S You can find the BMW X5 M and Porsche Cayenne have nothing lost on this website? They also? And you? Also? In all honesty: you have my fullest understanding if you click away or write us letters, angry letters. Because even if at the end of this story we will be amazed again at how much performance can be packed into these cases and, above all, also extracted, we will not be absolutely thrilled. Again not.
BMW X5 M and Porsche Cayenne Turbo S: Who is the better one?
Why? Quite simply, because everything has to be put into perspective: Regardless of how a dynamic driving compliment turns out, it begins with anyway or ends with anyway. In plain language: BMW X5 M and Porsche Cayenne Turbo S are massive, expansive and only fast within the scope of this, only that this frame - and that brings us to the point - just keeps getting wider.
The question now is but first: which of the two sets it up? The Porsche is the old master; the one who set the benchmark for driving dynamics when it was introduced and continues to do so to this day. The other is the challenger - one of a few in this performance class, but the only one who has comparable demands on its performance. In other words: there have been and are plenty of powerful SUVs, from Land Rover, from Jeep, from Mercedes-AMG, but only BMW has a real chance of taking something with them - and only recently.
The new BMW X5 M is now attacking
In contrast to the first M generation based on the predecessor X5, it is less on the chassis side When the breeding bull from Zuffenhausen made a lot of effort, the newcomer is now pulling out all the stops: The 575 hp V8 biturbo with hot inside, twin-scroll chargers and Valvetronic is basically the same as the M5 and M6 use; the increased camber, more rigidly mounted and streamlined chassis works with active roll stabilization, which is something like a basic requirement for dynamism in the overweight class; to do this, super-sporty Michelins are mounted instead of the compromised heavy-duty silts from back then. In short: The M in the type designation is meant seriously, far more seriously than last time - although the BMW X5 M is not only out of line with its size.
It is still the only one within the M -Family who controls the gears through a converter machine and doesn't likeactually sorted by DKG. And it is the only one with all-wheel drive, which will change with the upcoming M5.
The Porsche Cayenne Turbo S is knitted according to the same pattern: automatic, roll cancellation and an all-wheel system that, like the BMW, is based on the Concentrated rear axle. In terms of engine technology, however, the two are drifting apart, albeit only at second glance. The Porsche V8 has a little more displacement, a little less power, but again surpasses the BMW X5 M in terms of torque.
So far it is the same wavelength, but it carries its two turbos outside of the cylinder V and still charges according to the monoscroll principle, which has an inhibiting effect on the response. In theory, but also in practice: While the BMW X5 M boosts almost seamlessly in the test on throttle commands, action and reaction in the Cayenne seem to be connected with a rubber band, not too lax, but less than in the BMW. This may be a disadvantage in everyday life, but it is irrelevant for maximum longitudinal dynamics: When the brakes are built up, the 800 Nm literally burst out of it. Sudden and so powerful that it tears the 2,291 kilos to 100 in just 4.1 seconds.
Both can also take turns
The 50 Nm slender, 50 kilo heavier BMW X5 M sprints hardly less impulsively, but comes across differently. Somehow more real, more robust. In contrast to the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S, which seems to flood you with power, the X5 pushes it out of itself: more dosed, with high pressure instead of overpressure, and thanks to its short-stroke design with more fervor.
Nevertheless: With all the unforgettable sight of a chunk of this kind blasting from the spot and then hailing along the straight as a meteorite - the fact that mass can be moved as long as one exerts enough pressure on it should be known by now. When braking, however, the mistaken belief begins. Because although mass is naturally inert, it pushes or pulls, depending on the direction in which it is accelerated, from the deceleration it is reduced - arithmetically andalways provided that the brake is adequately dimensioned. Unfortunately, in the 30 years that they have known each other, the author and mathematics have been at war with each other, so that I cannot say in any particular way how this is exactly divided. But what I can say: There has to be something to it.
Not only that both of them brake in the test from 100 km /h in the area of 34 meters, with warm brakes and completely tirelessly. Even on the track you don't need to bring your braking point forward, just because you're buzzing around the course with excess weight. One thing is clear anyway: straights will not stand in the way of the advance of SUVs into the performance area. But curves are gradually no longer an obstacle. The two rush through the north curve at around 125 km /h, the 'Sachs' goes at 80, the south curve at over 100 - a BMW M135i cannot achieve such values, an M4 not everywhere.
Depth 1:14 times for X5 and Cayenne
Deep one-fourteen times come out in the end - that's Audi RS 3 level and now a good two seconds faster than the old Cayenne Turbo S - just by to illustrate the rapid pace of progress. The leap between the X5 M generations is likely to have been similar, even if in the end it is not quite enough to win this comparison in the dynamics classification - despite the tire advantage.
The Porsche Cayenne Turbo S comes along like the proverbial express train: as soon as you turn in, it latches onto the ideal line in order to track along it. Stoic, stubborn and persistent with grip, traction and precision. The great fun doesn't come naturally, simply because the driver doesn't have to contribute much more than the direction of travel and speed - but it works.
BMW X5 M also shares with the rear
It's different with the BMW X5 M - it ultimately has the same potential, not only from the lap time, but also from it in a brilliant slalom performance, but the challenge to get it out is a bigger one. It starts as soon as you get in: the Porsche sucks the driver into itselfin, but with the BMW you sit on top.
In general, everything here has more to do with riding than just conducting: the steering is more hectic, the side inclination is still there in contrast to the rigid Cayenne and the front axle is not quite so accurate in the construction of the lateral guide. Instead - and here it comes - his hip is still a real joint, an astonishingly articulated one.
Do you know these stickers that are often put on articulated lorries: 'Careful, the tail swings out'? Such a person would not be inappropriate here. But as fun as this turning may be - especially when you look at what is actually happening here - it is not to be trifled with.
That means: Before you develop the twitching in your buttocks into a powerslide , you should definitely take into account that there can be over 750 Nm behind. And the leverage, gentlemen!
Fast as never, slow as always
The problem: With this one almost perfect illusion of weightlessness, both of which create their own unique way - the BMW with its relaxed backbone, the Porsche with its inflexibility - it obscures the view of the facts. This results in demands for a realignment of mass physics, which - as soon as you are back with yourself - are of course cheese.
Of course, the two elephants are now running the same lap times as a 911 Carrera 4S five years ago, but such a Carrera 4S now drives almost five seconds faster than it used to be - because driving dynamics miracles such as roll stabilization systems also work elsewhere.
The moral of the story ': A gap to the sports car will remain - no matter how far the SUV frame extends in the future.