I used to hate the BMW X5. I didn't hate it because it was an inherently terrible vehicle in any specific way. I hated it because in every measurable specification it was worse than a 5 Series wagon. Interior space. Fuel mileage. Handling dynamics. Rollover safety. Price. It was basically a slower, thirstier, pricier and less-space-efficient 5 Series wagon. Obviously a vehicle designed for egos first and logic last. But my hatred of the X5 has softened because, well, it's also a damn good driver -- particularly the current version.
Now, just as I've grown soft on the X5, BMW does it again. They've introduced a new SUV or SAV or CAV or whatever they are calling this one. Like the X5 before it, the BMW X6 is basically a slower, thirstier, pricier and less-space-efficent version of an existing utility vehicle.
Let's talk seating capacity. The original X5 could only carry five people and second-row space was limited. But the current X5 is large enough to offer a third-row seat and plenty of second-row space. The X6? It has no third row and only holds two in the second row. But that's okay, because it's cheaper than the X5, right?
Wrong! The X6 costs approximately $7,000 more than the equivalent X5 but offers less interior and cargo space -- this despite being a couple inches wider. It's a couple inches shorter as well, as that fastback roofline is designed to make it look sporty (certainly I've never called it the BMW Aztek...).
But all that...um, "style" wallops rear headroom. At 6'0 tall my head is just brushing the roof in the second row. Anyone taller won't fit. Also worth noting -- the second-row headrests aren't adjustable or separate from the seatback, they're just cushions sewn onto the top of the seatback (think Pontiac G8). Such a deal at a starting price of $52,000, no?
So how does it drive? Like a 5,000 pound SUV, regardless of what BMW calls it. Our test car had the base, 3.0-liter twin-turbo 6 that makes 300 horsepower. In the 1 Series this engine is a thrill ride. In the 3 Series it's a blast. In the 5 Series it's entertaining. In the two-and-a-half-ton X6...it's adequate. I won't call the vehicle slow, but I didn't think it was possible to kill the twin-turbo's mojo. I was wrong. Of course you can get the more powerful 4.4-liter V8 in an X6 -- for a mere $63,000. BTW, the V8 version is rated at 13/18 mpg.
I took this one off road about 50 yards for the picture, which likely makes it the most "off-roaded" X6 on the planet. But those 20-inch wheels and the beeping parking sensors at the slightest incline didn't inspire confidence. The X6 has a high-zoot drive system that is supposed to direct power to each wheel. It's designed to assist wet-weather and/or aggressive driving.
I can't imagine being inspired to drive this vehicle aggressively--it's simply too big. Curb weight is about the same as an X5, but I could tell this vehicle was wider even before I checked the specs to confirm it. The X6 reminds me of the Toyota Tundra -- adequate power and even pretty stable around corners, but the sheer bulk makes cornering antics feel like slaloming the Titanic.
When I got home my wife took a good long look and simply said, "What is it?"
My reply: "I don't know."
By dougtheeng
on May 23, 2008
06:09 AM
"I took this one off road about 50 yards for the picture, which likely makes it the most "off-roaded" X6 on the planet."
This comment made me laugh, because its so true.
By scott65
on May 23, 2008
06:20 AM
I saw one of these for the first time yesterday. At first glance I thought it was an X5 with significant body damage to the rear.
I just don't like how BMW keeps referring to an X6 as a coupe. Really, this thing is a coupe? Maybe I'll start referring to my Cobalt as a Revention.
By brocklanders
on May 23, 2008
06:30 AM
i think my previous post disappeared...
Anyhow agreed 100%, this car is just plain dumb. That said, Karl, were you at all impressed by the DPC system? Other reviewers were hailing it as the X6's saving grace.
By ahightower
on May 23, 2008
06:34 AM
Yeah, I just don't get it either. "It has all the practicality of a Mazda RX-8, except it's big, slow, stupid, expensive, and ugly!!!"
By opfreak
on May 23, 2008
06:34 AM
I only like this review because I complete agree with it.
But I can see the BMW faithful will complete blow a gasket
By phinneas519
on May 23, 2008
06:38 AM
Karl, you're my hero for saying "No, thanks," to the kool-aid on this one. This vehicle, without getting into detail, is just a bad value proposition and even if it were considerably cheaper, who really wants a "performance utility vehicle" in the land of $4 gas? 15.5 mpg combined for the V8 is abysmal and I know BMW tends to get off easy on stuff of that regard, the low mileage they sometimes offer usually is offset by some great driving dynamics and thrill factor. Unfortunately, these seem to be noticeably absent in this behemoth, leaving any sane person to ask themselves, "Why?"
Frankly, if I'm going to cough up the cash for a BMW, I'll take an M3 thank you very much. Point is, BMW usually has the red headed step children of its vehicle portfolio overlooked and Karl called 'em on this one. 'Attaboy, Karl. Good to know someone brings juevos grande to the table.
Opfreak: the only reason BMW faithful should be crapping their collective metaphorical pants is because a once proud engineer/manufacturer of world-leading cars has lowered themselves to this. Pandering to a vehicle segment that's disappearing faster than half-off chicken wings on a Tuesday lunch buffet. In fact, I would even say that BMW's fall from the mighty (supported by this vehicle in particular) is on par with Porsche's loss of tradition with monstrosities like the Cayenne.
I mean, come on. Is this really the best BMW can do? Any idiot manufacturer can throw in some electronic baubles and a world class engine into and overweight SUV chassis and say, "Hey, look at this! Pretty nice, eh? Eh? Yeah." It doesn't mean anything though. The stuff that proves BMW is really BMW are cars like the ones that are in the IL longterm fleet.
Yeah, I went there.
By brocklanders
on May 23, 2008
06:54 AM
i think my previous post disappeared...
Anyhow agreed 100%, this car is just plain dumb. That said, Karl, were you at all impressed by the DPC system? Other reviewers were hailing it as the X6's saving grace.
By brocklanders
on May 23, 2008
06:59 AM
Phinneas519, good points, although i wouldn't compare Porsche with BMW. Porsche can and should be forgiven for the Cayenne because, as many industry pundits have admitted, that car's sales success has enabled Porsche to continue building wonderful cars like the GT3 and Cayman S. I don't know if BMW can claim the same rationale.
By blackadder5639
on May 23, 2008
07:04 AM
What were BMW thinking? When the X6 was launched, our local BMW dealership invited me to check it out. I didn't bother......
By gmg66
on May 23, 2008
07:23 AM
I'm admittedly biased towards BMWs since I own one, and even I think this is a hideous vehicle that makes no practical sense to me. I can't imagine that people will buy it. Too bad BMW isn't putting more of it's Engineering resources into developing more fuel-efficient performance cars vs. this blotted thing.
By syke
on May 23, 2008
07:45 AM
This car (er, truck, monstrosity, abomination?) is living proof that, for too many years, BMW has had the market hoodwinked - producing admittedly excellent cars that are priced and marketed well beyond their actual real worth (and I've had a few). They've gotten away with just about anything, and the sheep, er, faithful follow obediently. After all, if it has the roundel, it's got to be perfect, right?
That little dictum about absolute power corrupts? I think we've seen the four wheeled version of it.
By tiruvan
on May 23, 2008
07:53 AM
It's a coupe? WTF? And I always thought the BMW team were smart individuals ... turns out ... they aren't even well read.
What an ugly looking car that is! ... probably the shortest lived BMW.
Do we have razzie awards for automobiles? Didn't someone start such awards after the Aztek?
By mrryte
on May 23, 2008
08:06 AM
Quote from blackadder5639
"What was BMW thinking?"
They were thinking that no matter how bad the X6 is, there will be some people out there that will gladly pay for no other reason than it has the propeller badge on the hood and its from BMW. Like Karl said about the X5 and X6-
"Obviously a vehicle designed for egos first and logic last."
Perhaps this vehicle should officially be the first of a new type of SUV-
"Senseless Useless Vehicle"
By ddastardly
on May 23, 2008
08:10 AM
I don't know why.....but I don't dislike it.
By 02speedtriple
on May 23, 2008
08:27 AM
Even though I dislike this car, I see it selling fine since those with their ego controlling their wallet will opt for this car to stand out above all the other egomaniacs with their leased 3 series.
As I'm consider a car purchase within the next 12 months (don't need another 4 wheeled vehicle, but want one), I'm strongly considering an American rear wheel drive car. If they could only get the newly designed ones out faster...
By iskch
on May 23, 2008
08:41 AM
I have no idea what BMW was thinking. Maybe a request from the rich folk department. The funny thing that I read from a BMW add pointing "our more fuel efficient V8 engine".
By blueguydotcom
on May 23, 2008
08:59 AM
The BMW Eagle. Gag. a clear sign the folks at BMW are totally trippin'.
By ewilfong
on May 23, 2008
09:14 AM
Perhaps you're supposed to think of the X6 (with the V8) as a 6-Series with some added utility that costs a bit less. Whatever it is, aren't they sold out from the factory?
By sideout73
on May 23, 2008
10:07 AM
Karl, great review. I'd have to agree with everything, I did test drive it a little while ago.
However I still do like the styling. And I am sure this car will be a hit.
By louiswei
on May 23, 2008
10:13 AM
I don't know why... but I don't like it.
Wait, I know, because this thing is POINTLESS.
By ddastardly
on May 23, 2008
11:30 AM
Maybe it's BMW's answer to the Range Rover Sport...always thought that one was a bit pointless too, but at least you can venture off road in that.
By brocklanders
on May 23, 2008
12:16 PM
ddastardly - perhaps that was BMW's intention, but the RR is so much better looking, and that car's hatch seems significantly more practical.
By estreka
on May 23, 2008
01:09 PM
I'm just waiting for some company to produce an SUV with supercar "credentials." You know, a BMW X7 with a 0-60 sub-4s and a quarter mile time of 11.2s. Oh, and seating for 7, each with a personal plasma screen television.
By lvranger
on May 23, 2008
01:27 PM
I'm not sure if I should be pleased or offended that my beloved Tundra was referenced to this thing. I guess Toyota could advertise: "acceleration and handling of an X6 with more praticality for half the price" On second thought....nevermind.
By editor_karl
on May 23, 2008
01:52 PM
Yes, the Tundra is huge and not exactly flingable, but IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. It's supposed to carry massive loads and drive over stuff, and it can do that.
The X6 gives me the same driving sensations as a Tundra (stable, but HUGE), yet it's got BMW badges and BMW is trying to describe it as some sort of performance variant of the X5. Plus it starts at over $50K. Doesn't really work for me.
By m_thrizzle
on May 23, 2008
05:09 PM
With the X6, BMW is just further pushing their game of "how ugly and expensive can we make our cars before people stop buying them?" They know people with more money than taste are eating up these Banglized Bimmers. So sad.
My E46 M3 may be the last BMW I buy if their design doesn't improve.
By cruiserhead1
on May 24, 2008
12:18 PM
Karl,
The more I read your blogs, the more I think you need to be in product development meetings w/ a "common sense bat".
When BMW says, "Let's make it." You can spit the palms, wind it up and clobber them w/ the "CS Bat"!
BMW, do you hear that ringing in your head? "Hello, this is 2008 calling!"
As the Smart Fourtwo is a trick intelligence test for eco-dummies, the X6 is a sport-lux intelligence test for brand snobs.
Meaning, if you bought one for the reasons the manufacturers claim than you are def. the dim bulb.
By ne1butu2
on May 24, 2008
04:03 PM
If anyone I now purchases one of these ridiculous vehicles, I will laugh my arse off. BMW has gotten so lazy with their designs that they've just re-packaged the same car in a different size. It's the "same sausage, different length" concept that Chris Bangle said he hated. Funny that that's exactly what this company has become.
By rasldasl
on May 24, 2008
08:16 PM
I have not seen any of these on the road yet but saw a whole bunch of them on the dock in Charleston, SC. The pictures really don't do it justice, it is an attractive car. The price certainly seems to be based on the idea, however questionable, that coupes are worth more than sedans.
P.S. Hey Karl, why is there no search box on the edmunds.com home page? You have one on Inside Line. Browsing 4 or 5 levels deep to find what I want drives me nuts.
By drewsrx
on May 25, 2008
08:35 PM
BMW is smart.
They know people will buy anything with a propeller badge on it.
The X6 is a modern version of the AMC Eagle and Pontiac Aztek.
I don't think there is a modern vehicle that is as ugly as the X6.
By 1487
on May 27, 2008
07:43 AM
The commentary here was great. This thing will sell like hotcakes because its a BMW so the rants here wont bother BMW one bit. BMW has the luxury of being so sought after and worshipped that they can throw anything on the market and give it a stiff price tag and sell as many as they can build.
By myob
on May 28, 2008
09:33 AM
This X6 is a freak vehicle w/o much practical use. But you should give the SAV concept its props. They offer superior visability out over traffic vs sedans/wagons, which comes in VERY handy for commuters fighting heavy traffic to get to/from home. I don't commute, but when I know I have to wade into heavy stuff at low speeds, I leave the E90 home and take the Tacoma.
An SAV, assuming one forgoes the snazzy 19" Rims, can also hop curbs and swing around things in cases a wagon gets stuck on the road. Not a common thing, but about once a month I have to pull around something and put at least one wheel off the road or face a nice long wait. I'm not doing that in the sedan.
You'll also do a little better getting in/out of that grass or dirt lot parking at a sporting event or that pot hole won't ruin your day like it will in a low slung wagon. Again, not an everyday occurance, but it's an advantage.
I like sport wagons. I'd buy one if I had kids and if they made one that wasn't expensive and did what I needed. But don't underestimate that throne-like driving position and visability advantage. Not sure about BMWs, but some SUV side mirrors are bigger than those on a 5 series wagon. I've owned 2 5 series and at night you're not weaving in and out of traffic with those things.
The SAV combines the attributes (and some tradeoffs) of both a truck and a car.
By defected
on May 29, 2008
05:57 AM
I get the feeling that there is a perception out there that all BMW's sell like crazy.
Not true.
BMW is notorious for using any combination of hood money, trunk money, money factor, RV and APR subsidies, test drive discounts, service loaner "specials" and anything else that might stick, to register units. Some of their models have per unit subsidies and/or stock days that are in Detroit territory.
And they aren't the only ones; most of the Germans play that game because the sales pressure is relentless. Almost every monthly close is gut wrenching, especially when the drubbing comes from Munich or Stuttgart, since those two seem to be in a perpetual race of "let's see who best fills out his pant crotch this month".
I've been with OEMs for over 10 years and I work for one of the Germans now, so trust me on this one...