[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by sdshah

People who think the X3M is better than having a X5 m is 40k short and delusional.

Is the X5M $40k better? As in, the X5M is better than a new X3m and a 2016 F8x

[sdshah]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Is the X5M $40k better? As in, the X5M is better than a new X3m and a 2016 F8x

Because a used f8x crank hub will blow up and your house will be on fire. I'm going to go with the X5 M. Only Bc I don't want my dog dying in a house fire.

[cfm56d7b]

One more thank you. Very helpful!

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by sdshah

Because a used f8x crank hub will blow up and your house will be on fire. I'm going to go with the X5 M. Only Bc I don't want my dog dying in a house fire.

Huh, I've had 2 F8x, one 2015 and one 2018 comp and neither have had a crank hub issue ... it's almost like that's not really a thing unless you plan on tuning the shit out of the motor ... but then why would one want to tune an SUV?

[M2Cmtl]

Going through the specs, it just makes me want to get an M2.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by NUTScapes

Everything is way too effing heavy

Compared to what other vehicles of similar class and capability?

Aston Martin is supposedly focusing on weight reduction in it's DBX so it'll be interesting to see where it's weight fits in this field. No doubt Mnfrs could easily lower curb weights with more extensive use of CFRP and composites, but suspect they've run cost:benefit analyses and realize sales would drop at those higher MSRPs. Maybe in the upper stratosphere boutique lines it could work. https://www.topspeed.com/cars/everyt...-ar186748.html

[MTrezzz]

X4M all day such an amazing car coming from 3 Cayenne Turbos and 1 GTS.

The size alone makes the X4M perfect; definitely can out handle a larger SUV without a doubt in my mind.

I spotted one issue however it doesn't "pop pop" like the M40i X4 in sport mode only thing I wish the X4M had.

The space is great fits as much as my Cayenne did.

Plus it's 40k cheaper

X4M,X3M even the GLC63S is a great one to consider.

[NASTY-M5]

Originally Posted by rjd598

why? are you tracking a 4500lb+ car?

I will be. But I also love having no brake dust and clean wheels all the time. The stopping power is better/different as well.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Very useful info thanks, I thought the X3M was slightly narrower (which would be good for me) and it shows on your table.

[clee1982]

M5 comp still looks like the best bang of buck for me, wish M2 comp was lighter...

[AndroidRobot]

Out of curiosity where did you find the turning radius info? I want to see the difference IAS makes for non-///M models GrussGott

[ParadigmDawg]

Originally Posted by Max Well

I wasn't able to view onfireX5's links, so I've reposted what he shared in case others had trouble as well:

https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1647823
https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1648401

We have got to find me someone to run me. This would be an awesome race!!!!!!

[beammeupscottie]

I'll get beat up for this but I don't think there is enough difference in-terms of 0-60 for a daily driver, practical size inside to justify the larger SAV. I had the 2017 X5M and now 2020 X3MC; this slightly smaller vehicle seems more nimble and I can literally feel the weight difference (yes due to V8 engine and size). The thing I'm feeling most noticeable is the "plusher" feel that the X5M has; alcantara headliner; more leather trim; thicker seats....and in the new model X5M the moon roof will have that led feature; but even with all that I feel like it would be just burning cash to compete with Lamborghini? Not really sure if I could justify X5MC for myself. I'm thinking this X3MC hits all the right notes and for $40k less. Both super vehicles.

[BMthusiast]

Originally Posted by sdshah

People who think the X3M is better than having a X5 m is 40k short and delusional.

It's subjective though. When I first test drove ///M cars in Munich (in 2017) I had the M3, X5 M, X6 M, and M6 GC. Those were the cars I was considering ordering at the time and the F80 had the best driving feel for what I enjoy.

[sdshah]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Huh, I've had 2 F8x, one 2015 and one 2018 comp and neither have had a crank hub issue ... it's almost like that's not really a thing unless you plan on tuning the shit out of the motor ... but then why would one want to tune an SUV?

I had one too and now my dog is bye bye.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by AndroidRobot

Out of curiosity where did you find the turning radius info? I want to see the difference IAS makes for non-///M models GrussGott

Most of the information was found in the Tech Specs located in the respective vehicle's Sub-Forums. For ease of reference, here they are:

F97/98 Turning Radius: https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showt...g=1442&slide=2

Note the complete spec sheets were from the pdf BMW released back in early Feb 2019, entitled, "The_New_BMW_X3M_Specifications_BMW_X3_M"

F95/96 Turning Radius: https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1657119

M2C : https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1497668

M5C : https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1494065

M8C : https://f92.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1659085

And as full disclosure, note the frontal area (A) for the F95/96 haven't been released yet, or that I could find. So the simple derivation is to find the full frontal area (width x height), then multiply by the fractional percentage which is the vehicle and not air. A general rule of thumb is about 80% across the board, but to be more exacting I used the known fraction for the F97 (0.849566) for the F95 as their body design is similar, and the known fraction for the F98 (0.845030) for the F96 by similar reasoning. Likewise, I couldn't find it for the M8C as it is also so new, so I used the M5C's known fraction of 0.875445.

Oh, and I meant to add -- your question was whether non-M's turning radii are different from the M versions.

The G01 M40i radius is 19.85 feet [ https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1397493
] and the G01 30i is 19.7 feet (same reference). These c/w the F97's 20.7 feet.

[NASTY-M5]

Originally Posted by GrussGott

Dude, if the Halifax to Moncton run ain't a track I don't know what is

[img]

View post on imgur.com

[/img]

That actually ain't much of run. All highway unless you take the Parrsboro route.
The Cabot Trail is the best run in Canada though

[AndroidRobot]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Most of the information was found in the Tech Specs located in the respective vehicle's Sub-Forums. For ease of reference, here they are:

F97/98 Turning Radius: https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showt...42&slide=2

Note the complete spec sheets were from the pdf BMW released back in early Feb 2019, entitled, "The_New_BMW_X3M_Specifications_BMW_X3_M"

F95/96 Turning Radius: https://g05.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1657119

M2C : https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1497668

M5C : https://f90.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1494065

M8C : https://f92.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1659085

And as full disclosure, note the frontal area (A) for the F95/96 haven't been released yet, or that I could find. So the simple derivation is to find the full frontal area (width x height), then multiply by the fractional percentage which is the vehicle and not air. A general rule of thumb is about 80% across the board, but to be more exacting I used the known fraction for the F97 (0.849566) for the F95 as their body design is similar, and the known fraction for the F98 (0.845030) for the F96 by similar reasoning. Likewise, I couldn't find it for the M8C as it is also so new, so I used the M5C's known fraction of 0.875445.

Oh, and I meant to add -- your question was whether non-M's turning radii are different from the M versions.

The G01 M40i radius is 19.85 feet [ https://x3.xbimmers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1397493
] and the G01 30i is 19.7 feet (same reference). These c/w the F97's 20.7 feet.

thank you, the issue I see is BMW doesn't show the difference between IAS and regular 2 wheel steering anywhere in their tech docs. I wonder if someone could find this out because now I'm very curious

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by AndroidRobot

thank you, the issue I see is BMW doesn't show the difference between IAS and regular 2 wheel steering anywhere in their tech docs. I wonder if someone could find this out because now I'm very curious

Let us know your findings, AR. Given the shorter wheelbase of the F97/98 lineage and my own experience in tight parking lots with our G01 M40i models, I must admit that hasn't been on my radar. But an interesting question for sure.

[AndroidRobot]

Originally Posted by Max Well

Let us know your findings, AR. Given the shorter wheelbase of the F97/98 lineage and my own experience in tight parking lots with our G01 M40i models, I must admit that hasn't been on my radar. But an interesting question for sure.

I had a G01 X3 M40i and the G05 X5 50i I own with DHP (it has IAS for 4 wheel steering) seems to turn tighter overall. I might need to get with BMW about this since I haven't seen anything posted around.

[Max Well]

Originally Posted by AndroidRobot

I had a G01 X3 M40i and the G05 X5 50i I own with DHP (it has IAS for 4 wheel steering) seems to turn tighter overall. I might need to get with BMW about this since I haven't seen anything posted around.

I did a bit of online searching this morning. No hard numbers as you say, but it seems reasonable that ~5% decrease in turning radius would be expected, or roughly 1 foot? No doubt BMW Engineering knows the data to exacting numbers but suspect that is buried so deep in their system that few would have access to it.

Article about the G05 with a discussion about Integral Active Steering (IAS) - indicates improved turning radius by as much as 1 meter. No reference given for how that number was derived, and I wonder if perhaps that wasn’t actually the turning circle which I’ve seen reported by BMW in a number of models, especially in the European tech sheets, so might be a possible source of confusion.
https://www.drivingthenation.com/201...tive-steering/

Discussion of IAS, with comment indicating the Renault Laguna GT has a 10% smaller turning circle (therefore a 5% smaller radius) of 10.80m with 18” tires c/w 12.05m.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/i...ned-20848.html

[AndroidRobot]

Originally Posted by Max Well

I did a bit of online searching this morning. No hard numbers as you say, but it seems reasonable that ~5% decrease in turning radius would be expected, or roughly 1 foot? No doubt BMW Engineering knows the data to exacting numbers but suspect that is buried so deep in their system that few would have access to it.

Article about the G05 with a discussion about Integral Active Steering (IAS) - indicates improved turning radius by as much as 1 meter. No reference given for how that number was derived, and I wonder if perhaps that wasn't actually the turning circle which I've seen reported by BMW in a number of models, especially in the European tech sheets, so might be a possible source of confusion.
https://www.drivingthenation.com/201...tive-steering/

Discussion of IAS, with comment indicating the Renault Laguna GT has a 10% smaller turning circle (therefore a 5% smaller radius) of 10.80m with 18" tires c/w 12.05m.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/i...ned-20848.html

from what I've read (there's actually a research paper on this stuff too floating around) it'll decrease the radius by 1m which is substantial. Of course I could test mind given the time and patience but I'd rather not.

https://www.drivingthenation.com/201...tive-steering/


edit there's also this: https://e31wiki.org/wiki/Active_Rear_Axle_Kinematics