2010 X6-M
07-09-2009, 05:45 AM
#31
Originally Posted by Onehots2k,Jul 8 2009, 05:48 PM
Okay, so what is your case for the GT-R? How about the 454hp 3900lb Ferrari California. How about an underpowered 3600lb 6MT M3? It shouldnt be that fast. Allow me to repeat my point. Technology. Nowadays there is more to the equation than weight and hp. You know this ofcourse. All of this tech IMO still wont ever feel as pure as a lightweight car.
The 911S is quick now, as fast or faster than a C6 because of it's very fast dual-clutch transmission, aggressive gearing, and mechanical grip afforded the rear tires due to the rear weight bias caused primarily by engine placement. That is enough to offset the 50hp advantage of the C6 over the 911S.
GT-R has very aggressive gearing and dual-clutch, plus all the traction it needs with AWD. Ferrari California has dual-clutch, aggressive gearing, and a long powerband. 6MT M3 isn't that fast, but is as quick as it is because of it's very aggressive gearing and relatively long powerband. It's not rocket science.
07-09-2009, 07:33 AM
#32
![[DT]'s Avatar](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/customavatars/avatar91853_2.gif){kind=avatar}
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vilano Beach, FL
Posts: 2,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2007 Zx-10,Jul 8 2009, 08:55 PM
In other words, gadgets don't override the laws of physics.
The equation of more and more weight with more and more horsepower seems to be popular with "high end" manufacturers these days
The equation of more and more weight with more and more horsepower seems to be popular with "high end" manufacturers these days
While HP to weight is the figure we should be considering (and really several other factors), it doesn't translate well into the marketing speak that's targeted to the general public (the thousands that aren't on boards like this, who aren't in-the-know enthusiasts).
It's a simple A > B sort of comparison that anyone can "get", even if it doesn't tell the whole story.
![[DT] is offline](https://www.s2ki.com/forums/images/s2ki/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
07-09-2009, 02:46 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Roseville, CA
Posts: 6,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meh, the numbers look good on paper. But for that price range, I'll bet my money there are many other cars that will sell higher volumes than this. I don't expect to see many of these on the road at all. If any. We also forget, the Porsche actually has really nice styling while the X6 looks like a oversized soap-box car. 
To me, it seems like the XM6's only purpose is to compete with the Cayenne Turbo. Doesn't seem necessary considering how few Cayenne Turbos are actually on the road to begin with.
If I had the cash to buy a $100k V8TT BMW or Porsche, I know which route I would take....and the majority of automotive professionals I work with
.
To me, it seems like the XM6's only purpose is to compete with the Cayenne Turbo. Doesn't seem necessary considering how few Cayenne Turbos are actually on the road to begin with.
If I had the cash to buy a $100k V8TT BMW or Porsche, I know which route I would take....and the majority of automotive professionals I work with
.
07-09-2009, 03:39 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
Posts: 3,365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So its fast in a strait line, its still going to be a brick to drive (sure it will be phenomenal for a SUV, but still a brick compared to say an S2000).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
omairtheman1
Car and Bike Talk
22
10-25-2012 08:19 AM