M50d at 5.4s 0-60 is not equal to the ML63 at 4.7s, but nearly matches the gas ML550 at 5.3s.
The term "green washing," in case you are not familiar, means spinning something as environmentally friendly when in reality it may not be so. High performance cars are not the most environmentally friendly choice, but some are indeed more green than others.

The X5 M50d is rated for EU cycle at 7.6 l/100 km combined and 199 g/km CO2. The ML63 is rated at 11.8 l/km and 276 g/km CO2. This is a huge difference for similar performance! It's even better than the ML350 BlueEfficiency. The BMW is significantly "greener." For comparison, the ML350 CDI is rated 6.8-7.4 l/km and 179 l/km and the 350 gas 8.5-8.8 l/km and 199 g/km.

I appreciate all German cars, I'm not a BMW fan boy.

http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-9...=1330574069112

jweezy

I should have been more specific. X5 M vs ML63 (Both similar is shape)

The X6 is a performance crossover SUV coupe with 4 doors realistically. Have you ever sat in the back of one of those things? Of course it will weight 400 lbs lighter. The roof of the back seat actually touches the top part of my back with my head looking at my feet.

The ML350 is a True SUV (truck frame) with a full back seat (I fit fine and I am 6'6)and larger cargo space. I believe a similar comparison would be the X5 M vs the ML63.

Although, we do not know the price. The normal X5 M starts at approx. $90,300 - Although, it is not impossible to match that price, it is very hard to believe that this technology will be sold in a X5 for a similar price...

When you speak of polution, I pretty much don't care mostly for the fact regardless of how much its still doing the deed. If it was 0% that would be great because the faster we can get to the use of non-polution ways of transportation the better. Yes, I know less is better yea yea...however it kinda doesn't matter really. Think about this, if I have a X6 M and its my daily, would I be doing less enviornmental damage than a ML63 that's driven a couple of times a month?

I am not a Mercedes fan boy. This is my first one, we also have a BMW, that we have had since Aug. 2010

GregW / Oregon

Not sure I'm following you -- I was only talking about the X5, which is also the spec sheet I included.
The M Performance line is not the same as the M line, it is in between the regular model and the M, with commensurate price.
That's a real enlightened view.

jweezy

1. Hey, apologies. I didn't see the "performance" - We actually have a performance line on our BMW. I was thinking this would be another M. Which I have heard about they have only completed testing with the X6 however, no word on X5 yet.

GregW / Oregon

Here's an article from 5 weeks ago. http://blog.caranddriver.com/bmw-m-p...ks-for-u-s-x6/. The line is being officially introduced now at the Geneva show.