carcounsel.com |HID|

A: Personally I far prefer the 3.0i – the added weight of the V8 dulls the agility and the sound of BMW’s I6 under load is far more thrilling than the one note rumble of the V8. It’s more BMW like.

Think of it this way: BMW went to great lengths to reduce weight on the nose of the X5, why put it back there?

One of my earliest posts some 5 or so years ago pointed out how differently the same car (in that case a Ferrari) drove depending on which option box you happened to tick. In one case it was miserable, in the other what a Ferrari should be.

Here’s another example – keep in mind that these are just two of the dozen examples I’ve experienced or encountered in the last decade alone; always try every possible permutation before you buy…

Unfortunately the steel-sprung Cayenne simply can’t match the road. It’s not giving any confidence as the front end wallows and fails to feel like it’s keying into the corners. It copes badly with compressions too, feeling all at sea and frankly rather unpleasant. Cover the Porsche badge and try to imagine what a big, heavy SUV would feel like if driven quickly and you’ll get the idea. Fortunately it’s a major failing that’s easily rectified by spending an additional on air suspension with PDCC (Porcshe Dynamic Chassis Control), Porsche’s clever active anti-roll bar system. Now the Cayenne stays miraculously flat when you turn-in and inspires confidence instead of mild panic. Instead of having to be manhandled through corners it reacts cleanly and allows you to really feel and subtly exploit the 38:62 front:rear power split. It defies your expectations of what over two tons of 4×4 should be able to do and deserves its Porsche badge. It’s genuinely fun.—evo

Carmakers like SUVs for the same reason they like coupes, and more so – convertibles: they can charge a lot more for ‘em. Same goes for all wheel drive (cost: a few hundred tops, retail cost: thousands) or larger displacement engine in the same family (Someone explain why a 3.0L 6 cylinder costs more than a 2.5L 6 cylinder when they have the same number of parts? Some companies command $5K+ for the privilege).

The latest moneymaker: third row seating, in many cases right where the crumple zone was meant to be and no airbags either.

When cars get bigger, marketers cite growing waistlines. But as award winning L.A. TImes writer Dan Neil cites:

If the average family size in the United States is 3.84—so sayeth the U.S. Census Bureau—and the average number of children younger than 18 in those families is holding steady at 1.86, well, why the sudden pressing need for more seats? ...The rise of third-row seating, it seems to me, is a classic case of a manufactured need. Most people who spend the extra money don’t actually need a sixth and seventh seat; it’s merely that they have been possessed with the anxiety of not having them. My God, one day we might have friends, and then what will we do?

here’s where it gets interesting. The flat-six engine (or H6, as Subaru calls it) is already a tight fit in the Tribeca’s engine bay. Since the H6 is a horizontally opposed layout, any significant increase in crankshaft stroke would result in engine-block deck-height increases that would make the engine too wide to fit in the existing structure. The problem was exacerbated by typically thrifty computer-aided engine design, which left minimal space between the engine’s cylinder bores. Subaru calculated that it could safely increase the bore size from 89.2mm to 92.0mm, but that change would have bumped the displacement to only 3191cc. Subaru needed more than that for the performance improvements it was seeking, so it came up with a novel way of increasing piston stroke without raising the cylinder deck height. The answer was an asymmetrical connecting-rod design (which looks somewhat like a lamb chop) that permits the piston to travel farther downward into the crankcase and increases the effective stroke from 80mm to 91mm. Increasing both bore and stroke has resulted in a 3.6-liter engine, a growth of 0.6 liter, with substantial gains in power and torque. The new engine produces 256 horsepower at 6000 rpm versus 250 at 6600 in the previous engine. But torque now peaks at 247 pound-feet at 4400 rpm versus 219 at 4200, and about 180 pound-feet are now available at engine speeds as low as 1200 rpm… During the engineering redesign process—which pared about 10 pounds off the engine’s weight—Subaru altered the cooling system from one where cylinders receive the coolant flow sequentially to one where separate ducts provide each cylinder with its own fresh supply. This more-equal cooling strategy allowed the engineers to advance the spark timing by one degree, yielding six pound-feet of torque in the process. The overall improvement in torque delivery permitted revisions to the transmission torque converter and shifting strategies, greatly reducing the amount of hunting and downshifting that is considered annoying by current Tribeca owners…. The larger motor is quite prolific, with increased torque all through the rev range, making squirting through the mountains south of Palm Springs, California, a brisk affair. – Car and Driver

For the past ten years I’ve been trying to convince people that all wheel drives cars and SUVs need winter tires more than two wheel cars (due to the added mass the tires need to bring to a stop, and in the case of SUVs inherently inferior braking and handling and tires with hard rubber designed to take the punishment of off roading).

if a picture is worth a thousand words this video from Automobile is worth many times that.

Sure it’s spring again, but now you’ll be safer come next year…

while Porsche’s SUV is amazing, it still isn’t particularly entertaining. Yes, it’s fast as stink, and, yes, it does things no 4800-pound vehicle should be able to do. (Wheel control and chassis composure on undulating pavement will blow your mind.) But once the novelty wears off, boredom sets in. The Cayenne is so good, so capably idiotproof, that the driver is all but left out in the cold. Absurdly potent? Yes. Hard-core enthusiast’s dream? Not so much. – Automobile

BMW designed the current Range Rover to be an alternative to the S class, A8, etc. But traditionalists moaned that it had grown too large, so when Ford took ownership Land Rover introduced the smaller, sportier Range Rover Sport.

Now that the X5’s gained about 400lbs and a considerable amount of length and width, BMW is considering an X6.

For those who thought the last X5’s form factor was large enough but want the new X5’s front suspension and chassis technology, this should be just the ticket.