Is this legit? A diesel X6 in the States?

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by JCL

Yeah, it is a bit harsh calling the 40d old technology. It is a modern engine, and the latest that can be purchased at the moment. My apologies if I offended any owners. What I was referring to was that BMW have said they won't be certifying the 40d for the North American market, as they are not investing more money in that platform, but rather spending their development dollars on their next generation of engines, such as the 45d.

I'd be surprised to see a triple-turbo 3.0-litre diesel in the E70, if ever. And, I still wouldn't dismiss the idea an E70 40d for the North American market, despite what BMW NA says. But then, I'm not a local.

Long term, my bet is that BMW will downsize to more sophisticated four-cylinder turbo diesels just it is down sizing to four-cylinder turbo petrol engines in the future. Already the current four-cylinder, 2.0-litre, 23d is outstanding and matches the performance of a BMW 3.0-litre six-cylinder turbo diesel of just a decade back.

[AzNMpower32]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Already the current four-cylinder, 2.0-litre, 23d is outstanding and matches the performance of a BMW 3.0-litre six-cylinder turbo diesel of just a decade back.

Definitely true. The X3 xDrive20d makes the same hp and more torque than my X3 2.5i which has an engine that's a decade old. It's surprising how in a matter of a few years, a 4-cyl diesel is making the kind of power that used to be found in a 6-cyl petrol.

Plus, the 4-cyl diesel X3 is faster than the old 2.5 6-cyl. Wow my car is ancient.

[X5Sport]

And the new 6-cyl 30d X3 is quicker than the X6 40d!! Now that is depressing. Mind you it's a hell of a price in the UK! About $90k USD when fully specced up with the most useful toys. That's way too much money even if it is nearly as big as an E53.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by X5Sport

And the new 6-cyl 30d X3 is quicker than the X6 40d!! Now that is depressing. Mind you it's a hell of a price in the UK! About $90k USD when fully specced up with the most useful toys. That's way too much money even if it is nearly as big as an E53.

40d engine still makes more power and torque than the new 30d in the X3 (225kW/600Nm vs 190kW/560Nm in Aussie spec). The big advantage the X3 30d has over the X6 40d is weight. It's about 250kg lighter, depending on options/spec etc.

[v.ru]

Originally Posted by Fraser

40d engine still makes more power and torque than the new 30d in the X3 (225kW/600Nm vs 190kW/560Nm in Aussie spec). The big advantage the X3 30d has over the X6 40d is weight. It's about 250kg lighter, depending on options/spec etc.

This has been a growing issue with almost all BMW series lately - the new 5er is well over 4,000lbs, for example. In a perfect world, we'd have lightweight cars with efficient engines... sort of like what they are trying to sell under the whole "Efficient Dynamics" marketing scheme. But, you know, except for real...

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by AlexK

Yea, it's kinda funny (and sad at the same time) that they do actually try to improve fuel efficiency by using various "band-aid" methods like using electric power steering in new models, but at the same time they keep increasing sizes and (obviously) weights of all models with 0 regard of their effect on fuel consumption Maybe they should take a few lessons from Porsche (instead of GM) - the new Cayenne has NOT grown in size in any significant way and is LIGHTER (by about 400lbs, depending on model) than previous-gen models.

Much of the weight reduction of the new-generation Cayenne came about as Porsche decided to give up on the idea of making the second-gen model as off-road capable as the first-gen model. No more dual-range transfer case was a big start in saving weight but many of the components also are more light duty than previously. All up a sensible move as very few people ever took their first generation Cayennes off-road anyway, as capable as they may have been. Weight increase is a very general problem with modern cars/SUVs as customers want more safety, more equipment, more luxury, better sound deadening, etc, etc. I have a 20-year old Range Rover that weighs around 1800kg. A current model model Range Rover is 2700kg!! That's nearly 2000lbs difference.

[X5Sport]

The X6 now has plastic front wings and fender assembly and an aluminium hood. BMW call them High Quality, lightweight materials...........plastic it is then..

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by AlexK

I wouldn't exactly call the changed components as "light-duty", especially considering the fact that body frame optimizations made the chassis STIFFER by 15 percent even with all the weight reductions.
:

Even Porsche admits the new chassis is lighter. Regardless of the detail, the first generation Cayenne was designed and built to cope with off-road driving. The new Cayenne is not. It has no low-range, a less capable 4WD system (on most models), no rear locker, and non-height-adjustable suspension on all but the Turbo. It's easy to save weight when you narrow the focus of design from on- and off-road to simply on-road. Additionally, when you delete the dual-range gearing you not only save weight in the transfer case but because the rest of the driveline doesn't have to handle the torque multiplier effect of an extra reduction gear, the driveshafts, half-shafts, diffs etc can be all lighter.
I'm not saying that Porsche hasn't done good work here but their efforts to save weight were vastly simplified by the change in design direction and vehicle capabilities. I'm sure that if Range Rover decided that its next generation Vogue or Sport only needed the off-road capability of something like the new Cayenne, there would be big weight savings to be had as well.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by AlexK

"lighter" doesn't equal "less durable" Just ask aerospace industry engineers



Yes, but if you'll actually read the C&D article (as well as others) you'll see that Porsche "shaved off" the extra weight from many, many components, both exterior and interior, as well as electronics.
For example: "86 pounds eliminated through redesigned doors". Do you think door design has any effect on "off-road capability"?

It's a completely different vehicle. The door design is dictated by door aperture design which is dictated the body design which is central to the whole car's rigidity, how the suspension is mounted and stressed etc. Everything has cause and effect. In typical Porsche thoroughness the first generation model was built like a tank so as it could withstand the rigours of off-road use without the body going out of shape, doors sticking etc etc. Porsche didn't want their first SUV to get a reputation of being flimsy. After all it was a monocoque (no separate chassis) so the body strength was critical. And while Porsche claim the second-generation body is 'stiffer' there's a big difference in one-off stiffness test against a twisting force and a body withstanding repeated torsional loads as happens in an off-road environment.
Once Porsche (and Mercedes Benz with its first-generation M-Class that was built on a separate chassis) realised that their customers didn't want to take these luxury 4WDs off road the design brief on the second-generation changed altogether. Again, I'm not disputing that Porsche's engineers have done good work in deducing the weight but their task was simplified by the change in design direction.

[Fraser]

This is from Porsche's own press info about the new Cayenne:

"Thanks to the combination of materials minimised in weight and changes in the concept of the overall vehicle"

Note that it says "changes in the concept of the overall vehicle".

The bottom line is that the first generation Cayenne was excellent off-road, the new one is no more capable that something like an X5. I've driven both off-road, have you?

And why are you getting so excited about the new Cayenne's weight when it's no lighter than a E70?