Video BMW X6 M vs. Mercedes-AMG GLE63 S Coupe

Hagan sus apuestas



Hace un par de dias puse otra comparativa mas curiosa del GLE 63 vs X5M, ambos atuneados, pero con el mismo resultado
Zarrios tuning: Mercedes-AMG GLE 63 Coupe 700cv vs BMW X5 M 650cv
http://www.bmwfaq.com/threads/zarri...-gle-63-coupe-700cv-vs-bmw-x5-m-650cv.864351/

 

Joer...como ponen al zambombo M....y el tiempo en circuito, wtf! esta a 2 decimas del M3 F80 tambien conducido por Randy?!

Que bestia...

 

Ademas tiene tela de que lo diga Lieberman, es un mercedista

 

Lo absurdo cara a cara.

Esto sería como ver a atletas de 180kg haciendo los 100metros lisos en unas olimpiadas.

 

Pero seguro que muchos lo verian, juasss...igual pasa con estos coches, muchos lo compran...

 

Pues esos "absurdos" tienen tiempazos en circuitos.
Grande, cómodos y rapidísimos
Porq absurdos?

 

Porque es como querer ser una atleta de 100 metros lisos y ponerte a comer hasta pesar 180kg.

A estos les pasa igual. Zambombos con unas inercias descomunales que van sujetos a base de gomas exageradas.

De la que esas gomas tengan 5 o 10 mil kms, los tiempos cambiarían estrepitosamente. Y eso pasa por la absurdez de hacer un supuesto deportivo alto y ballenato.

Es como ir a esquiar en bañador o a la piscina con un plumas. Poderse se puede, pero es absurdo.

 

Y bueno, tiempazos...

Hacer un tiempo que puede hacer un coche de 30mil euros gastanto 150mil, vuelve a ser absurdo.

Si de tiempos hablamos me refiero.

 

700cvs para nada.

 

Y que lo absurdo se vende y puede ser divertido, si. Pero una cosa no quita la otra. Seguirá siendo absurdo.

 

Para mí absurdo es tener la mente tan cerrada a la tecnología.

Por cierto Usain bolt, pesa casi 100kg... Vamos que no es un peso pluma

 

A mi que me den el GLE Coupé AMG 63,aunque esté mal decirlo aquí,me gusta más que el X6,y a quién no le guste este tipo de coches que se compre un M3,así todos contentos........

 

Minuto 3:03, Jason Plato sale del maletero del X6 y le pone una U al merchy UGLE

 

Cada uno tiene sus gustos, y si no te gusta algo, no significa que sea absurdo
Un tanque como el X6 M ya quisieran muchas berlinas o compactos tener el mismo comportamiento

 

Mente cerrada a la tecnología?

Que tendrá que ver?

Esto no es tecnología. Es juntar conceptos absurdamente.
Pagar 150mil euros por algo que puede hacerse por 30 mil, me parece un disparate, no tecnología.

P.D.: 100kg no son 180, que yo sepa. Que además era una metáfora.

Y por cierto. Es mi pensamiento. Y el tuyo es el tuyo. Ninguno tenemos que convencer al otro. Pero repito, en ningún sitio habrás leido que yo tenga la mente cerrada a la tecnología. Porque tecnología no es hacer un producto nacido del marketing, que es lo que son estos vehículos.

 

Claro. Es que te equivocas.

He dicho que me parece absurdo. No que no me guste. Leeme bien.

Me gustan. Pero son absurdos.

La R.A.E. define absurdo como: "Contrario y opuesto a la razón; que no tiene sentido"

Y es que, hacer un deportivo de más de 2 mil kilos y alto, es un contrasentido.
Hacer una especie de todoterreno con llantas y neumáticos deportivos, es opuesto a la razón de ser de un todoterreno.

Por tanto. Para mí es absurdo.

No he dicho q no me gusten.
No he dicho que no se vendan.
Y no he dicho que no sean divertidos.

En cuanto a lo las berlinas... Hombre, por 150mil euros, solo faltaría que fuesen mal dinámicamente.

El tema de la absurdez es porque; al final, ni es todo terreno ni es un deportivo.

 

Es que el término y su significado es subjetivo totalmente
Entonces, según tu criterio, prácticamente todo es absurdo, porque deportivo es un coche ligero, biplaza como normal general o como mucho 2+2, por lo que un M3 bajo tu criterio ya no es deportivo.
Está claro que estos mastodontes, quien se lo compra no lo va a usar para ir al circuito, aunque a más de uno le iba a poner en un aprieto y contra las cuerdas.
Yo lo considero un gran coche: cómodo para viajar con la familia, amplio, práctico y encima te puedes dar homenajes cuando vayas solo sabiendo que se va a comporta de una manera muy digna

 

No es subjetivo. El significado de absurdo es el que es. Como no se ha entendido. Lo he tenido que explicar.

No he dicho en ningún sitio que un deportivo tenga que ser biplaza. Pero por lo menos. Que sea bajo y poco pesado, para empezar.

Y digo yo... Que aporta un coche de estos contra por ejemplo un RS6 AVANT. Porque lo que tu defines, lo hace mucho mejor un RS6 AVANT, que un mastodonte de estos. No aportan nada, solo altura y peso innecesario. Altura que no van a utilizar, solo juega en su contra. Y peso que no los hacen mas amplios. Entonces. ¿Qué aportan?

 

Es tan subjetivo como que cada uno tiene un gusto y no vamos a coincidir.
Pues para un RS6 Avant, que yo me quedo con el X6 M. La altura, para ti no, pero para otras personas es un plus. Vas más comodo y sentado en un X6, al menos esa es mi idea...prefiero mucho antes el X6M que el mastodonte alargado del RS6
Pero veo que ninguno va a llegar a nada aquí, pero lo que tengo claro es que, sinceramente, no me compraría ninguno.

 

que feo es el mercedes madre mia....

 

Donde tú ves tanto "absurdismo" otros vemos polivalencia

Entonces por tu teoría, a cualquier deportivo de hoy en día quítale los modos de conducción o suspensión programable,gps y demás ...
Si compras un deportivo Rs,Ms, Porsche .... Es para ese uso, zurrarle! Nada de absurdeces de modo confort o mapas de gestión de motor más light

 

A mi esta merche en particular me tiene enamoraito perdido.

 

No me meto en si es absurdo o no, pero eso de que puede hacerse por 30.000 euros... Habla con BMW y Mercedes y cuéntales la idea, que lo mismo te forras

Ya me contarás cómo haces por 30.000 euros un coche con ese nivel de acabados, ese bastidor y un motor V8 turbado de más de 500 cv.

 

No puedo con ese tipo...........

 

Los X5M/X6M son los zarrios mas "dinámicos" del corral, aqui hay otra comparativa X5M vs Cayenne Turbo S vs Range Rover Sport SVR y tambien queda en primer lugar

BMW X5 M vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo S vs Range Rover Sport SVR
A Lot of Sport with a Side Helping of Utility

• Previous ImageNext Image
  
  PreviousNext
  • 
  VIEW LARGE
  By Mike Schlee Oct 23, 2015 Photos by Mike Schlee and Stephen Elmer
  Sometimes the most fun path to take is the one that leads down the road of absurdity.
  
  
  SUVs are all about comfort, practicality and utility. But for a select few, the word sport is taken a bit too literally in sport utility vehicle and these boat-towing off-roaders suddenly transform into wannabe sports cars.
  
  Take a look at the trio of vehicles here. All may have started life as premium, luxury SUVs. But after a trip to the various brand’s performance tuning arms, they’ve emerged as fire-breathing monsters that would rather hang out at Laguna Seca than Moab.
  
  The old man of this group is the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S. Having played this game for years, Porsche’s hot-rod SUV underwent a thorough refresh for 2015 that includes a mild bump in power. The BMW X5 M is another veteran of the performance SUV world that is new for 2015 and more potent than ever.
  
  Challenging the two established German contenders is a newcomer to the world of high-power luxury SUVs, the Range Rover Sport SVR. With a supercharged V8 engine, sport-tuned suspension and high performance tires, the SVR has the goods. But will it be enough to upset the BMW and Porsche proverbial apple carts? After a day of hard flogging, the scores were tallied and we found out which of these SUVs really is a decathlete in a linebacker’s body.
  
  
  3rd Place: 2015 Range Rover Sport SVR
  More Sport Utility than Sports Car
  
  Despite the SVR transformation, the Range Rover Sport still remains the most all-around SUV in the comparison. In other words, it hasn’t gone all-in when it comes to performance like the BMW and Porsche have.
  
  The Sport SVR has the highest seating position and behaves the most SUV-like in terms of ride quality and response. It still handles quite well for such a capable off-road vehicle, but compared to the other two here, it just can’t match their reflexes.
  
  Part of this has to do with the 275-mm width tires. Although it may sound crazy, a 275-width tire is too narrow – in this comparison, at least. And while on the topic of small, the 15-inch front brake rotors are the smallest in the test and when combined with the softest brake pedal, they do not inspire much high speed stopping confidence.
  
  SEE ALSO: 2016 Range Rover Sport SVR Review
  
  The SVR also lacks the adjustable sport modes found in the other two SUVs. It does feature a dynamic mode and a sport setting for the transmission, but the X5 and Cayenne allow for individual customization of most of the vehicles mechanical components.
  
  Range Rover does retain its six terrain modes for off-roading and those 275-mm tires are the least on-road compromised tires of the group. But spending all that money for a shiny new SVR to then take it off-road and risk damaging its pretty front fascia seems like a waste.
  
  
  
  
  
  But Then There’s That Engine
  
  Our lukewarm reception to the SVR ends once that big V8 engine comes to life. Here, Land Rover has done everything right. Displacing 5.0 liters and supercharged for extra effect, the V8 busts out 550 hp and 502 lb-ft of torque. That’s enough to hustle the 5,148-lb Range Rover from zero to 60 mph in just 4.5 seconds.
  
  Even if that is the slowest zero-to-60 time in the comparison, the Range Rover Sport SVR feels faster than it really is, thanks to all the low-end torque provided by the supercharged engine. And then there’s the sound, which is worth the price of admission alone. If you’ve ever heard a Jaguar F-Type V8 under full acceleration, that is the exact noise the SVR makes. It’s a classic V8 rumble with complementary backfires that are amplified by depressing the exhaust button or as I call it, the glorious noise maker.
  
  And despite having the lowest official fuel economy ratings, the SVR returned the best observed average, during our testing. This can be attributed to the programming of the eight-speed automatic as much as the differences in fuel usage and behavior between supercharged and turbocharged engines when driven with enthusiasm.
  
  
  
  
  
  The Elegant Brute
  
  The interior of the Sport SVR is finished in high quality materials, as should be expected from Land Rover. The rear seat is easy to get in and out of, and the arm rests are set at the right height. At 27.7 cubic feet, the rear cargo area is bigger than the Porsche’s, but does include a higher, less accessible loading floor.
  
  The best way to describe the Range Rover Sport SVR is as an elegant brute. It’s the muscle car of performance SUVs that focuses more on sound and style than handling and all-out speed. If the main reason for buying one of these high-powered SUVs is to impress your friends, family and members at the local country club, get the Sport SVR. It’s arguably the best looking, it feels fast, and, of course, has the angriest exhaust note.
  
  Fast Facts Engine: 5.0L supercharged V8; 550 hp, 502 lb-ft Transmission: Eight-speed automaticPricing US: Starts at $112,345 after destination charges, $121,940 as tested Pricing CDN: Starts at $126,565 after destination charges, $136,215 as tested EPA Fuel Economy: 13 mpg city, 19 mpg highway, 18.7 mpg observed average CDN Fuel Economy: 17.3 L/100 km city, 12.2 L/100 km highway, 12.6 L.100 km observed average
  
  
  2nd Place: 2015 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
  The High Price of High Performance
  
  Zero to 60 takes just 3.8 seconds and top speed is listed all the way up at 176 mph. The Cayenne Turbo S is fast – faster than anything else here. That’s what happens when a vehicle has the most power, most torque and lowest curb weight.
  
  At the heart of this performance is a 4.8-liter turbocharged V8 engine making 570 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Like the other two vehicles, it’s paired to an eight-speed automatic transmission. The engine produces a good, classic V8 burble under hard acceleration. With the exhaust button engaged, the Cayenne is louder than the X5 M, but nowhere as noisy as the raucous SVR. It’s probably a more fitting overall engine note for this class and does feature a few pops and burbles when decelerating.
  
  SEE ALSO: Five-Point Inspection: 2014 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
  
  And the performance doesn’t end with the engine; every other mechanical component is dialed in. Scroll through the three drive settings to engage sport plus mode. Here, the Cayenne feels the most connected to the road and is the best in the comparison. For an SUV, it’s surprising how quickly and confidently I can hustle this nearly 4,927-lb lug around twisting back roads. The amount of pendulum rebound body motion found in most SUVs during hard cornering is virtually eliminated with the Turbo S.
  
  The massive brakes, measuring 16.5 inches up front, are quick to react. Combined with the wide 295-mm tires, the Turbo S is almost grabby in how fast it wants to stop when the brake pedal is depressed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Make it Your Own
  
  If driving the Cayenne Turbo S on hardcore mode at all times isn’t your thing, it can be altered through various preset drive modes or completely customized through individual functions like the suspension and transmission. It’s also got an adjustable ride height like the Range Rover, but one ups the Sport SVR by offering three manually lockable differentials. But equipped with the sport tires, the Turbo S isn’t well suited for serious off-roading.
  
  Inside, drivers sit lower in the Cayenne than the other two SUVs which is fitting for the Turbo S’ car-like driving characteristics. The ride comfort in default mode isn’t quite as soft as the Range Rover’s, but does best the BMW’s.
  
  The front seats are quite comfortable, though, as are those in the back. But no matter which seat, headroom can be a bit of an issue for taller occupants. The center stack features the wall of ubiquitous buttons and switches found in virtually all modern Porsches and the infotainment system isn’t great, much like the one found in the Range Rover. This could be the first Porsche I have ever driven with virtually no dummy buttons, as this Cayenne is fully loaded.
  
  
  
  
  
  Pay to Play
  
  And that brings up the issue of price. The Porsche Cayenne Turbo S begins at $158,295 after destination charges, which is some $48,000 more than the Range Rover Sport SVR and almost $60,000 more than the BMW X5 M. As tested, this loaded up Cayenne hits $172,740.
  
  It may seem easy to think that someone who can afford a $100,000 X5 M can easily spend a few more bucks to buy the almost $160,000 Cayenne Turbo S, but that’s like saying someone looking for a $25,000 car might as well just get a $40,000 car instead.
  
  The Cayenne is the best performing SUV here, but the cost of entry is steep. If money is no object, the Turbo S is fantastic. But when it comes to bang for the buck, it’s beat by our first place finisher.
  
  Fast Facts Engine: 4.8L turbocharged V8l 570 hp, 590 lb-ft Transmission: Eight-speed automaticPricing US: Begins at $158,295 after destination charges, $172,740 as tested Pricing CDN: Begins at $179,215 after destination charges, $196,510 as tested EPA Fuel Economy: 14 mpg city, 21 mpg highway, 16.6 mpg observed average CDN Fuel Economy: 16.7 L/100 km city, 11.2 L/100 km highway, 14.2 L/100 km observed average
  
  
  1st Place: 2015 BMW X5 M
  Hot Rod SUV at an Affordable Price
  
  The BMW X5 M is the most dedicated to sport amongst the three competitors. There are no off-road modes like the other two vehicles, which makes sense, since no one is going to go bush-whacking in this steroid pumping Bavarian brute. It’s also the only vehicle to come equipped with sports-sedan-like staggered tires, 285/40R20 up front and 325/30R21 in the rear.
  
  
  
  
  
  At the heart of this beast is a 4.4-liter turbocharged V8 that unleashes 567 hp and 553 lb-ft of torque. That’s not as much as the Cayenne Turbo S, and with an extra 300 pounds or so of weight to carry around, the X5 M isn’t as fast in a straight line. Still, a zero-to-60 mph time of four seconds flat is nothing to be ashamed of and that’s still faster than the Range Rover Sport SVR.
  
  SEE ALSO: BMW X5 M Review
  
  Like the Cayenne, there is a bit of a delay before the power really comes on while the turbochargers build boost. But once up to pressure, the big SUV lurches down the road with surprising urgency.
  
  The X5 M has a higher-pitched V8 sound than the other two, partially due to it having the smallest engine here as well as a more European exhaust note, complete with barks during high-rpm upshifts. And unlike the SVR and Turbo S, there is no exhaust button in the X5 M. Only high amounts of throttle will open up the sound of the turbo V8. Otherwise, it’s the quietest engine here.
  
  Among the three eight-speed automatic transmissions, BMW’s is the best of the group. In sport plus mode, it acts deceivingly close to a dual clutch setup. It may not be as refined in normal driving as the Cayenne’s transmission, but when it comes time to put your foot down, this eight-speed is fantastic.
  
  
  
  
  
  A Street Savage Tailored to Your Liking
  
  The X5 M allows drivers to customize the mechanical settings more than the other two. Transmission aggression, throttle response, steering effort, suspension firmness and stability control intervention can all be tailored to your liking. And your favorite settings can be saved with the M1 and M2 buttons on the steering wheel.
  
  And, speaking of which, the X5 M has the best steering wheel of the group, with a nice, meaty feel. In sport plus settings, the X5 has the stiffest steering, but the Cayenne provides a bit more feedback and feel. In general, the X5 M doesn’t quite have the handling responses of the Cayenne, but I’m talking negligible differences that are more than made up for with the price difference.
  
  Ride comfort in the X5 M is not as good as the Turbo S, which might be due to the massively wide rear wheels. The Bimmer drives more like a crossover than a SUV, slotting in somewhere between the SUV-riding Range Rover and the car-like Cayenne. It also carries a deceiving amount of speed, which can exceed legal limits without much effort.
  
  Inside, some of us found the X5 M’s mix of colors, textures and materials a bit too busy, while others consider them works of art. The front seats are the most comfortable in the test and we liked the wide infotainment display screen as well as the color head-up display. The rear cargo area is the largest here, but the not everyone is a fan of BMW’s split tailgate design.
  
  
  
  
  
  Bang for the Buck Champion
  
  The BMW X5 M is nearly as much of a performance SUV as the Cayenne Turbo S, but for a whole lot less money. The $109,095 as-tested price isn’t exactly pocket change, but compared to the $179,215 hot rod Porsche, that’s a huge savings. So, if money is a top consideration, even in the world of six-figure sport SUVs, it’s hard to beat the X5 M’s performance per dollar.
  
  Fast Facts Engine: 4.4L turbocharged V8; 567 hp, 553 lb-ft Transmission: Eight-speed automaticPricing US: Starts at $99,795 after destination charges, $109,095 as tested Pricing CDN: Starts at $107,995 after destination charges, $121,095 as tested EPA Fuel Economy: 14 mpg city, 19 mpg highway, 16.9 mpg observed average
  

http://www.autoguide.com/car-compar...sche-cayenne-turbo-s-vs-range-rover-sport-svr

 

Yo ya he visto en vivo el nuevo mercedes GLE Coupé,concretamente el 450 AMG,y el coche es una pasada,como cambia la cosa cuando ves los coches en vivo,me ha gustado tanto que iba a comprar un Range Rover Sport,y lo he dejado estar,ya he pedido presupuesto del GLE Coupé y si me encaja,a cambiar de coche toca,el nuevo X6 no me llena,y para viajar quiero un coche con suspensión neumática y demás,y en esto Mercedes,cumple holgadamente,veremos a ver........

 

Y a la que cualquier coche vaya con neumáticos con 10 kilómetros también harán tiempos peores. Obviamente.

 

Hablaba de tiempos. Hay que leer...