ML63 AMG v Audi Q7 6.0TDI v BMW X6 5.0 v Porsche Cayenne Turbo

[wemorgan]

Drivers Republic review

Cadwell Park lap times

Porsche 1 min 47.5 s
BMW 1 min 47.6 s
Mercedes 1 min 48.3 s
Audi 1 min 50.7 s

For reference the pole qualifying time for a Mk1 Mazda MX5 1.6i was 1 min 45.8 s

 

[MercFanUk]

I've never noticed how good looking the ML63 is before now! Normally I don't pay much attention to the ML, but that AMG is gorgeous!

 

[Mudster]

I saw an X6 in the petrol station the other day and thought it looked like someone had rolled an X5 and thought it looked like a good idea.

What a really ugly vehicle.

Audi V12 diesel, £100K, absurd.......in fact they're all little bit absurd aren't they.

Why no Ranger Rover supercharged jobby...is this a test for the father land only?

 

[azaman]

Wonder what the result would have been if they used the BMW X6M due out in 2010...

The ML looks amazing.

 

[st4]

I know the Mazda is a sports car but these high powered 4x4s carry such sporting pretensions that they want to be considered as sporty, yet cannot beat a very junior sports car on a track, despite what the manufacturer would want you to think. A high powered saloon car (M3, C63, E63) would have done so much better

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I'm not sure these cars are pitched as being sports cars - perhaps sporty for an SUV but sports cars. What they do well is offer a bit of everything, and do all of it better than you might expect.

Whilst on a track they may not be particularly sharp compared to a well sorted sports car, you need a very fast sports car to go head to head against one on the road, and pull away, even cross country, where driving at a true 10/10 would be reckless.

 

[pentoman]

I know the Mazda is a sports car but these high powered 4x4s carry such sporting pretensions that they want to be considered as sporty, yet cannot beat a very junior sports car on a track, despite what the manufacturer would want you to think.

They can beat a lot of sports cars on track.

I'm not sure where that quoted Mazda MX5 time came from, but not sure it's a reliable source.

 

[wemorgan]

They can beat a lot of sports cars on track.

Clearly not a 120bhp Mazda MX5

I'm not sure where that quoted Mazda MX5 time came from, but not sure it's a reliable source.

I try to keep the amount of B.S I give out to a bare minimum.

Here's my MX5 source. Open up page 2. The racing MX5 is mostly standard. The engine heads are skimmed to give a few more bhp, the gearbox and differential are standard, the suspension are GAZ adjustable shocks.

Cadwell Park is quite a twisty circuit so it favours car setup more than outright power. But I was still very surprised to see how relatively slow those 4x4 were, given that the Porcshe has 500bhp!

 

[pentoman]

I bet it's a fun racing series that one.
To be fair it's still a race car so I'm guessing will be between 100 or 300 kgs less than standard depending on the level of lightening allowed; either way not too sure it's a fair comparison! What tyres are they fitted with?

To counter with some other data, here's Evos track times round Bedford West copied pasted from another page

1:17.10 - Radical SR3 1300
1:19.00 - Caterham R500 EVO
1:19.60 - Ariel Atom Supercharged
1:19.60 - Caterham CS6 260
1:19.62 - Caterham Evolution
1:19.70 - Dax Rush MC
1:19.70 - Porsche Carrera GT
1:20.20 - Porsche Carrera GT (2nd attempt)
1:21.00 - Caterham CSR 260
1:21.20 - McLaren F1
1:21.30 - Ferrari Enzo
1:21:85 - Ariel Atom
1:21.85 - Caterham CSR 260 Superlight
1:22.25 - Litchfield Type-25
1:22.30 - * Damp -Koenigsegg CCX
1:22.40 - Lotus Exige S
1:22.40 - Lingenfelter Corvette Z06
1:22.75 - Ford GT
1:22.80 - Lamborghini Gallardo MK2
1:23.00 - Molser MT900
1:23.10 - Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano
1:23.20 - Ascari KZ1
1:23.55 - Porsche 997 Turbo
1:23.85 - Porsche 996 GT3RS
1:23.90 - Lamborghini Gallardo MK1
1:24.20 - Ferrari F430
1:24.45 - Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06
1:24.55 - Mitsubishi EVO IX FQ340
1:24.60 - Porsche 997 Carrera S Sport
1:24.95 - TVR T350C
1:25.75 - Porsche 997 Carrera 4
1:25.85 - Bovingdon Ring M3
1:25.95 - Ferrari 612 Scaglietti
1:26.00 - Porsche 996 Turbo
1:26.10 - Mitsubishi EVO IX 320
1:26.40 - Subaru Impreza WRX STI
1:26.40 - BMW M6
1:26.75 - Aston Martin V8 Vantage
1:26.85 - Porsche Cayman S
1:26.95 - Nissan 350Z GT-S
1:27.10 - BMW Z4M Coupe
1:27.40 - Aston Martin Vanquish
1:28.20 - Aston Martin DB9 Manual
1:28.20 - Hartage H1
1:28.25 - Audi RS4
1:28.35 - Maserati Quattroporte
1:28.65 - Rage R130 Buggy
1:28.50 - Roush Mustang 420RE
1:28.55 - Porsche 987 Boxster S
1:28.60 - Audi B7 RS4 -First Attempt
1:28.70 * Damp - Lamborghini Murcielago:
1:28.85 - Porsche 997 Carrera
1:28.90 - Porsche Cayman S:
1:29.20 * Damp - Lotus Elise 111R
1:29.30 - Mercedes-Benz SLK55 AMG:
1:29.80 - BMW M3 CS
1:29.95 - BMW E60 M5
1:29.95 - Mercedes-Benz SL600
1:30.00 - Marcos TSO GT2, SPKG
1:20.00 - BMW 330I M Sport
1:30.05 - Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG
1:30.05 - MG SV-R
1:30.10 - Alpina B5
1:30.10 - Lotus Europa S
1:30.11 - Mercedes-Benz C55 AMG
1:30.55 - Ford Mustang GT
1:31.05 * Damp - Mitsubishi EVO 260
1:31.55 - Vauxhall Vectra VXR
1:31.65 - Cadillac CTS-V
1:31.70 - Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG (2007)
1:31.75 - 06 Jaguar XK8
1:32.05- Nissan 350Z
1:32.25 - Bentley Continental GT
1:32.55 - Volkswagen R32
1:32.70 - Mazda RX8
1:32.80 - Dodge Ram SRT-10
1:33.05 - Bentley Continental GT DS
1:33.10 - Renault Clio 182 Cup
1:33.15 - Vauxhall Astra VXR
1:33.35 - Renault Megane Trophy
1:33.55 - BMW 130i M Sport
1:33.55 * Damp - Vauxhall Monaro VXR
1:33.55 - Seat Leon Cupra R:
1:33.65 * Damp - Porsche Cayenne Turbo
1:33.75 - Volkswagen Golf GTI MK2
1:33.75 - Renault Clio Trophy
1:33.90 - Ford Focus ST
1:34.60 - Chrysler 300C 5.7
1:34.60 - Mini Cooper S
1:35.20 - Alfa GT V6
1:35.30 - Volkswagen Polo GTI
1:35.50 *Damp - Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG
1:36.05 - MG ZT 260
1:36.15 - Ford Fiesta ST
1:36.20 - Vauxhall Astra 200
1:36.25 - Citroen C2 VTS
1:37.45 - Seat Ibiza FR
1:38.25 - BMW 120i
1:43.20 - Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL 6.9
1:43.50 - Ford Focus MK2 1.6
1:45.85 * Damp - Ford Focus MK1 1.6


Only tested in the damp, and probably the original 450hp model, but not slow I reckon.

 

[wemorgan]

I bet it's a fun racing series that one.
To be fair it's still a race car so I'm guessing will be between 100 or 300 kgs less than standard depending on the level of lightening allowed; either way not too sure it's a fair comparison! What tyres are they fitted with?

Yes, it's a cracking race series to watch, with very close racing as you might imagine.

The cars have a minimum weight of 960kg including driver. The tyres are a standard road legal tyre, Hankook K110.

 

[Adam230K]

I'd love to know how Audi managed to muster another 300kg above the other SUV's.

 

[st4]

I'd love to know how Audi managed to muster another 300kg above the other SUV's.

A diesel engine weighs more + it had the weight of 4 extra cylinders. A V12 diesel engine will be extremely heavy.

In response to the evo section the porka cayenne did a reasonable time but look at all the less powerful, less expensive cars that beat it like a BMW 330i, 350z.

I find it amusing that BMW are going the SUV route with the new cars, X6M and X5M and they aren't doing an M3 CSL. It beggars belief that a maker of "drivers cars" is not making the ultimate drivers car that it can make, i.e. a M3 CSL. BMW are making their new M cars turbo'd too, these is another blow to the enthusiastic driver that BMW try to appeal to. They say turbo'd engines are better for CO2 emissions and they've canned the V10, but a V8 twin turbo 4x4 isn't really the answer for this CO2 legistlation. A light N/A I6 3 series based M car probably is.

I like SUVs, they make excellent road cars and modern ones have a suprisingly good turn of speed. They are easy to get im and out of, easy to load due the height of them, and they annoy the sort of person I like to annoy, but they aren't real drivers cars and never will be.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

They say turbo'd engines are better for CO2 emissions and they've canned the V10, but a V8 twin turbo 4x4 isn't really the answer for this CO2 legistlation. A light N/A I6 3 series based M car probably is.

I agree: for a sporting saloon and lightweight 3-series - or better still 1-series - with a light I6 would be a great package, but that's never going to have enough grunt to shift larger cars in road-spec trim at the pace customers demand, so they'll need something which is better on emissions for those cars. I bet the TT V8 is cheaper to build than the N/A V10 too.

 

[st4]

I agree: for a sporting saloon and lightweight 3-series - or better still 1-series - with a light I6 would be a great package, but that's never going to have enough grunt to shift larger cars in road-spec trim at the pace customers demand, so they'll need something which is better on emissions for those cars. I bet the TT V8 is cheaper to build than the N/A V10 too.

130i? if your in the market for a sporty hatch this has got to be better than an Audi S3. If the interior build was better this would be a really great car. A 330i is probably a better bet than these new supposed M cars, or better still AMG have that wonderful C and E class 63 car.

Note that an X5M or X6M will not have the pace of the outgoing M5 V10 or M3 V8. Certainly off the line to about 60 it will be quick, but there after the superior areo dynamics will see the proper cars surge ahead, and thats before a corner where the advantage will be swayed further.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

135i more like!!

Not driven one but I've read that they're like a spiritual successor to the E30 M3.

In many ways I think it would make a suitable successor to my C32, as it's very plain on the outside, with a torquey motor inside. Nice.

Fugly tho' init?

 

[st4]

135i more like!!

Not driven one but I've read that they're like a spiritual successor to the E30 M3.

In many ways I think it would make a suitable successor to my C32, as it's very plain on the outside, with a torquey motor inside. Nice.

Fugly tho' init?

terribly ugly those 1 series bm's but my cousin iseen on getting a 130i and is saving furiously for one. A 335i would be

135i isn't that much quicker than a 130i, only 20odd bhp in it. Through the mid range the turbo car would have the edge but on a car like that i;d swap that for the thrill of a revy n/a motor.The 130 has 221 ft/lb torque, hardly low for such a small car

BMw, in classic tradition, has been having trouble the the turbo'd engine, mainly with the "high pressure fuel pump". The n/a car has been faultless. In evo magazine they've been quoted the next M car (for the 1 series) may be a turbo'd V6 rather than an I6 as its more compact and less mass far forward

 

[Adam230K]

135i more like!!

Not driven one but I've read that they're like a spiritual successor to the E30 M3.

In many ways I think it would make a suitable successor to my C32, as it's very plain on the outside, with a torquey motor inside. Nice.

Fugly tho' init?

oh please... dont get me started on the 1 series...

(I am a huge fan of the 35 engine though)

 

[verytalldave]

Centre of Gravity is the main problem with all high roof vehicles. Specially high powered 4X4's.
Put a 500bhp engine in what is basically a tractor, is always going to cause handling problems at speed. Throwing one round a track - even one with active suspension - is going to be slow at best - and dangerous at worst.
I cant see the point of large 4X4's in the UK for the majority of drivers. They really are nothing more than a fashion statement.
However I quite like the ML. One of the better 4X4's.

 

[bolide]

I bet it's a fun racing series that one.
To be fair it's still a race car so I'm guessing will be between 100 or 300 kgs less than standard depending on the level of lightening allowed; either way not too sure it's a fair comparison!

I think you'd struggle to lose 30 Kg out of an MX-5. 100-300 Kg would be nigh-on impossible, IMHO

Nick Froome

 

[wemorgan]

On the road the 1.6i is ~1020kg. In race trim with roll cage etc it is roughly 880kg. With a driver it must be >960kg. The heavier items take out are; roof, seats, trim & spare tyre. Also the fuel tanks typically only have 10-15 litres of fuel rather than a full 48 litres.