Close

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No

    Adding the N63TU twin turbo V8 to the 2014 F15 X5 xDrive50i makes for a 5300 pound 12 second SUV

    Many people have likely forgotten this but BMW did make high performance SUV's long before the X5M ever went on the market. Back with the first generation E53 X5 over a decade ago BMW produced the X5 4.8is model which was the highest performance X5 in all the land. With 355 horsepower and 360 lb-ft of torque from the 4.8 liter naturally aspirated N63 V8 it hustled the 5090 pound X5 to 60 in 6 seconds flat and through the 1/4 mile in 14.5 second at 96 miles per hour.

    Click here to enlarge

    How much have things changed in the decade since? The xDrive50i is not even the highest performance X5 available although until the new X5M hits it is the highest performance X5 available for the new F15 generation. It is roughly the equivalent in the model range of the X5 4.8is of a decade ago since an M model did not exist back then. In 2014 what this means is a 445 horsepower and 480 lb-ft twin turbo 4.4 liter N63TU twin turbo V8 powered 5306 pound monster that hustles to 60 in 4.3 seconds and through the 1/4 mile in 12.8 @ 109.

    To put it another way, quicker and faster than every M3 produced prior to the last generation E92 M3. You could line up next to an E39 M5 at a stoplight and pull away while sipping a latte. That is how fast BMW's SUV's have become but notice that they have not gotten any lighter. This generation was supposed to improve in that area by a couple hundred pounds (according to BMW who somehow keeps overstating their weight loss) but when weighed it turns out it actually isn't any lighter.

    Everyone will no doubt state this is very impressive acceleration and it is but there is one thing that old X5 4.8is did better than this new car. It went through the slalom quicker and pulled .83g on the skidpad to the 2014's .81g. It also stopped 5 feet shorter from 70 miles per hour.

    Hey, as long as this one is faster that is progress right?

    Click here to enlarge

    Source: Car and Driver

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Louisville ky
    Posts
    716
    Rep Points
    551.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Well it seems bmw can still do one thing right... But I would still rather had an 07/08 tahoe lifted and sitting on 35in Mickey Thompson Baja mtz's

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    657
    Rep Points
    743.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    0 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    88k MSRP is crazy money. That thing will be worth half that in only a few years.
    Click here to enlarge
    FBO's. Spec S2+. E85.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rdeterman Click here to enlarge
    88k MSRP is crazy money. That thing will be worth half that in only a few years.
    You're right. Buying an X5M or Cayenne Turbo brand new is burning money.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    974
    Rep Points
    442.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    ....sorry I'm still scraping my jaw up off the floor....


    4.3 to 60? 12.8 in the quarter at almost 110 mph? This thing would hang with an E60 M5, just about. This is madness. I'm re-reading these numbers to make sure I'm not misunderstanding. This is obscene. As far as I'm concerned, this is progress...the new X5 is crazy nice. The X5M should be certifiably insane. 88k maybe is a bit much, but it's a very nice car and its cheaper than a Cayenne (although won't handle like one). Pretty sure we can call BS on those power figures too...no way something that heavy gets moved that quickly by only 445 hp and 480 lb ft.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    This thing would hang with an E60 M5, just about.
    Well to a hundred or so.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    As far as I'm concerned, this is progress..
    Heavier, worse braking, worse handling, worse steering feel, but faster? I mean are BMW's dragsters now?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by leveraged sellout Click here to enlarge
    The X5M should be certifiably insane
    I'm guessing it will get the S63TU as well then but will it have the dual clutch or automatic? A 5300+ pound all wheel drive dual clutch is going to put some serious stress on that drivetrain. That would make it the heaviest all wheel drive dual clutch car in existence I think. Audi didn't do it for the RS6/RS7 so I'm wondering if BMW will also go auto.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    303
    Rep Points
    308.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    the tires arent performance tires like on the 4.6/4.8is, nor are they as wide, so I don't expect handling/braking # to be the same. I wonder why 5/6 series with the same engine have such a hard time producing similar trap speeds as this X5? I always felt the 5/6 was slow considering whp/weight.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by spool twice Click here to enlarge
    the tires arent performance tires like on the 4.6/4.8is, nor are they as wide, so I don't expect handling/braking # to be the same. I wonder why 5/6 series with the same engine have such a hard time producing similar trap speeds as this X5? I always felt the 5/6 was slow considering whp/weight.
    Haven't rubber compounds advanced a bit?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    974
    Rep Points
    442.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Well to a hundred or so.

    Heavier, worse braking, worse handling, worse steering feel, but faster? I mean are BMW's dragsters now?

    I'm guessing it will get the S63TU as well then but will it have the dual clutch or automatic? A 5300+ pound all wheel drive dual clutch is going to put some serious stress on that drivetrain. That would make it the heaviest all wheel drive dual clutch car in existence I think. Audi didn't do it for the RS6/RS7 so I'm wondering if BMW will also go auto.
    Yeah basically. That quarter mile time isn't too far off, although trap speed is.

    I think probably in an M version (or potentially an is version) you might see improvements in that regard. After all, the 4.6/4.8is models had chassis tweaks that the regular V8 models didn't have.

    Yeah I can't imagine that it they could make it work...but who knows. Maybe they're hard at work on that already. They need to make it work with AWD anyway for the near future...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    657
    Rep Points
    743.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    3 out of 3 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rdeterman Click here to enlarge
    88k MSRP is crazy money. That thing will be worth half that in only a few years.
    Neg rep for that? Really?!?
    Click here to enlarge
    FBO's. Spec S2+. E85.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rdeterman Click here to enlarge
    Neg rep for that? Really?!?
    Here's a positive. You guys let one thumbs down really get to you.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    13
    Rep Points
    11.3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Did this have the M sport package with the adaptive suspension?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Roadkill12r Click here to enlarge
    Did this have the M sport package with the adaptive suspension?
    I believe so.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    303
    Rep Points
    308.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    It doesn't have sport package (the body trim isn't a Sport anyways), it doesn't have the M-sport body kit, so it doesn't have the stagg wheel/tire set. The one C&D tested is an X-line model with dynamix damper control. The tires are 255/50/19's F/R all season Goodyear LS, and yes ladies and gentlemen....the same brand/model line as the Buick Century's of the early 2000's...

    Seriously BMW?!?!??!!? The same tires as a WHAT?? Wowza's, at least they redeem themselves with the M-sport line.

    4.8is has 275/40/20 F, 315/35/20 R Bridgestone Duelers (Similar brand / size to the current X5M)
    Loe P.
    B8.5 Audi S5 3.0"T" - GIAC stage II ECU / GIAC DSG TCU / AWE-tuning Pulley / AFe filter / 034 TBB / mod airbox / X-pipe
    - 09' E90 M3 7-DCT Interlagos Blue / Novillo Silver - gone Click here to enlarge
    [K&N filter|MS pullies|test pipes|Evolve Stg II tune/Servotronic/GTS-DCT Tune|Euro MDM]


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London and USA
    Posts
    2,061
    Rep Points
    1,442.9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    5300 trillion lbs and 0 to 100 mph in sub 10.7

    sick
    2005 Porsche 996 TTS RWD - Eurodyne 60-130 in 6.50s
    2015 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI - Eurodyne 0 - 100 in 10.67s
    2015 McLaren 650S (RHD) - UK - 1/3rd owner yet to drive


    Click here to enlarge



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,618
    Rep Points
    1,904.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Sales of the new X5 are down 20%+ and that is compared to the last year sales of the outgoing model (E70).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    198
    Rep Points
    127.9
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Same trap speed and 3 tenths quicker in the 1/4 mile than the 1,000lb lighter pre-lci 550i. Something doesn't seem right...

    Specifications

    VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

    PRICE AS TESTED: automatic, $75,100/manual, $69,575 (base price: $60,575)

    ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection

    Displacement: 268 cu in, 4395 cc
    Power: 400 bhp @ 5500 rpm
    Torque: 450 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm

    TRANSMISSIONS: 8-speed automatic with manumatic shifting, 6-speed manual

    DIMENSIONS:
    Wheelbase: 116.9 in
    Length: 193.1 in
    Width: 73.2 in Height: 57.6 in
    Curb weight: 4417 lb (auto); 4358 lb (manual)

    C/D TEST RESULTS (auto):
    Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 19.0 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.3 sec
    Standing -mile: 13.1 sec @ 109 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 170 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

    C/D TEST RESULTS (manual):
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.1 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 19.4 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.3 sec
    Standing -mile: 13.1 sec @ 109 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g

    FUEL ECONOMY:
    EPA city/highway driving: 17/25 mpg (auto), 15/22 (manual)
    C/D observed: 18 mpg (auto), 17 mpg (manual)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
    Sales of the new X5 are down 20%+ and that is compared to the last year sales of the outgoing model (E70).
    I wonder why. E70 just a better buy as dealers clear them out?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by alextremo Click here to enlarge
    Same trap speed and 3 tenths quicker in the 1/4 mile than the 1,000lb lighter pre-lci 550i. Something doesn't seem right...

    Specifications

    VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

    PRICE AS TESTED: automatic, $75,100/manual, $69,575 (base price: $60,575)

    ENGINE TYPE: twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V-8, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection

    Displacement: 268 cu in, 4395 cc
    Power: 400 bhp @ 5500 rpm
    Torque: 450 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm

    TRANSMISSIONS: 8-speed automatic with manumatic shifting, 6-speed manual

    DIMENSIONS:
    Wheelbase: 116.9 in
    Length: 193.1 in
    Width: 73.2 in Height: 57.6 in
    Curb weight: 4417 lb (auto); 4358 lb (manual)

    C/D TEST RESULTS (auto):
    Zero to 60 mph: 4.8 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 19.0 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.3 sec
    Standing -mile: 13.1 sec @ 109 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 170 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

    C/D TEST RESULTS (manual):
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.1 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 19.4 sec
    Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.3 sec
    Standing -mile: 13.1 sec @ 109 mph
    Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph
    Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.88 g

    FUEL ECONOMY:
    EPA city/highway driving: 17/25 mpg (auto), 15/22 (manual)
    C/D observed: 18 mpg (auto), 17 mpg (manual)
    You raise a really good point. I don't get it with that weight and the same motor it should be running 115+

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    198
    Rep Points
    127.9
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    You raise a really good point. I don't get it with that weight and the same motor it should be running 115+
    To be fair, the pre-lci didn't have the N63TU so it was down 45HP and 30lb-ft but that doesn't seem like enough to make up for the weight difference of the X5.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by alextremo Click here to enlarge
    To be fair, the pre-lci didn't have the N63TU so it was down 45HP and 30lb-ft but that doesn't seem like enough to make up for the weight difference of the X5.
    Exactly.

    Are the 550's being dialed back? I don't know.

    The N63TU isn't even that big of an advantage: http://www.bimmerboost.com/content.p...ynojet-results

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,618
    Rep Points
    1,904.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    20


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I wonder why. E70 just a better buy as dealers clear them out?
    No sales were in line with other years.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bakersfield,Ca
    Posts
    60
    Rep Points
    110.9
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I just got one of these in the x-line but with the 20in wheel and tire option (275/40 front 315/35 rear Dunlops) with the adaptive suspension that has the electronic controlled roll bars. It is a blast to drive and handles quite well in sport mode. I had driven all the past X5s mentioned here and this is a much more refined vehicle, much stiffer structure and a big jump in ride quality. I was actually shocked at how smooth it was on the 20s as I was a little concerned they might make the ride a bit harsh. I had to get out and check for sure that it had run flats. The steering is way to light in comfort mode but significantly firmer with more feel in sport mode. It is pretty quick. It's my business vehicle so I'm able to write off about 50% of the purchase price in the first year with the current tax code so I'm not too concerned with the fast depreciation value. I've owned BMWs for years and I'm used to it. I'm very happy with the new X5 50i.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    95
    Rep Points
    88.4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Kind of makes me cringe running a 12.2 in the tuned X5M. I better be in the right gear or be in the GTR. Lol.

    Kudos to another great SAV. My '12 X5 5.0 best was a 12.90 on stock 20" run flats with Dinan stage II making 380/460 on a mustang dyno. This new X5 must be making slightly more.

    Cant wait for for a tune available to see some 12.6's.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bakersfield,Ca
    Posts
    60
    Rep Points
    110.9
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No

    X5 at Famoso

    Ran the X5 50i at Famoso last night. Best pass was 12.940@107.27, 1.953 60ft. This was with a tune on the mid setting and 5 gals of 109 unleaded added to 1/2 tank of 91 pump gas. I don't know for sure but I believe a larger mix of 109 would have retrieved even better results. The temp was about 73-74 degrees but high humidity 35%. DA not sure of but based on my last running at Famoso on May 18 when it was cooler and drier (1950 DA), I suspect it was well north of 2000. Bone stock it ran 13.014, best mph 106.44, 1.93 60 ft.
    Last edited by Amerkin; 06-28-2014 at 07:08 PM. Reason: grammar

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •