BMW News: 2016 BMW X1 - The First Front-Wheel Drive BMW For the U.S.

[William Maley]

---

BMW has pulled the covers off the 2016 X1 crossover that will go on sale this fall in the U.S. While the X1 was sold in other markets since 2009, it only came to the U.S. in 2012.

 

Lets talk about the elephant in the room. This is the first BMW to be sold in the U.S. to be based on the German automaker's UKL platform that underpins the new MINI Cooper and other BMW vehicles sold in Europe. Our X1 will only come in all-wheel drive form.

 

Power will come from the 2.0L TwinPower Turbo four-cylinder generating 228 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque. An eight-speed automatic gets the power to all four wheels.

 

The design is heavily influenced by the X5 with a similar shape and distinctive character line running through the door handles. Inside is completely changed with a center stack that is in line with current BMWs - including a large screen ranging from 6.5 to 8-inches. Passengers will notice an increase in head and legroom.

 

No word on pricing at this time.

 

Source: BMW

 

 

Press Release is on Page 2

---

 

Woodcliff Lake, N.J. – EMBARGO: June 2, 2015 – 6:00pm EDT/3:00pm PDT… Today, BMW announced the all-new BMW X1 Sports Activity Vehicle. In its second generation, the new MY 2016 BMW X1 builds on the success of its predecessor (61,974 sold in the US to date) by incorporating a roomier interior, greater efficiency and technology on the forefront of innovation. The second generation takes to the stage with a body design typical of a BMW Sports Activity Vehicle. The BMW X1 xDrive28i will be the exclusive model in the US at launch featuring a 2.0-liter TwinTurbo 4-cylinder engine from BMW’s new family of modular engines with maximum output of 228 horsepower, making the all new BMW X1 the most powerful entry model in the segment. It will be mounted to an 8-speed Steptronic automatic transmission. An efficiency-optimized version of the BMW xDrive intelligent all-wheel-drive system and newly developed chassis technology all help to enhance sporting ability and ride comfort compared to the outgoing model. The all new BMW X1 also showcases its exceptional versatility with increased cargo area and greater interior room with more headroom than before. The 2016 BMW X1 xDrive28i will arrive in US showrooms in Fall 2015.

 

Its cutting-edge premium ambience and functionality ensure the BMW X1 will stay ahead of the competition. Alongside its market-leading dynamics and efficiency, a host of innovative equipment features also help to secure the all new BMW X1 position in the class. Among the items on the options list are full-LED adaptive headlights, BMW Head-Up Display and Driver Assistance Plus.

 

Greatest interior roominess and versatility in its class
The all new BMW X1 is defined by its cutting-edge vehicle concept and advancements in the areas of functionality, safety and comfort. This multitalented model not only boasts more space for passengers and luggage, it also offers additional flexibility when it comes to utilizing its load-carrying capacity. Extensive standard equipment and numerous attractive options underline the premium character of the compact BMW Sports Activity Vehicle.

 

Merging functionality and versatility, the BMW X1 is the roomiest vehicle in its class. The overall interior room and comfort of the all new BMW X1 treat passengers to additional head and legroom. The horizontal surface design in the interior, create generous levels of space and an ambience typical of a BMW Sports Activity Vehicle. Power front seats are now standard and provide a seating position raised by more than one inch in the front and more than 2.5 inches in the rear when compared to its predecessor. Leg room in the rear has increased by 1.5 inches in standard specification and by up to 2.6 inches with the optionally adjustable rear seat while accessible storage areas like the compartment in front of the shifter emphasize the versatile character of all new BMW X1.

 

The driver focused cockpit and generously sized surfaces define the interior of the new BMW X1 as a classic Sports Activity Vehicle. The flat surfaces of the instrument panel and center console controls all angled towards the driver aim to help and maintain control over the surroundings at all times regardless of changing road conditions
.
The rear seatback can be split 40:20:40, with the three sections folding down individually or jointly. An optional sliding and reclining rear bench with individual elements that can slide forward or back by up to five inches allowing seating comfort and storage capacity to be adjusted even more precisely. The tilt angle for the rear-seat backrest can also be adjusted when fitted with the optional equipment seats and ranges from 31 degrees all the way to a near-vertical cargo position of 1 degree. A power-folding feature enables the rear seats to be folded at the touch of a button inside the luggage compartment. Cargo space has been increased by more than 15 percent (based on European measurements) allowing plenty of storage practicality.

 

The standard automatic tailgate operation makes using the X1’s load-carrying capacity even easier, and Comfort Access, offered as part of the Premium Package also includes a hands-free tailgate opening and closing function.

 

The passenger compartment of the all new BMW X1 has large door pockets and offers a selection of smaller storage areas. A storage compartment is integrated into the instrument panel on the driver’s side. Positioned in front of the gearshift selector lever in the center console beneath a sliding cover are two cupholders. The front armrest for the driver and front passenger includes an integrated storage compartment. The standard storage package includes features such as nets in the backrest of the driver and the front passenger seat and a central armrest with cupholders for the rear adding to the new X1’s storage offerings. Safe transportation of goods is assured with a strap and net in the trunk.

 

Attractive equipment variants and exclusive comfort-enhancing options
Customers can choose between two non-metallic and nine metallic exterior paint finishes, allowing them to tailor their new BMW X1 to their individual tastes. Estoril Blue metallic is exclusively offered in combination with the M Sport package. Mirroring brand specific characteristics, the new BMW X1 offers a broad range of individualization. The M Sport package, available later this year, provides a sportier, quicker and slicker look and feel thanks to the 8-speed Sport Automatic transmission featuring steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters supported by M Steering Wheel and M Sport suspension and Sport Seats.

 

The Premium Package highlights once more BMW core attributes achieving an even higher look and feel of quality. The optional panoramic moonroof, increased in size compared to the outgoing model, underlines the roominess of the vehicle’s interior whereas the full LED headlights, both available with the Premium Package, highlight a strong and powerful stance on the road.

 

Standard equipment also includes front fog-lamps, alarm with remote-controlled central locking and keyless engine ignition, electric window controls, electrically adjustable and heated exterior mirrors, a multifunction leather steering wheel adjustable for height and reach, a rain sensor including automatic headlight control and Dynamic Cruise Control.

 

Commanding presence, robust proportions, dynamic lines
The signature BMW X model design cues shape the all new BMW X1, while the height has been increased by an additional 1.7 inches, for a robust stance in all driving situations. The large, upright BMW kidney grille, lower air intake done in three sections and characteristic “six-eyed” looked formed by the twin round headlights and fog lamps give the new BMW X1 its distinctive face. Emphasizing the bold look of the new BMW X1, LED Daytime Running Lights are now standard with LED headlights available in conjunction with the Premium Package.

 

Flared wheel arches and lines converge in an X-shape into the kidney grille, contributing to the authoritative presence of the new BMW X1. Black borders on the lower edge of the body, the square contour of the wheel cutouts and the generous volume of the surfaces above them, all underline the solid statute of the compact BMW X-models. The center of the new BMW X1’s rear apron rises up significantly, mimicking the characteristic element of the front design. Their flat outline emphasizes the width of the rear end, with the vertically arranged black aeroblades which perfectly mirrors the roof spoiler, adding sporting accents.

 

The all new BMW X1 offers standard 18-inch run-flat all-season tires with non-run-flat all seasons and a space saver spare available as a no-cost option for the first time. Our sport oriented customers can chose 19-inch run-flat performance tires as optional equipment.

 

The interior offers harmonious balance between driver focus and elegance befitting the classic style of a BMW Sports Activity Vehicle. The flat surfaces of the instrument panel and center console controls angled towards the driver providing great overview inside and outside the vehicle. The controls located in the lower section of the center console are surrounded by high-quality surfaces and are with a newly designed trim accent bar. The instrument cluster, consisting of two circular instruments and framed by a small binnacle, also helps the driver to focus on driving.

 

The iDrive operating system’s Control Display comes in the form of a high resolution 6.5-inch or, optionally, 8.8-inch freestanding monitor. The interior trim accent and air vents are surrounded by an interior trim spanning the full width of the instrument panel. The interior trim and accent strip extend through the door panel trim, with the effect that occupants in all seats are surrounded by premium surfaces with a uniform material and color structure.

 

Other standard interior features include: Power front seats with driver-side memory, Anthracite headliner, storage package and multifunction sport leather steering wheel. Standard equipment for the new BMW X1 also includes an all-new SensaTec seat surface available in both Black and Canberra Beige and a Black high-gloss interior trim with Pearl chrome accent strips. Perforated Dakota leather trim is available in Black, Canberra Beige, Mocha, and Oyster as are interior Brushed Aluminum and fine-wood matt Oak Grain and Fineline Stream interior trims.

 

The standard sound system with 7 loudspeakers provides high quality audio. The optional Harman Kardon HiFi system, complete with 12 loudspeakers and a digital amplifier with 360-watt output, provide an outstanding audio experience while on the road.

 

Powertrain and driving experience
The second generation BMW X1 uses an all-new powertrain and chassis technology to build systematically on the compact BMW X model’s versatile sporting ability in its segment. The newly developed chassis technology, which ensures not only precisely controllable handling, but also noticeably improved ride comfort is another key factor that further enhances agility on the all new BMW X1. Together with the car’s low center of gravity, a wide track, short overhangs, optimized weight and the impressive rigidity of the body and chassis, all contribute to lay the foundation for a driving experience familiar to BMW drivers but without parallel in the class.

 

Highest power in it’s class
The all new BMW X1 will be available from launch with an all-new 2.0-liter BMW TwinPower Turbo engine featuring a twin-tailpipe design that draws further attention to the sporty character of the all new BMW X1. The BMW X1 xDrive28i features BMW’s new modular BMW EfficientDynamics engine, a 2.0-liter TwinPower Turbo 4-cylinder unit with a TwinScroll turbocharger, High Precision Injection, VALVETRONIC fully variable valve lift, and Double-VANOS variable camshaft timing. This powerful engine develops 228 hp at 5,000 rpm, representing the highest power output in the entry model class and thanks to BMW’s EfficientDynamics technology. The peak torque of 258 lb-ft, which is available between 1,250 rpm and 4,500 rpm ensures once again that the driving torque is effortlessly and instantly delivered for a dynamic and agile driving experience. Its instantaneous pulling power enables acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds. The new BMW X1 xDrive28i CO2 emissions stand at 152– 49 grams per kilometer (in the EU test cycle, depending on the tire format specified). US EPA mileage estimates will be available closer to launch.

 

Flexible, quick to respond and more efficient than ever: the xDrive intelligent all-wheel-drive system in the new BMW X1
The compact, low-weight and efficient all-wheel-drive system distributes the engine’s power between the front and rear axle exactly as the situation requires – at all times. Working closely with DSC (Dynamic Stability Control) allows the system to act preemptively to counteract any tendency on the car’s towards oversteer or understeer. The BMW xDrive system therefore ensures excellent traction, optimized directional stability and enhanced cornering dynamics in all weather and road conditions. Furthermore, the combination of the DSC system and xDrive also includes Hill Descent Control.

 

The xDrive system of the all new BMW X1 consists of a single-speed bevel gear and a rear-axle drive unit with an electrohydraulically controlled multi-plate clutch than controls longitudinal torque distribution. The two are connected by a two-piece drive shaft. When required, the multi-plate clutch – with the help of an electrohydraulic pump – diverts up to 100 percent of the engine’s power to the rear wheels. It does so in less than 250 ms and unnoticed by the driver. The DSC system keeps the pump’s control unit constantly supplied with important data for analyzing the driving situation. The data includes the vehicle’s speed, lateral and longitudinal acceleration, steering lock, wheel-speed, pitch, accelerator position and the Driving Dynamic Control and DSC settings. This information is used to determine – and instantly generate – the ideal power split between the front and rear wheels, seamlessly and flexibly.

 

A recipe for enthralling agility: sophisticated chassis technology
The chassis technology of the original X1 has been totally redeveloped for the new model with aluminum wheel hubs, as well as axle carriers and control arms made from high-strength steel, reduce weight and increase the rigidity of the front axle, which in turn helps to ensure an agile turn-in response and direction-changing precision. The rear axle also employs a high proportion of high-strength steels. Tube-shaped anti-roll bars at the front and rear axle, innovative axle mounting and specially tuned elastokinematics contribute to the agility and ride comfort of the all new BMW X1, as do the connection of the dampers to the body via sophisticated three-way support mounts.

 

The all new BMW X1 is equipped with standard Servotronic speed-sensitive steering assistance. This system allows parking and turning maneuvers to be completed safely and comfortably with little steering effort, and at higher speeds drivers can also benefit from steering precision and straight line stability as the steering effort is increased just the right amount.

 

The Driving Dynamic Control switch on the center console allows the driver to give the car’s set-up an even sportier, more comfort-oriented or efficiency-optimized character. Calling up COMFORT, SPORT or ECO PRO mode at the touch of a button adapts the responses of the accelerator pedal and steering as well as shift characteristics of the automatic transmission are also adjusted if the relevant equipment has been specified.

 

The Dynamic Stability Control stability system includes features such as the Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), Dynamic Traction Control (DTC), Cornering Brake Control (CBC), Dynamic Brake Control (DBC), Brake Assist system, Brake Fade Compensation, Brake Drying Braking and Start-Off Assistant and Performance Control. When DSC is deactivated, an electronic locking function for the front axle differential – known as Electronic Differential Lock Control (EDLC) – comes into play. In tight corners the system brakes a spinning wheel as required and ensures power is diverted to the other wheel.

 

The enhanced functional effectiveness of all powertrain components, intelligent energy management, the rigorous application of BMW Lightweight technology and far-reaching measures designed to optimize aerodynamics all play a role in enhancing the efficiency of the all new, second generation BMW X1. The innovations developed under the BMW EfficientDynamics umbrella delivers greater driving pleasure.

 

Optimized exterior design
The all new BMW X1 also has smooth underbody paneling, air deflectors on the front wheel arches and vertical aeroblades, which form a unit with the roof spoiler to channel the airflow around the rear of the car to best effect. The Air Curtains integrated into the outer air intakes channel the onrushing air precisely behind the front fenders causing it to hang over the wheels like a curtain and thus reduce turbulence.

 

Engine, gearbox and BMW xDrive: lower weight, improved efficiency
The engine in the BMW X1 xDrive28i benefits from the latest incarnation of BMW TwinPower Turbo technology with TwinScroll turbocharger and the most recently updated generation of VALVETRONIC. This latest 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine incorporates aluminum crankcase and cylinder head, forged steel crankshafts with an integrated balance shaft drive, low-weight pistons, forged connecting rods, friction-reduced cylinder coatings and map-controlled oil pumps.

 

With the reduced weight and enhanced internal efficiency, the new 8-speed Steptronic transmission also helps to optimize efficiency. The reduced converter slip of the new automatic transmission cuts energy losses, and its wider gear spread keeps revs lower at higher vehicle speeds contributing to the reduced emissions.

 

The BMW xDrive intelligent all-wheel-drive system developed for the new BMW X1 is considerably lighter with powertrain losses that are reduced by 30 percent in normal driving situations .The improved functional effectiveness of the new rear differential also helps to deliver a particularly efficient all-wheel-drive experience.

 

Intelligent energy management, ECO PRO mode with coasting function
The BMW EfficientDynamics technology employed in the new BMW X1 includes intelligent energy management. Brake Energy Regeneration enables extremely efficient power generation for the on-board power supply. The Electric Power Steering and on-demand fuel and coolant pumps work with maximum efficiency.

 

ECO PRO mode – activated via the Driving Dynamics Control switch – also allows drivers of new BMW X1 to make use of the coasting function. At speeds between 30-100 mph, the powertrain is disengaged when the driver takes his or her foot off the accelerator. Further efficiency gains have been achieved with items including reduced-friction wheel bearings.

 

BMW EfficientLightweight technology ensuring efficiency
The enhanced functional effectiveness of all powertrain components, intelligent energy management, BMW Lightweight technology and measures designed to optimize aerodynamics all play a role in ensuring that the new BMW X1 it is significantly more efficient. The innovations developed under the BMW EfficientDynamics banner form an overall package that delivers greater and more efficient driving pleasure.

 

An intelligent mix of materials for the body structure and chassis components of the new BMW X1 allows increased agility, lower vibrations and enhanced safety to be combined with optimized vehicle weight. The targeted use of hot-stamped, high and ultra-high tensile steels reduces the weight of the X1 yet also significantly improves torsional rigidity and strength. Contributing to the Lightweight construction of the BMW X1, components like the hood, the bumper supports and wheel hubs – among other areas of the car – are made of aluminum.

 

The weight of the chassis has been reduced by the deployment of components such as tube-shaped anti-roll bars, output shafts and damper piston rods, not to mention the increased use of aluminum. The integrated BMW EfficientLightweight concept also contains solutions for construction details, such as the production of steel with optimized material strength – in the form of tailored rolled blanks – for the front bulkhead and B-pillar support beams.

 

BMW ConnectedDrive: Progress through intelligent connectivity
The second generation BMW X1 also brings significant advances in the field of intelligent connectivity over its predecessor. The new selection of options designed to optimize comfort; safety and the use of infotainment functions, such as the Head-Up Display, take their cues from those available from other BMW Sports Activity Vehicles.

 

BMW ConnectedDrive features on the new BMW X1 now include the newest BMW Head-Up Display which projects driving-related activities directly onto the windshield. The optional high-resolution 8.8-inch Control Display with touchpad controller will host BMW Online, BMW Apps, Remote Services and provide Advanced Real-Time Traffic Information. As an option, a high-resolution 6.5” screen navigation with BMW Online, BMW Apps, Remote Services, Advanced Real Time Traffic Information is also available. By adding to the functionality of the infotainment system the new BMW X1 allows for increased safety by simultaneously providing greater comfort, all based on user selection.

 

Technology Package including BMW Head-Up Display
The Navigation option assists route guidance on the standard Control Display with direction arrows and sophisticated map graphics, including views from various angles. With the standard multifunction steering wheel, the destination can also be entered by voice command. Another, in many respects pioneering option is the Navigation system, which comprises a bigger 8.8-inch Control Display, an instrument cluster with extended features, including a split-screen function as well as the BMW Head-Up Display. This system allows High Guidance instructions including lane recommendations to be shown in the instrument cluster’s TFT display or projected onto the windshield, as desired. The BMW Head-Up Display projects this and other information directly into the driver’s field of view, allowing him or her to register the information without having to divert their gaze from the road ahead. The graphics are displayed using the full spectrum of colors. The 8.8-inch Control Display in conjunction with the standard multifunction steering wheel destination also allow for info input by voice command.

 

Driver Assistance Plus
The camera-based assistance systems available for the new BMW X1 ensure greater assurance and safety in different driving situations. The Driver Assistance Plus package encompasses Lane Departure Warning, Speed Limit Info, Automatic High Beams, as well as Frontal Collision Warning with Pedestrian Warning and City Collision Mitigation. In addition to these functions, the Driver Assistance Plus package also features the Active Cruise Control system with Stop & Go function. Park Distance Control and the Rear-View Camera are part of the Driver Assistance Package that transfers images onto the Control Display, making precise and comfortable parking maneuvers that much easier. Parking Assistant is included with the Driver Assistance Package and also helps the driver to find and make use of parallel parking spaces.

 

BMW ConnectedDrive Services and apps
The ConnectedDrive Services option enables the use of the BMW Online internet portal via the SIM card embedded in the vehicle, as well as the integration of smartphone apps into the car. Standard features also include BMW Assist eCall and BMW Teleservices. The steadily growing selection of smartphone apps comprises web radio functions as well as the use of social network services such as Facebook and Twitter or services like Spotify, Life 360, iHeartRadio among many more.

 

The ConnectedDrive Store offers even more flexibility. A one-time registration allows customers to adapt the range of services available to their individual needs – there and then or at a later stage. The ConnectedDrive Store is not only available on the internet but also directly in the car. The functions purchased are made available for use just minutes later.

 

Pricing will be announced closer to launch.

View full article

[Susimi]

So first we had an all-wheel drive 3 series, now a front-wheel drive X1?

 

This feels a bit wrong, just even thinking of a BMW with a drivetrain other than rear-wheel just feels wrong.

[G. David Felt]

Reread the story, the US market is only getting this in AWD. I think BMW has realized that  only a FWD CUV gives them a black eye. So bring AWD.

 

I hope this pushes others to bring Torquey AWD Compact CUV's to the market. This thing should do well for them even with blending in with the X5 but smaller and an interior that clearly looks so 1990's.

 

What is up with this really dated interior look that BMW is using. Just ugly.

[smk4565]

I think this looks better than the GLA and Q3.  BMW somehow made this look both truckier and sportier than the other 2 Germans.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think this looks better than the GLA and Q3.  BMW somehow made this look both truckier and sportier than the other 2 Germans.

Nothing about how it must automatically must suck because the engine is mounted transversely?

Does this mean you'll finally being to accept the SRX, which has been ahead of all of the Germans in sales (sometimes even in combined terms) for most of its model run?

[oldshurst442]

 

I think this looks better than the GLA and Q3.  BMW somehow made this look both truckier and sportier than the other 2 Germans.

Nothing about how it must automatically must suck because the engine is mounted transversely?

Does this mean you'll finally being to accept the SRX, which has been ahead of all of the Germans in sales (sometimes even in combined terms) for most of its model run?

 

I dont know you guys long enough...but if smk4565 has had issues with the Cadillac SRX being FWD and he is willing to give the BMW X1 a pass, well, that is too funny...smk4565 sounds like he is soooo much like  my snobby Euro Friendly, BMW lovin' close friends of mine...I hate BMW  since the late 1980s because of them...

[Drew Dowdell]

SMK has issues with anything and everything Cadillac does. Cadillac could sneak an S-Class off a Benz lot and swap the badges out and he would suddenly have all sorts of complaints about the shape of the radio knobs to the feel of the ash tray liner, to the type of screws used to hold the radiator in place.

He'll complain about the SRX Being FWD while extolling the virtues of the CLA and looking the other way when Audi comes up. When Mercedes models sell poorly, they're "exclusive". When Cadillac models sell poorly, "Is this the end for Cadillac?!?" The SRX outsold the X3 and GLK (sometimes combined) for years, but the SRX "sux" beause it is front wheel drive and is slightly larger outside while having the same interior room.

The Escalade is "just a Chevy" while the G-Class is "best evar!!" exposed screwheads and all. If you're looking for a laugh, wander over to the Benz forum and find the thread on G-Class quality. I took pictures at the auto show just for SMK.

[William Maley]

 

I think this looks better than the GLA and Q3.  BMW somehow made this look both truckier and sportier than the other 2 Germans.

Nothing about how it must automatically must suck because the engine is mounted transversely?

Does this mean you'll finally being to accept the SRX, which has been ahead of all of the Germans in sales (sometimes even in combined terms) for most of its model run?

 

 

You realize you're talking to smk right?

 

I think pigs taking flight will happen sooner than this.

[FAPTurbo]

Oh boy, a transverse-mounted engine in a BMW! The ultimate front-wheel driving machine!

 

I wonder how this will be spun by fans once it's filtered through the BMW reality distortion field.

 

Did BMW pilfer Hyundai's turn-of-the-decade design team to make that chintzy looking dash? And what's the deal with making infotainment screens look like tablets? Give the last-gen CTS credit, the designers had the right idea with the hideaway screen. 

[Drew Dowdell]

The bad part for me is, my other half will love it....

[smk4565]

All I said was the X1 looks better than the other 2 competitors.  The GLA interior might be a little better. 

 

I don't like front wheel drive, but I understand why all 3 Germans offer a compact SUV in the low 30s because they want that entry level buyer.  The GLK and X3 can then start around $38k, the mid-size SUVs around $50k.

 

My problem with the SRX is that it was RWD, and targeted against the X5 and ML, and then they made it a Lincoln MKX/Lexus RX clone.   It was counteractive to the rear wheel drive plan Cadillac was on, and said Cadillac is a Lincoln/Acura competitor, not a German competitor.  And the Cadillac brass keeps saying they are on par with the Germans.

[oldshurst442]

Well. With this Bimmer...it looks like BMW is on par with Pontiac...

 

Here...FWD based AWD...and in the 1980s...who woulda thunk that? (Back when BMWs were Ultimate Driving Machines...)

 

 

Oh...a small crossover FWD/AWD Pontiac from this millennium...and the X1 looks like it could be the next generation Vibe...

 

So...you understand BMW going that direction...but you dont understand why Cadillac went that direction...when BMWs were tooting their own horn by saying they are...

 

 

 

Gotcha...

I aint gonna waste anymore time with that as I understand you have double standards...

[smk4565]

But BMW didn't make the X5 a $35,000 front drive SUV.  Cadillac moves products around segments and change names like crazy.   There is no clear direction.   If Cadillac comes out with a new XT1 front drive crossover to compete in this segment, and makes the XT5 a CTS based $50k crossover to compete with the X5 then the product mix would make sense.  But suppose Cadillac made the next gen CTS a $36k front drive Lexus ES competitor, after 15 years of saying it is a 5-series competitor.  It wouldn't make sense.

 

On a side note,  how badly does Cadillac want to be BMW with XT1, XT3, XT5 to compete with the X1, X3, and X5.  They need to think up some new names in Detroit, errr New York.

[oldshurst442]

But BMW didn't make the X5 a $35,000 front drive SUV.  Cadillac moves products around segments and change names like crazy.   There is no clear direction.   If Cadillac comes out with a new XT1 front drive crossover to compete in this segment, and makes the XT5 a CTS based $50k crossover to compete with the X5 then the product mix would make sense.  But suppose Cadillac made the next gen CTS a $36k front drive Lexus ES competitor, after 15 years of saying it is a 5-series competitor.  It wouldn't make sense.

 

On a side note,  how badly does Cadillac want to be BMW with XT1, XT3, XT5 to compete with the X1, X3, and X5.  They need to think up some new names in Detroit, errr New York.

No...it made the X5 into a Sports ACTIVITY vehicle to brainwash the likes of you.... and then it made the X1 into a front driver to further brainwash the likes of you...

 

So...you tell me how a BMW 325's name is logical...when its engine displacement is 3.0 liters....because I swear in the 1980s...a 318 Bimmer was named 318...because the engine size was 1.8 liters...

 

the rest of your post is laughable...double standard idiocy...

 

Oh...in Europe...a 3 Series Bimmer was an econobox...I dont care if you dont believe me...Ive actually been to Greece...drove those 3 Series econoboxes...in the 1980s and 1990s...and...BMW...to brainwash the fools like you in North America...they brought this lovely guy over and called it entry level luxury...

 

Crappier than a Chevrolet Cavalier form the 1980s....which reminds me...Cadillac did that in the 1980s...and called it a Cimarron...yet BMW did not learn that lesson...20 years later....the thing is...BMW played its cards right...and brainwashed many light headed Americans with their Sports ACTIVITY BS that people like you...welll...they have dumb double standards...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

I actually don't like BMWs in terms of styling, never have.  They make good engines and suspensions, I'll give them that.  The 3-series has always been rear wheel drive, they have always had handling.  If the stuff Cadillac made in the 80s and 90s was so good, they wouldn't have been overtaken with such ease by BMW.

 

The numbers after the 3 on a BMW are getting rather inconsistent, but engine displacements are always changing, I don't know why they don't just stick with a number.  But it is also complicated because they have two 2.0 turbo fours making different horsepower.   But at least they still call it the 3-series.

 

I am also aware of the 80s econobox base models, the E-class taxis, the fleet cars, and whatever else the Germans sell in Europe that would be seen as poor image in the USA.  But no one has been able to go to Europe and challenge them. Not Lexus, not Infiniti, not Cadillac.  So it doesn't really matter what they do in Europe because they have the monopoly and high barriers to entry.

[oldshurst442]

I actually don't like BMWs in terms of styling, never have.  They make good engines and suspensions, I'll give them that.  The 3-series has always been rear wheel drive, they have always had handling.  If the stuff Cadillac made in the 80s and 90s was so good, they wouldn't have been overtaken with such ease by BMW.

 

The numbers after the 3 on a BMW are getting rather inconsistent, but engine displacements are always changing, I don't know why they don't just stick with a number.  But it is also complicated because they have two 2.0 turbo fours making different horsepower.   But at least they still call it the 3-series.

 

I am also aware of the 80s econobox base models, the E-class taxis, the fleet cars, and whatever else the Germans sell in Europe that would be seen as poor image in the USA.  But no one has been able to go to Europe and challenge them. Not Lexus, not Infiniti, not Cadillac.  So it doesn't really matter what they do in Europe because they have the monopoly and high barriers to entry.

I never said that Cadillac were soooo good in the 1980s....but...since you want to be a dummy regarding that...and since you want to give BMW and the Germans a pass for building crap....and you cant forgive the mere 20 years that Cadillac built crap over their 110 year history...something that BMW has not touched yet....because BMW has built crap MORE than 20 years...

 

let us visit memory lane with a history of crappy BMWs...

 

1930s.

Let us not forget that Cadillac at this time was in Rolls Royce Territory and Mercedes-Benz territory with Duesenbergs...remember V16s...

 

Then War....motorcycles and airplane engines...

 

From the 1950s...

 

1960s...

 

the 1970s...

 

Cadillac NEVER went that low even with  20 years worth of Allantes and Cimarrons and funky assed 1980s Sevilles with 8-6-4 technology at their mercy...because 8-6-4 technology is something that works today...with the help of computers...something that Cadillac engineers did not have access to in the 1980s...BMWs luxury image is only now passing the total of crappy years that Cadillac had....but somehow....you want to dismiss the 90 years worth of excellence that Cadillac has under their belt...and want to dismiss the 50 years worth of crap that BMW shoved our way....like I said...dumb double standards you have...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[Frisky Dingo]

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

[oldshurst442]

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

OK...so the SRX sucks...that is more of a tit for tat argument you got going on...but whatever.

 

lets see how BMW will make the X1 handle like an ultimate driving machine. You know...FWD...Because GM knows how to make FWD cars handle...and the Equinox and SRX aint that bad...lets see how BMW paid journalists will spin the negativity that will surround it...because...it is wrong wheel drive after all....and coming from BMW...because while some of us can huff and puff over a FWD Cadillac crossover...Cadillac jumped into the FWD pool with its Flagship Eldorado in the late 1960s...and Cadillac continued to refine FWD performance and handling waaaaay into the 2000s with their cars...so people can smirk all they want about a FWD SRX...it just shows the stupid double standards you German friendly BMW lovers have...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[G. David Felt]

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work.

 

Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's.

 

Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words.

[ZL-1]

Don't mind it being FWD-based (though I still think SAAB should have been bought by BMW to take this FWD-based market and serve as a bridge between the MINI and BMW brands). What I don'ty understand is why on Earth this is X1 while the other FWD-based models are badged as 2-Series, together with RWD 2-Series coupes and convertibles...How hard is it from a marketing and branding perspective to be coherent and offer the 1 names in FWD/AWD and have the 2+ names for the RWD models?

[Frisky Dingo]

 

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

OK...so the SRX sucks...that is more of a tit for tat argument you got going on...but whatever.

 

lets see how BMW will make the X1 handle like an ultimate driving machine. You know...FWD...Because GM knows how to make FWD cars handle...and the Equinox and SRX aint that bad...lets see how BMW paid journalists will spin the negativity that will surround it...because...it is wrong wheel drive after all....and coming from BMW...because while some of us can huff and puff over a FWD Cadillac crossover...Cadillac jumped into the FWD pool with its Flagship Eldorado in the late 1960s...and Cadillac continued to refine FWD performance and handling waaaaay into the 2000s with their cars...so people can smirk all they want about a FWD SRX...it just shows the stupid double standards you German friendly BMW lovers have...

 

 

 

Please show me a SINGLE instance in which I have applied double standards to the vehicles/brands in question. I'll wait...

[Frisky Dingo]

 

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work.

 

Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's.

 

Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words.

 

 

 

I don't need to reread the story, YOU need to reread my POST.

 

I understand this vehicle no longer will use an I6. I specifically stated 'current X1' in my post- the E84. Which is available with the N55.

 

State facts? Okay.

 

The interior is cheap, they're outdated, they're overpriced, and until the 3.6 got shoved in them, they were powertrain disasters. Hows that?

[oldshurst442]

 

 

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work.

 

Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's.

 

Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words.

 

 

 

I don't need to reread the story, YOU need to reread my POST.

 

I understand this vehicle no longer will use an I6. I specifically stated 'current X1' in my post- the E84. Which is available with the N55.

 

State facts? Okay.

 

The interior is cheap, they're outdated, they're overpriced, and until the 3.6 got shoved in them, they were powertrain disasters. Hows that?

 

Yeah..but...like you said...the SRX sucks...while the X1 is...well...BMW could do no wrong...right?

 

Looks are subjective...and no...the X1 looks like it could be a Pontiac Vibe replacement...nothing wrong with that...but it aint "the looker" in this category...a Mazda CX-5 looks waaaaay better......but that is my opinion....but when someone makes a blanket statement about the SRX sucking...one may not take someone's opinion about a BMW's look too seriously...

 

Underrated ride is how you want to spin things...

Its all good...but the X1 aint exactly all that...especially when one makes a blanket statement about the competitions ride...

Like I said...Cadillac has refined its FWD ride since the late 1960s...but we will diss the Caddy and just say the X1 has an underrated ride....yup...seems legit...

[smk4565]

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

 

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work.

 

Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's.

 

Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words.

 

 

 

I don't need to reread the story, YOU need to reread my POST.

 

I understand this vehicle no longer will use an I6. I specifically stated 'current X1' in my post- the E84. Which is available with the N55.

 

State facts? Okay.

 

The interior is cheap, they're outdated, they're overpriced, and until the 3.6 got shoved in them, they were powertrain disasters. Hows that?

 

Yeah..but...like you said...the SRX sucks...while the X1 is...well...BMW could do no wrong...right?

 

Looks are subjective...and no...the X1 looks like it could be a Pontiac Vibe replacement...nothing wrong with that...but it aint "the looker" in this category...a Mazda CX-5 looks waaaaay better......but that is my opinion....but when someone makes a blanket statement about the SRX sucking...one may not take someone's opinion about a BMW's look too seriously...

 

Underrated ride is how you want to spin things...

Its all good...but the X1 aint exactly all that...especially when one makes a blanket statement about the competitions ride...

Like I said...Cadillac has refined its FWD ride since the late 1960s...but we will diss the Caddy and just say the X1 has an underrated ride....yup...seems legit...

 

 

 

I did not say the X1 or BMW could do no wrong. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Looks are subjective, yes. I think it looks great, sue me. I also think the SRX looks pretty good. And I have no issue with it being on a FWD-based platform. That's not my issue with the SRX. It's virtually everything else.

 

And yes, the X1 is underrated. All the people who lament the lack of wagons, but somehow find the F31 too soft, well, the E84 has been around since 2012. Just another case of people not putting their money where their mouth is.

[oldshurst442]

 

 

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

OK...so the SRX sucks...that is more of a tit for tat argument you got going on...but whatever.

 

lets see how BMW will make the X1 handle like an ultimate driving machine. You know...FWD...Because GM knows how to make FWD cars handle...and the Equinox and SRX aint that bad...lets see how BMW paid journalists will spin the negativity that will surround it...because...it is wrong wheel drive after all....and coming from BMW...because while some of us can huff and puff over a FWD Cadillac crossover...Cadillac jumped into the FWD pool with its Flagship Eldorado in the late 1960s...and Cadillac continued to refine FWD performance and handling waaaaay into the 2000s with their cars...so people can smirk all they want about a FWD SRX...it just shows the stupid double standards you German friendly BMW lovers have...

 

 

 

Please show me a SINGLE instance in which I have applied double standards to the vehicles/brands in question. I'll wait...

 

You said that the SRX sucks....while saying that the X1's ride is underrated...

 

In what way does an SRX suck? No explanation was made from you.

In what way was the X1's ride underrated?

No explanation was made by you...

 

My hatred for BMWs is well documented...maybe not in these forums....but at least I ADMIT my hatred towards BMWs in THESE forums...I also have shown reasons why I hate them...in this thread and in the CSL Hommage thread....and to boot....I actually like that Hommage car....while you dont like it...

 

What does all that mean?

I dont know...Im just fed up of bickering like old ladies...

Frisky, this FWD X1...it sucks....it sucks big time for us enthusiasts...what sucks even more is that BMW has lowered itself to these standards to pay the bills...because BMW was ALWAYS a NICHE car manufacturer...and niche car manufacturers...if they dont produce mainstream cars...they will go bankrupt...

 

And THAT is another reason why I HATE BMW...no...not because BMW is a niche car maker...but because BMW guys...will always find ANY excuses to defend BMW's decisions...and failures...while OVER EVALUATING strong points and successes... 

 

I dont hate the X1...I hate fanboys defending it...while putting down a similar offering by a competitor...

Hate an SRX...it dont bother me...while this is true for SMK4565 and NOT you...let us not forget that besides Cord, Citroen and Oldsmobile and a nd maybe 1 or 2 more......not too many other car makers had the guts to pull off FWD before the 1970s and 1980s...and Cadillac did that with their flagship Eldorado....that would be mojo and a half right there...yet...in the 1990s and 2000s...we laughed at the STS and its platform mate...yeah...Eldorado...same lineage...that they were FWD...and we smirk that an SRX also went FWD....yet...we dont bat an eyelash for BMW...going down the FWD road...you know...ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINES!!!

 

And...we dont bat an eyelash for a NICHE maker of Ultimate Driving Machines producing big, heavy, clunky  and clumsy SUVs...sorry...SAVs because Sports Activity Vehicles rings better for that niche market they are in...

Oh...and big, heavy, clumsy and clunky is not only relegated to the SAVs...the 8 Series fits that bill quite nicely....and same goes for that E63/64 6 Series...which now has evolved from a 2 door coupe...into a 4 door coupe...and I hear the last gen 5 Series aint that hot either...because BMW has a history of confusion of what its cars are to be...including the M1 that you are soooo fond of...which is cool...because I like underwhelming vehicles too...at least I can admit to them being underwhelming...but not BMW fanboys...they will defend them tooth and nail...which is all good...but dont try to make me drink from that BMW kool-aid...'cause I aint buying...

 

If...BMW fanboys were more realistic in their view of BMW...Id be drinking from the BMW koo-aid myself...

 

Remember...I LOVE me some E31 8 Series,  E24 M 635CSi 6 Series, E34 M5s and E34 V8 5 Series,  and that famous M5 E39,  E36 M3s and E37 1Ms...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

Whatever...

[oldshurst442]

 

 

 

 

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo.

 

That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper.

 

Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work.

 

Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's.

 

Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words.

 

 

 

I don't need to reread the story, YOU need to reread my POST.

 

I understand this vehicle no longer will use an I6. I specifically stated 'current X1' in my post- the E84. Which is available with the N55.

 

State facts? Okay.

 

The interior is cheap, they're outdated, they're overpriced, and until the 3.6 got shoved in them, they were powertrain disasters. Hows that?

 

Yeah..but...like you said...the SRX sucks...while the X1 is...well...BMW could do no wrong...right?

 

Looks are subjective...and no...the X1 looks like it could be a Pontiac Vibe replacement...nothing wrong with that...but it aint "the looker" in this category...a Mazda CX-5 looks waaaaay better......but that is my opinion....but when someone makes a blanket statement about the SRX sucking...one may not take someone's opinion about a BMW's look too seriously...

 

Underrated ride is how you want to spin things...

Its all good...but the X1 aint exactly all that...especially when one makes a blanket statement about the competitions ride...

Like I said...Cadillac has refined its FWD ride since the late 1960s...but we will diss the Caddy and just say the X1 has an underrated ride....yup...seems legit...

 

 

 

I did not say the X1 or BMW could do no wrong. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Looks are subjective, yes. I think it looks great, sue me. I also think the SRX looks pretty good. And I have no issue with it being on a FWD-based platform. That's not my issue with the SRX. It's virtually everything else.

 

And yes, the X1 is underrated. All the people who lament the lack of wagons, but somehow find the F31 too soft, well, the E84 has been around since 2012. Just another case of people not putting their money where their mouth is.

 

Virtually everything else?

Like what?

Keep in mind this is an older vehilce...2010 on a Theta platform...yeah...based on a SAAB and a Chevy...the REAL Cadillac product SUV is a-coming. The thing is...the SRX sells in big enough numbers to pad Cadillac's bank accounts...No excuses...but the SRX based on the CTS RWD platform was a sales dud...and because it was still Cadillac trying to figure out how to do luxury in the new millennium...

 

Cadillac did not have the smarts to call it a Sports Activity Vehicle...

Because the first generation X5 was just fluff...

It had a crappy interior...but it handled well...for an SUV? BS on that...BMW made Ultimate Driving Machines...not SUVs to handle better than Uncle Joe's Tahoe....Da Fuq I care if an SUV handles more like a car than it does a truck...but...people bought into that hook, line and center...So...Ill give props to BMW's marketing department...but not because an X5 is a great driving SUV...or an X1 for that matter...

[Drew Dowdell]

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

[Frisky Dingo]

1)I didn't say the X1 had an underrated ride. They ride rough. I said it WAS an underrated ride. Because it handles well, is a nice size, can be had with I6 power, and was reasonably priced.

 

2)I explained why the SRX sucks.

 

3)I didn't say this new X1 DOESN'T suck. Idk if it will or it won't. Neither do you. Nobody does. Nobody has driven it. They literally just released pics of the damn thing. Would I buy it? No. Is it what I expect from BMW? No. Does that mean it sucks? Absolutely not.
 

4)BMW was never a niche manufacturer. They simply built a style of car that everyone else did with a different set of priorities. BMW's like the X1 exist today for the same reason the Macan and Panamera exist- so the parent company can afford to build the fun stuff. That's common knowledge. GM couldn't survive on Camaro Z/28's and Stingrays. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

5)I'm not terribly fond of the M1. I like it, but I lust for one. I still recognize it's significance. I don't lust after an F40 either, but I recognize it's significance. Those are two totally different things. but to say the M1 failed because it didn't dominate racing is the same things as saying the F40 failed because it didn't. Maybe you should look up Ferrari's motorsports track record outside of the 60's and F1.

 

6)I said why I thought the SRX sucked. It literally does NOTHING class leading. It's a gussied-up, overpriced Equinox. Which itself sucks.

 

7)You can't excuse the SRX for being FWD based because it allowed Cadillac to generate the income it has while simultaneously bashing BMW for doing the same thing.

 

8)The first gen X5 was fantastic. That vehicle literally invented the segment we have today that includes the Cayenne, LR Sport, etc, etc. If it had never materialized, the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 wouldn't exist. Nor would any of the smaller options like the Q5, GLK, etc. Or even the SRX you seem so keen on defending.  

[Frisky Dingo]

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

 

 

Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted.

 

The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready.

 

Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

[oldshurst442]

 

1)I didn't say the X1 had an underrated ride. They ride rough. I said it WAS an underrated ride. Because it handles well, is a nice size, can be had with I6 power, and was reasonably priced.

 

2)I explained why the SRX sucks.

 

3)I didn't say this new X1 DOESN'T suck. Idk if it will or it won't. Neither do you. Nobody does. Nobody has driven it. They literally just released pics of the damn thing. Would I buy it? No. Is it what I expect from BMW? No. Does that mean it sucks? Absolutely not.

 

4)BMW was never a niche manufacturer. They simply built a style of car that everyone else did with a different set of priorities. BMW's like the X1 exist today for the same reason the Macan and Panamera exist- so the parent company can afford to build the fun stuff. That's common knowledge. GM couldn't survive on Camaro Z/28's and Stingrays. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

5)I'm not terribly fond of the M1. I like it, but I lust for one. I still recognize it's significance. I don't lust after an F40 either, but I recognize it's significance. Those are two totally different things. but to say the M1 failed because it didn't dominate racing is the same things as saying the F40 failed because it didn't. Maybe you should look up Ferrari's motorsports track record outside of the 60's and F1.

 

6)I said why I thought the SRX sucked. It literally does NOTHING class leading. It's a gussied-up, overpriced Equinox. Which itself sucks.

 

7)You can't excuse the SRX for being FWD based because it allowed Cadillac to generate the income it has while simultaneously bashing BMW for doing the same thing.

 

8)The first gen X5 was fantastic. That vehicle literally invented the segment we have today that includes the Cayenne, LR Sport, etc, etc. If it had never materialized, the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 wouldn't exist. Nor would any of the smaller options like the Q5, GLK, etc. Or even the SRX you seem so keen on defending.  

 

7. I aint bashing BMW nor praising Cadillac for the money factor...I am not even bashing BMW for the existence of SUVs and FWD little CUVs...what I am bashing is fanboys that find excuses...a X1 is a Pontiac Vibe replacement...its funny that you give that a pass...yet bash cadillac on a 5 year old SUV that was made in haste to sell in this market because Lexus cleans up...all Cadillac did was follow Lexus' lead...and it paid off...nig time...yet you fail to see this..and just plainly say...the SRX sucks...and THAT is what Im bashing...THAT point of view you have...

 

8. No..the X5 was not great...what was great was the marketing behind it...Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...

The Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition was THE lux SUV to get at that point in time...Im sure a muscle car bound SRT style Grand Cherokke would have existed without the "help" of BMW...why? Syclone and Typhoon...454 Chevy Pick-up...Dodge Ram Indianapolis 500 Edition, Ford Lightning...all American Muscle Trucks...and the SRT Grand Cherokee follows THAT lead....not BMW's lead...sorry...its more like BMW emulated the Typhoon with "better" handling other than the other way around...\And with all that said and done....a Grand Cherokee is still on top of that SUV hill...even after BMW has "invented" another niche with an X6...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

 

 

Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted.

 

The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready.

 

Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

 

The sales argument HAS to be involved sometimes...the BMW 3 Series became a smashing hit...because...well...it must have bben the best at something...mediocrity usually fails in the market place...

THAT argument is tiring...the Mcdonald's analogy...because from a business stand point...McDonald's still outsells its competitors...because EVERYBODY on this planet and Mars, knows what a Big Mac is all about... it aint the best in your eyes...but McDonald's has served BILLIONS after all, they must be doing something right...

Like a Camry...its not the best you say?

Well...tell that to the Toyota accountants...and see how long it takes them to laugh in your face...its the best at something...and to Toyota...that is all that counts...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

Put an XTS V-sport on a track against a CTS V-sport and who wins?

 

The SRX is bigger than those 3 Germans, and I think the Lexus RX and SRX both benefit from a lot of people liking Toyota or Chevy crossovers (or fwd crossovers in general) and it is a logical move up.   But with the Q3, GLA, and X1 in place it allows the GLC, X3, Q5 to grow a little, add more content, more power etc.  The Germans over time have a way of wearing down the market and winning people over.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

 

 

Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted.

 

The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready.

 

Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

 

 

If Audi's CUVs are not FWD nor using FWD based AWD system, you better notify Audi, because they have some serious errors on their Audi.de website.

 

 

My 1985 Oldsmobile Toronado has it's engine mounted longitudinally and so does Dodgefan's Dodge Intrepid.   That doesn't make them RWD cars.

 

 

I've actually had the XTS V-Sport on a track.... Have you?    No, it's not a Z-06, but it will out handle a Mercedes Benz E550 Floatmatic. 

 

McDonald's burgers are cheap junk and McDonalds sales are way down while Wendy's and Burger King (the two who sell at the same price point) are expanding.

 

The SRX sells at the same price point as the X3 and GLK and sometimes outsells them both combined. 

 

Now, I'm not the greatest fan of the SRX... but I wouldn't not buy it just because of the way the engine was situated.. and I certainly wouldn't pick the MB or BMW just because their engine is facing the other way....

[oldshurst442]

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

Put an XTS V-sport on a track against a CTS V-sport and who wins?

 

The SRX is bigger than those 3 Germans, and I think the Lexus RX and SRX both benefit from a lot of people liking Toyota or Chevy crossovers (or fwd crossovers in general) and it is a logical move up.   But with the Q3, GLA, and X1 in place it allows the GLC, X3, Q5 to grow a little, add more content, more power etc.  The Germans over time have a way of wearing down the market and winning people over.

 

That is called great marketing...

Where I come from...its brainwashing...

Dont worry...Its the way of the Corporate World in 2015...technically this has been happenning since the 1970s or 1980s...and BMW has great marketing strategies...something that GM and Cadillac sorely lack...so...Ill give you  that.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

1)I didn't say the X1 had an underrated ride. They ride rough. I said it WAS an underrated ride. Because it handles well, is a nice size, can be had with I6 power, and was reasonably priced.

 

2)I explained why the SRX sucks.

 

3)I didn't say this new X1 DOESN'T suck. Idk if it will or it won't. Neither do you. Nobody does. Nobody has driven it. They literally just released pics of the damn thing. Would I buy it? No. Is it what I expect from BMW? No. Does that mean it sucks? Absolutely not.

 

4)BMW was never a niche manufacturer. They simply built a style of car that everyone else did with a different set of priorities. BMW's like the X1 exist today for the same reason the Macan and Panamera exist- so the parent company can afford to build the fun stuff. That's common knowledge. GM couldn't survive on Camaro Z/28's and Stingrays. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

5)I'm not terribly fond of the M1. I like it, but I lust for one. I still recognize it's significance. I don't lust after an F40 either, but I recognize it's significance. Those are two totally different things. but to say the M1 failed because it didn't dominate racing is the same things as saying the F40 failed because it didn't. Maybe you should look up Ferrari's motorsports track record outside of the 60's and F1.

 

6)I said why I thought the SRX sucked. It literally does NOTHING class leading. It's a gussied-up, overpriced Equinox. Which itself sucks.

 

7)You can't excuse the SRX for being FWD based because it allowed Cadillac to generate the income it has while simultaneously bashing BMW for doing the same thing.

 

8)The first gen X5 was fantastic. That vehicle literally invented the segment we have today that includes the Cayenne, LR Sport, etc, etc. If it had never materialized, the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 wouldn't exist. Nor would any of the smaller options like the Q5, GLK, etc. Or even the SRX you seem so keen on defending.  

 

7. I aint bashing BMW nor praising Cadillac for the money factor...I am not even bashing BMW for the existence of SUVs and FWD little CUVs...what I am bashing is fanboys that find excuses...a X1 is a Pontiac Vibe replacement...its funny that you give that a pass...yet bash cadillac on a 5 year old SUV that was made in haste to sell in this market because Lexus cleans up...all Cadillac did was follow Lexus' lead...and it paid off...nig time...yet you fail to see this..and just plainly say...the SRX sucks...and THAT is what Im bashing...THAT point of view you have...

 

8. No..the X5 was not great...what was great was the marketing behind it...Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...

The Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition was THE lux SUV to get at that point in time...Im sure a muscle car bound SRT style Grand Cherokke would have existed without the "help" of BMW...why? Syclone and Typhoon...454 Chevy Pick-up...Dodge Ram Indianapolis 500 Edition, Ford Lightning...all American Muscle Trucks...and the SRT Grand Cherokee follows THAT lead....not BMW's lead...sorry...its more like BMW emulated the Typhoon with "better" handling other than the other way around...\And with all that said and done....a Grand Cherokee is still on top of that SUV hill...even after BMW has "invented" another niche with an X6...

 

 

7)Again, I'm not giving anyone a pass for anything. I don't care if the SRX or the X1 are FWD, AWD, RWD. They can fly for all I care. I'm not in the market for such a vehicle. It makes no difference to me. Would the X1 be better if it were RWD based? Absolutely. Does that mean it sucks that it's not? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not by default, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as entertaining as the outgoing model. And it definitely won't perform as well, seeing as in how it's lacking a 6 cyl model. You're consistently trying to attack a stance I don't have. Again, I don't care if it's FWD or not. I'm not bashing it or excusing it either way.

 

8)The X5 did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it very, very well. Most SUV buyers don't go on treks across the Gobi. They might use AWD/4WD to make it to the cabin when it snows, and that's about it. BMW capitalized on this and offered something nobody else was doing. It was a sporty/luxury SUV. That's nowhere near the same thing as the Syclone and 454 SS. Nor is the GC SRT-8. And the first gen X5 drove very well.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

 

 

Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted.

 

The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready.

 

Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

 

The sales argument HAS to be involved sometimes...the BMW 3 Series became a smashing hit...because...well...it must have bben the best at something...mediocrity usually fails in the market place...

THAT argument is tiring...the Mcdonald's analogy...because from a business stand point...McDonald's still outsells its competitors...because EVERYBODY on this planet and Mars, knows what a Big Mac is all about... it aint the best in your eyes...but McDonald's has served BILLIONS after all, they must be doing something right...

Like a Camry...its not the best you say?

Well...tell that to the Toyota accountants...and see how long it takes them to laugh in your face...its the best at something...and to Toyota...that is all that counts...

 

 

 

Here's the thing, though. The 3 Series was the indisputable champ for a long time. As was the Camry. That's how they got to where they are now. You could argue that they're no longer the best, and you could be right. It doesn't matter, because at one point they were, and that's why they still SELL the best. Are they bad? No. But nobody really makes bad cars anymore.

 

McDonald's sales the most hamburgers because they're everywhere, they're cheap, and they're familiar. It's not hard to deduce. But does that mean they're better than the place down the street with the Kobe beef on brioche with garlic aioli? Of course not. Doing something right and doing something the best are not the same thing. I can't believe I need to type that out to get my point across.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Frisky Dingo

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

Put an XTS V-sport on a track against a CTS V-sport and who wins?

 

The SRX is bigger than those 3 Germans, and I think the Lexus RX and SRX both benefit from a lot of people liking Toyota or Chevy crossovers (or fwd crossovers in general) and it is a logical move up.   But with the Q3, GLA, and X1 in place it allows the GLC, X3, Q5 to grow a little, add more content, more power etc.  The Germans over time have a way of wearing down the market and winning people over.

 

 

XTS-V Sport - AWD

CTS V-Sport - RWD

In the end it will come down to driver skill and track conditions. 

 

We've been over this with you 1,00000000000,0000000,0000000 times. The SRX, GLK, and X3 are the same dimensions internally to within less than an inch of each other. They have the same base prices, and are generally a match in price as you climb up the options ladder.  Just because the SRX is larger on the outside does not mean it is in the X5's size class.  NO ONE shops cars with a tape measure... if the interior space of the GLK is suitable to a buyer, the interior space of the SRX will be too. 

[Drew Dowdell]

7) I'm not bashing the X1 for being FWD... I'm bashing the German-Car humpers for being hypocrites. 

[oldshurst442]

 

 

 

1)I didn't say the X1 had an underrated ride. They ride rough. I said it WAS an underrated ride. Because it handles well, is a nice size, can be had with I6 power, and was reasonably priced.

 

2)I explained why the SRX sucks.

 

3)I didn't say this new X1 DOESN'T suck. Idk if it will or it won't. Neither do you. Nobody does. Nobody has driven it. They literally just released pics of the damn thing. Would I buy it? No. Is it what I expect from BMW? No. Does that mean it sucks? Absolutely not.

 

4)BMW was never a niche manufacturer. They simply built a style of car that everyone else did with a different set of priorities. BMW's like the X1 exist today for the same reason the Macan and Panamera exist- so the parent company can afford to build the fun stuff. That's common knowledge. GM couldn't survive on Camaro Z/28's and Stingrays. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

5)I'm not terribly fond of the M1. I like it, but I lust for one. I still recognize it's significance. I don't lust after an F40 either, but I recognize it's significance. Those are two totally different things. but to say the M1 failed because it didn't dominate racing is the same things as saying the F40 failed because it didn't. Maybe you should look up Ferrari's motorsports track record outside of the 60's and F1.

 

6)I said why I thought the SRX sucked. It literally does NOTHING class leading. It's a gussied-up, overpriced Equinox. Which itself sucks.

 

7)You can't excuse the SRX for being FWD based because it allowed Cadillac to generate the income it has while simultaneously bashing BMW for doing the same thing.

 

8)The first gen X5 was fantastic. That vehicle literally invented the segment we have today that includes the Cayenne, LR Sport, etc, etc. If it had never materialized, the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 wouldn't exist. Nor would any of the smaller options like the Q5, GLK, etc. Or even the SRX you seem so keen on defending.  

 

7. I aint bashing BMW nor praising Cadillac for the money factor...I am not even bashing BMW for the existence of SUVs and FWD little CUVs...what I am bashing is fanboys that find excuses...a X1 is a Pontiac Vibe replacement...its funny that you give that a pass...yet bash cadillac on a 5 year old SUV that was made in haste to sell in this market because Lexus cleans up...all Cadillac did was follow Lexus' lead...and it paid off...nig time...yet you fail to see this..and just plainly say...the SRX sucks...and THAT is what Im bashing...THAT point of view you have...

 

8. No..the X5 was not great...what was great was the marketing behind it...Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...

The Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition was THE lux SUV to get at that point in time...Im sure a muscle car bound SRT style Grand Cherokke would have existed without the "help" of BMW...why? Syclone and Typhoon...454 Chevy Pick-up...Dodge Ram Indianapolis 500 Edition, Ford Lightning...all American Muscle Trucks...and the SRT Grand Cherokee follows THAT lead....not BMW's lead...sorry...its more like BMW emulated the Typhoon with "better" handling other than the other way around...\And with all that said and done....a Grand Cherokee is still on top of that SUV hill...even after BMW has "invented" another niche with an X6...

 

 

7)Again, I'm not giving anyone a pass for anything. I don't care if the SRX or the X1 are FWD, AWD, RWD. They can fly for all I care. I'm not in the market for such a vehicle. It makes no difference to me. Would the X1 be better if it were RWD based? Absolutely. Does that mean it sucks that it's not? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not by default, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as entertaining as the outgoing model. And it definitely won't perform as well, seeing as in how it's lacking a 6 cyl model. You're consistently trying to attack a stance I don't have. Again, I don't care if it's FWD or not. I'm not bashing it or excusing it either way.

 

8)The X5 did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it very, very well. Most SUV buyers don't go on treks across the Gobi. They might use AWD/4WD to make it to the cabin when it snows, and that's about it. BMW capitalized on this and offered something nobody else was doing. It was a sporty/luxury SUV. That's nowhere near the same thing as the Syclone and 454 SS. Nor is the GC SRT-8. And the first gen X5 drove very well.

 

BMW X5 owners only go to the mall...When it snowed...the X5 was a joke...with those  very low profile 18 or was it 19 inchers?...meant for summer hot lapping...yeah...I know...change to winters...*SIGH*....That X5 was meant as a Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...not a snow bound SUV...like a...full sized Blazer...

 

So...explain to me why in the world would a SAV need low profiles...to make it to the cabin...or in snow hell  Montreal?

Frisky...the X5 and now the X6 does what it does best...its a poseur vehicle...and there is nothing wrong with that...just dont try to overvalue it...

It sucks as a SUV...because the X5 does not accomplish what SUVs are supposed to accomplish. its not much of an SUV...it wont tow...it wont off road... It sucks as an Ultimate Driving Machine...because its too heavy and high...sure...it handles better than my dad's old 1986 Celebrity...but If I want a track car...I aint buying an X5...

Its great for soccer moms to snub their neighbors with. Which is fine...but that is all that its great at...because hauling families...there are vehicles that are meant for  that that do a better job...a Ford Flex comes to mind...a X5 is great as a poseur vehicle...its comfortable and it rides great for those that like to pose in it...

Edited June 4, 2015 by oldshurst442

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

 

 

Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted.

 

The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready.

 

Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

 

 

If Audi's CUVs are not FWD nor using FWD based AWD system, you better notify Audi, because they have some serious errors on their Audi.de website.

 

Q3 FWD.png

Q5 FWD.png

A8 FWD.png

TT FWD.png

 

My 1985 Oldsmobile Toronado has it's engine mounted longitudinally and so does Dodgefan's Dodge Intrepid.   That doesn't make them RWD cars.

 

 

I've actually had the XTS V-Sport on a track.... Have you?    No, it's not a Z-06, but it will out handle a Mercedes Benz E550 Floatmatic. 

 

McDonald's burgers are cheap junk and McDonalds sales are way down while Wendy's and Burger King (the two who sell at the same price point) are expanding.

 

The SRX sells at the same price point as the X3 and GLK and sometimes outsells them both combined. 

 

Now, I'm not the greatest fan of the SRX... but I wouldn't not buy it just because of the way the engine was situated.. and I certainly wouldn't pick the MB or BMW just because their engine is facing the other way....

 

 

 

Ok, I should have better clarified what I meant. Audi's FWD vehicles simply exist to serve a price point. They are not the basis for their vehicles drivetrains or platforms. Their AWD systems are designed to be AWD systems, not FWD systems that can send a little bit of power to the rear tires. Unlike the SRX and so many others.

 

Again, I don't care what the SRX's sales numbers are. And as a matter of fact, the GLK and early X3 both sucked. Even worse than the SRX. They were both unsightly, overpriced, rough riding snoozefests. The X3 improved considerably during it's LCI, but it's still nothing spectacular.

 

And for the last time, the SRX's weakness doesn't lie in it's drivetype. I don't care. It's the other issues I mentioned. It would be better if it were RWD, but it could be FWD and still be good.  

 

As for the XTS, I haven't driven it on a track. But I've driven it on a back road, and was not impressed in the slightest. You and I must have very different definitions of 'near track ready'. A Boss 302 is 'almost track ready'. An FR-S. A Miata. Not a 2 ton boat that just happens to deploy a lot of power.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

 

 

 

1)I didn't say the X1 had an underrated ride. They ride rough. I said it WAS an underrated ride. Because it handles well, is a nice size, can be had with I6 power, and was reasonably priced.

 

2)I explained why the SRX sucks.

 

3)I didn't say this new X1 DOESN'T suck. Idk if it will or it won't. Neither do you. Nobody does. Nobody has driven it. They literally just released pics of the damn thing. Would I buy it? No. Is it what I expect from BMW? No. Does that mean it sucks? Absolutely not.

 

4)BMW was never a niche manufacturer. They simply built a style of car that everyone else did with a different set of priorities. BMW's like the X1 exist today for the same reason the Macan and Panamera exist- so the parent company can afford to build the fun stuff. That's common knowledge. GM couldn't survive on Camaro Z/28's and Stingrays. It sucks, but it is what it is.

 

5)I'm not terribly fond of the M1. I like it, but I lust for one. I still recognize it's significance. I don't lust after an F40 either, but I recognize it's significance. Those are two totally different things. but to say the M1 failed because it didn't dominate racing is the same things as saying the F40 failed because it didn't. Maybe you should look up Ferrari's motorsports track record outside of the 60's and F1.

 

6)I said why I thought the SRX sucked. It literally does NOTHING class leading. It's a gussied-up, overpriced Equinox. Which itself sucks.

 

7)You can't excuse the SRX for being FWD based because it allowed Cadillac to generate the income it has while simultaneously bashing BMW for doing the same thing.

 

8)The first gen X5 was fantastic. That vehicle literally invented the segment we have today that includes the Cayenne, LR Sport, etc, etc. If it had never materialized, the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 wouldn't exist. Nor would any of the smaller options like the Q5, GLK, etc. Or even the SRX you seem so keen on defending.  

 

7. I aint bashing BMW nor praising Cadillac for the money factor...I am not even bashing BMW for the existence of SUVs and FWD little CUVs...what I am bashing is fanboys that find excuses...a X1 is a Pontiac Vibe replacement...its funny that you give that a pass...yet bash cadillac on a 5 year old SUV that was made in haste to sell in this market because Lexus cleans up...all Cadillac did was follow Lexus' lead...and it paid off...nig time...yet you fail to see this..and just plainly say...the SRX sucks...and THAT is what Im bashing...THAT point of view you have...

 

8. No..the X5 was not great...what was great was the marketing behind it...Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...

The Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition was THE lux SUV to get at that point in time...Im sure a muscle car bound SRT style Grand Cherokke would have existed without the "help" of BMW...why? Syclone and Typhoon...454 Chevy Pick-up...Dodge Ram Indianapolis 500 Edition, Ford Lightning...all American Muscle Trucks...and the SRT Grand Cherokee follows THAT lead....not BMW's lead...sorry...its more like BMW emulated the Typhoon with "better" handling other than the other way around...\And with all that said and done....a Grand Cherokee is still on top of that SUV hill...even after BMW has "invented" another niche with an X6...

 

 

7)Again, I'm not giving anyone a pass for anything. I don't care if the SRX or the X1 are FWD, AWD, RWD. They can fly for all I care. I'm not in the market for such a vehicle. It makes no difference to me. Would the X1 be better if it were RWD based? Absolutely. Does that mean it sucks that it's not? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not by default, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as entertaining as the outgoing model. And it definitely won't perform as well, seeing as in how it's lacking a 6 cyl model. You're consistently trying to attack a stance I don't have. Again, I don't care if it's FWD or not. I'm not bashing it or excusing it either way.

 

8)The X5 did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it very, very well. Most SUV buyers don't go on treks across the Gobi. They might use AWD/4WD to make it to the cabin when it snows, and that's about it. BMW capitalized on this and offered something nobody else was doing. It was a sporty/luxury SUV. That's nowhere near the same thing as the Syclone and 454 SS. Nor is the GC SRT-8. And the first gen X5 drove very well.

 

BMW X5 owners only go to the mall...When it snowed...the X5 was a joke...with those  very low profile 18 or was it 19 inchers?...meant for summer hot lapping...yeah...I know...change to winters...*SIGH*....That X5 was meant as a Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...not a snow bound SUV...like a...full sized Blazer...

 

So...explain to me why in the world would a SAV need low profiles...to make it to the cabin...or in snow hell  Montreal?

Frisky...the X5 and now the X6 does what it does best...its a poseur vehicle...and there is nothing wrong with that...just dont try to overvalue it...

It sucks as a SUV...because the X5 does not accomplish what SUVs are supposed to accomplish. its not much of an SUV...it wont tow...it wont off road... It sucks as an Ultimate Driving Machine...because its too heavy and high...sure...it handles better than my dad's old 1986 Celebrity...but If I want a track car...I aint buying an X5...

Its great for soccer moms to snub their neighbors with. Which is fine...but that is all that its great at...because hauling families...there are vehicles that are meant for  that that do a better job...a Ford Flex comes to mind...a X5 is great as a poseur vehicle...its comfortable and it rides great for those that like to pose in it...

 

 

 

Lol, since when do low-profile tires keep a vehicle from performing well in the snow?? My Audi A4, and both my and my friend's E90's must not have gotten that message.

 

This might come as a shocker to you- but YOU don't get to define what makes a sport utility good. Not everyone is trying to traverse the Rubicon on a daily basis. There's a reason why the Exploder and Pathfinder are now unibody crossovers. 

 

Again, the X5 did what it was intended to do extremely well, and single handedly created a segment that has been a huge success.

 

The X6 is an abomination.

[oldshurst442]

 

 

 

 

FWD is worse than RWD. Cadillac spent 1967-now refining the wrong drivetrain.   Once you get above 275 hp or $40,000 in price you start needing RWD to deliver the superior ride and handling and handle the extra engine power. 

 

So far this category is the Q3, GLA and X1.  They all have a turbo 4 and all wheel drive riding on a front drive platform.  And entry lux cute-ute buyer is probably clueless about which way the engine is mounted, as long as it has awd they are happy.  There isn't a rear drive alternative in this segment, probably never will be, because on a platform this small and with 200-225 hp, you don't really need rear drive. 

 

The SRX isn't this segment though, these SUVs are nearly Buick Encore size.  If Cadillac made a compact crossover that was FWD I wouldn't care because it would be too small a vehicle for the Alpha platform, they would have no other choice.  The SRX or soon to be XT5 is supposed to be a mid-size vehicle, thus it would fit on Alpha and it should be rwd.

 

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe.  And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true.   The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. 

 

The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run.

 

 

 

Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted.

 

The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready.

 

Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

 

The sales argument HAS to be involved sometimes...the BMW 3 Series became a smashing hit...because...well...it must have bben the best at something...mediocrity usually fails in the market place...

THAT argument is tiring...the Mcdonald's analogy...because from a business stand point...McDonald's still outsells its competitors...because EVERYBODY on this planet and Mars, knows what a Big Mac is all about... it aint the best in your eyes...but McDonald's has served BILLIONS after all, they must be doing something right...

Like a Camry...its not the best you say?

Well...tell that to the Toyota accountants...and see how long it takes them to laugh in your face...its the best at something...and to Toyota...that is all that counts...

 

 

 

Here's the thing, though. The 3 Series was the indisputable champ for a long time. As was the Camry. That's how they got to where they are now. You could argue that they're no longer the best, and you could be right. It doesn't matter, because at one point they were, and that's why they still SELL the best. Are they bad? No. But nobody really makes bad cars anymore.

 

McDonald's sales the most hamburgers because they're everywhere, they're cheap, and they're familiar. It's not hard to deduce. But does that mean they're better than the place down the street with the Kobe beef on brioche with garlic aioli? Of course not. Doing something right and doing something the best are not the same thing. I can't believe I need to type that out to get my point across.

 

Burger King...it has failed in Quebec...

Kobe beef and garlic aioli?

Yeah...that would be BMW speak...

Its hamburger meat people...poor man's food...

Just as with entry level luxury we have the...gourmet burger...

 

Mustard and ketchup with fried onions on a live fire with a touch of garlic, salt and pepper with my burger please...

A Whopper comes close to that.

So does a Quarter Pounder with cheese.

 

You could keep you gourmet burger and your Bimmer.

 

Ill keep my Big Mac and my American blue collar Muscle Car...OK...Im a little bit of a hypocrite on that as I LOVE an OLDSMOBILE 442...not so blue collar that 442 is...

[Drew Dowdell]

Both the SRX and XTS use a Haldex AWD system that can send 90% of the torque to the rear wheels as needed.  It is every bit an AWD system as Audi's Quattro. 

 

The XTS and XTS V-Sport are very different beasts on the road that you almost cannot compare the two in any meaningful way besides the size.  The regular XTS is soft on torque and uses air springs for a soft ride.  

 

The XTS V-Sport has the 410hp Twin Turbo V6 with 369 lb-ft from 1900 rpm all the way to 5600 rpm. It also sports Cadillac's Magnetic Ride Control (or Magic Ride Control as I like to call it) that takes those air springs and firms everything up to make the big girl dance.  What it really needs is some better brakes. 

[Frisky Dingo]

[oldshurst442]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol, since when do low-profile tires keep a vehicle from performing well in the snow?? My Audi A4, and both my and my friend's E90's must not have gotten that message.

 

This might come as a shocker to you- but YOU don't get to define what makes a sport utility good. Not everyone is trying to traverse the Rubicon on a daily basis. There's a reason why the Exploder and Pathfinder are now unibody crossovers. 

 

Again, the X5 did what it was intended to do extremely well, and single handedly created a segment that has been a huge success.

 

The X6 is an abomination.

 

You are laughing at the low profile tire thing in snow?

That is funny as I am laughing at you with that comment...

 

No...I dont get to define what an SUV is...BMW marketing geniuses actually did that...and that is for BMW SUVs or SAVs to be relegated only as soccer mom and yuppie mobiles...

 

You dont have an argument from me in saying the X5 does what it does best...and that indeed created a new segment...but that is being a poseur mobile...Im glad you agree with me on that...because a Jeep Wrangler it aint...hell...it aint even a Jeep Wagoneer of the 1970s...its an X5...a poseur mobile...

 

The X6 is great on what it does...its also a great poseur mobile...and that too...created a new niche...its a fantastic vehicle for what it is...a poseur mobile...and there is nothing wrong with that....M-B is chasing it down...in fact...I hope GMC and Cadillac make a X6 competitor...

[Drew Dowdell]

Lol, since when do low-profile tires keep a vehicle from performing well in the snow?? My Audi A4, and both my and my friend's E90's must not have gotten that message.

https://youtu.be/5UwOBKSHl-c?t=3m51s

[Frisky Dingo]

Both the SRX and XTS use a Haldex AWD system that can send 90% of the torque to the rear wheels as needed.  It is every bit an AWD system as Audi's Quattro. 

 

The XTS and XTS V-Sport are very different beasts on the road that you almost cannot compare the two in any meaningful way besides the size.  The regular XTS is soft on torque and uses air springs for a soft ride.  

 

The XTS V-Sport has the 410hp Twin Turbo V6 with 369 lb-ft from 1900 rpm all the way to 5600 rpm. It also sports Cadillac's Magnetic Ride Control (or Magic Ride Control as I like to call it) that takes those air springs and firms everything up to make the big girl dance.  What it really needs is some better brakes. 

 

That's like saying a 2WD Silverado is every bit the RWD system as what's in a 458 Italia. And it's simply untrue.

 

The SRX, like other GM vehicles, uses the Gen 4 Haldex system. It is FWD biased, and does not have the same ability or feel as some other AWD systems, like some of those found in Audis. Most Audis (everything larger than A3/Q3) use traditional mechanical AWD systems with center torsen diffs. These have numerous advantages over systems like Haldex's.

 

I was specifically referring to an XTS-V. While it was unquestionably more competent than the last SHO I drove, track ready it was not.

[Frisky Dingo]

 

Lol, since when do low-profile tires keep a vehicle from performing well in the snow?? My Audi A4, and both my and my friend's E90's must not have gotten that message.

https://youtu.be/5UwOBKSHl-c?t=3m51s

 

 

There are countless low-profile tires that will make even a RWD car a beast in the snow. I drove my RWD 335i all winter long last year with 18"s in 8+ inches of snow.

 

Try driving a lifted truck with with some MT's on it in the snow, and get back to me on whether or not it's the aspect ratio of the tires that gives a car winter traction. Lol.

 

Oh, and Olds- the X6 has no job. It's a cash grab. Nothing more.