[Sealobo]

BMW X5 LeMans

Engine: V12
Horsepower: 700 hps @ 5000 rpm
Torque: 720 Nm @ 5000 rpm
0-100km/h time: 4.7 seconds
Top speed: 280 km/h

And, this sucker can actually go offroad!

[MPC]

When my wife needs to get the kids to a soccer match in a hurry.

[engaged]

When you can afford one - why not? Not saying I'd buy one, but I certainly wouldn't be disappointed if somebody gave me one...

You really wouldn't want to take it off-road though; minimal ground clearance and suspension travel, and wrong tyres for a start. You'd also be paranoid about any cosmetic damage if you did. As an object in engineering, it's beautiful. As a car, it's a bit of a white elephant.

[snotnose]

thats about as good as it gets

[Vanquish]

I'd hit it

[willed]

For the best car on the road, get a Mercedes S Class, a Bently or something similar.
For the best off-road get a Land Rover.
For the best cross between a luxury road car and an off-road car, get a Range Rover.

If you want to waste a load of money and look like a prick, get one of these. Built for the American market I suppose where everyone seems to have a huge SUV when all they drive is the school run.

[thesearcher]

It looks more like it's built for the european market, where it could actually be driven close to its potential. (At those speeds, who would be able to tell what the driver looked like?)

[dampeoples]

When you won the lottery

[FulcrumPilot]

would love to use some of those horses when Im real pissed off, get myself an open road ofcourse!

[chabig]

It's not for you to decide what kind of car anyone else needs.

Chris

[MacGorilla]

well if I lived in the high tundra or the mountains, I'd be happy. Or maybe patrolling the wild dingo fence of Australia.

Originally posted by chabig:
It's not for you to decide what kind of car anyone else needs.

Chris

No, but it is for us to judge if someone has no concern for those around them in a superficial effort to make their ***** bigger.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by willed:
For the best off-road get a Land Rover.

Nope. HMMWV (military version of the Hummer). They can go places that otherwise only a tracked vehicle can go. Trust me, I used to drive around in one following M1 tanks.

Not that Landrovers are bad. It's just that as a pure off-road vehicle, the design shows its age with a too-high center of gravity and relatively unprotected drivetrain. The wider, higher, more ground-clearing HMMWV is simply better in mud.

[Kitschy]

I look down on those who look down on those who purchase SUVs.

[suhail]

Originally posted by sealobo:
[img]BMW X5 LeMans

Engine: V12
Horsepower: 700 hps @ 5000 rpm
Torque: 720 Nm @ 5000 rpm
0-100km/h time: 4.7 seconds
Top speed: 280 km/h

And, this sucker can actually go offroad!

Are you sure those specs are right?
4.7 Secs!! That's like my motorbike!!

[talisker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nope. HMMWV (military version of the Hummer). They can go places that otherwise only a tracked vehicle can go. Trust me, I used to drive around in one following M1 tanks.

Not that Landrovers are bad. It's just that as a pure off-road vehicle, the design shows its age with a too-high center of gravity and relatively unprotected drivetrain. The wider, higher, more ground-clearing HMMWV is simply better in mud.

Dont know about the military version, but according to a mate who works for a oil survey company, and ends up driving in lots of desert areas, Hummers are unreliable, difficult to maintain, and not as capable in the dunes as Toyota Landcruisers and the like. But I hear they do make cool urban runabouts for gangsta rappers and the like.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by talisker:
Dont know about the military version, but according to a mate who works for a oil survey company, and ends up driving in lots of desert areas, Hummers are unreliable, difficult to maintain, and not as capable in the dunes as Toyota Landcruisers and the like. But I hear they do make cool urban runabouts for gangsta rappers and the like.

Conversely, I don't know the civilian ones, which have a different engine. The military ones are pretty reliable (my engine explosion notwithstanding). I'm surprised about the "difficult to maintain" part as well. All the components are very accessible and they are designed to be worked on by military mechanics (if you catch my drift) in the field, with very simple tools - basically wrenches only. Maybe the civilian ones are more complex? I don't know. But the military ones are pretty crude, but rugged.

[G4ME]

its still no canyonero

[MindFad]

Looks cool beans.

I want one of these:

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by suhail:
Are you sure those specs are right?
4.7 Secs!! That's like my motorbike!!

0-100KMH is roughly equvalent to 0-60mph (actually 63 i think) so 4.7 seems high for that much horse.

[Cubeoid]

Originally posted by G4ME:
its still no canyonero

"Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts... Canieneroooooooowoooooaaaaa!"

[Logic]

If you need a jeep, get something like this. If not go buy a real sportscar.

This is the average Icelandic jeep

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Those seats in the BMW are cool!

[Mastrap]

Off-Roading:
Surprisingly, it doesn't fare as well as you'd expect.

It was designed for off-roading through open fields and mud, where you'd expect to have a battlefield. It does not bode well on narrow, rocky, flex-is-a-must Jeep trails scattered throughout the rocky mountains. Apparently, AMG was going to follow jeep's example and drive the first civilian hummer over the Rubicon trail. unfortunitly, doe to the lack of suspension flex, the thing bounced all over the place, and wound up breaking the half-shafts (thats what the hummer uses instead of axles), and wound up needing a helicopter to get free. Fortunitly, even the civilian hummer is equipped with hard-points for helicopter insertion.

This isn't to say it's a lame-duck, far from it, but If it were up against a Land-Rover or Jeep in the rocks, I'd put the money against the Hummer. Put it in an open field, and it'll shine.

Reliability is also an issue, it requires alot of maintainence. ALOT of maintainence. it wasn't designed for going extreme-distances without replacement parts, (the army has a motorpool, it's best to design something that can be easily fixed, rather than design something that's hard to break), but this translates to $$$$ for the owner.

of course, if you have 90,000 bucks to blow on a 4x4 that rides like a willys jeep and has about the same elbow room, you can afford a few stops in the shop a year.

The Hummer is a great vehicle, there's no doubt about that. But placing it in the city, is just taking it out of it's environment. It wants to be a green, mean, fighting machine.

No offence Simey, I'll stick with the Landy

[Speckledstone]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Conversely, I don't know the civilian ones, which have a different engine. The military ones are pretty reliable (my engine explosion notwithstanding). I'm surprised about the "difficult to maintain" part as well. All the components are very accessible and they are designed to be worked on by military mechanics (if you catch my drift) in the field, with very simple tools - basically wrenches only. Maybe the civilian ones are more complex? I don't know. But the military ones are pretty crude, but rugged.

EXCEPT FOR THE STARTER!!!
I've done more swearing while changing M998 starters than I have in my my entire life. Those things are a bitch-and-a-half to get seated properly and then you�ve got to hold the heavy ass thing in place long enough to bolt it in tight. NOT FUN.

[Speckledstone]

Preference for HMMWVs over other utility vehicles depends on what kind of off roading your going to do. They were designed to muscle through nasty off road conditions like deep mud and large ruts. HMMWVs were never designed to win those long distance, high speed, off road races or �climb� rocks like you see some vehicles do. It was designed to be a tough �all around� vehicle that is easy to maintain. When driving through tank trails, going through deep mud or when having to ford through water up to 60� deep, I�ll choose the HMMWV any day.

[finboy]

Originally posted by hayesk:
No, but it is for us to judge if someone has no concern for those around them in a superficial effort to make their ***** bigger.

What? No concern for those around them? It's a CAR. Give me a break.

If that's what folks want to drive, good for them.

If folks choose to drive a LandRover, however, they are also choosing to do some walking at some point in the future. Not that they're unreliable, but it's sometimes hard to get them worked on in the field, or it may be hard to find parts later. Now, if you're just planning to haul the kids to soccer practice in a LandRover, and you're never 10 miles from the dealer, it's no problem.

[thirsty]

If you need a jeep, get something like this. If not go buy a real sportscar.

This is the average Icelandic jeep

Its not a Jeep - It's a Severly pumped up NISSAN PATROL.
It's based on one of the better 4x4's on the market, and hugely popular in standard form in Australia. = to a Toyota Landcruiser.

[Cubeoid]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Those seats in the BMW are cool!

I'd go as far as very cool!

[Nimisys]

those seats are just your standard run of the mill race seat... go look at sparco.com

and i'll take a cherokee or wrangler over the H1 or a landy anydaym but then again i am biased since i already got one

[thunderous_funker]

If it's gotta be something new, I'd take a Defender 90 over a HMMV any day of the week for off-roading.

Otherwise, I'd just stick with mid 70's Land Cruiser or Willy jeep. Anyone seen the original Nissan Patrol? It came with a factory crank start just in case the electrics went out. Soooo nice.

As for the X5, I agree with engaged's comment that it's "a white elephant"

[imaxxedout]

That's incredibly retarded. Its like those morons who drag race trucks. You realize that you'd be going much faster in a CAR with that drivetrain right?

HOw retarded.

Of course, BMW can probably sell a bunch of those things, thanks to our stupid laws that basically exclude trucks from emissions.

Ack.

- Ca$h

[MacGorilla]

nah, all you need is this for your off road needs. Mileage sucks but the luxuries of this beast make it OK.

[talisker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The wider, higher, more ground-clearing HMMWV is simply better in mud.

What about if you have to go along a narrow track or through a narrow gap. Methinks narrow might be better then. And is there actually anymore ground clearance given that the thing is much longer than a Landrover for example? Horses for courses I suppose.

[Nimisys]

the military hummers have 24" clearnce on shgort a-arms.

as for clearance vs wheel length, you are thinking of entrance and departure angles, as wheel base doesn;t affect clearnace

[talisker]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
as for clearance vs wheel length, you are thinking of entrance and departure angles, as wheel base doesn;t affect clearnace

Maybe that is what I'm thinking of - ie when you're driving over the edge of a drop off. In that case a longer vehicle will be disadvantaged, whatever you call it. Similarly a wider vehicle is more likely to bottom out when driving in deep ruts - there's simply more of it nearer to the ground.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by talisker:
Maybe that is what I'm thinking of - ie when you're driving over the edge of a drop off. In that case a longer vehicle will be disadvantaged, whatever you call it. Similarly a wider vehicle is more likely to bottom out when driving in deep ruts - there's simply more of it nearer to the ground.

Actually, one of the great things about the HMMWV is that there isn't much to ground out. Unlike most vehicles, the transmission is completely inside the body of the vehicle. Whoops! Did I say body of the vehicle? Make that inside the cabin of the vehicle! It makes for the mother of all consoles, but it also makes the bottom of the vehicle almost completely flat and high off the ground. Even when they do ground out, they don't snag the ground so much as plough their way through. It's a very powerful vehicle. I've watched one knock a small tree down and carry on as if nothing happened.

As for stability, I can only say that the wide body and low center of gravity of the HMMWV probably saved my life. I started sliding off of a 40' vertical hill in one on a range in Germany. It got to the point where it was tipping with one wheel completely off the ground, yet I managed to recover. A vehicle with a higher center of gravity would have certainly gone over and flipped. It's not a test I would recommend, though.

[benb]

When I need to go get my Bugatti Veyron 16/4 of course.



Regards,
Ben

[Gene Jockey]

V12, eh? Bah!



Cadillac defies convention and shatters all notions of what an ultra luxury car should be with the Cadillac Sixteen. This new breed of Cadillac surges past other vehicles in this class, creating an entire new realm of opulence, craftsmanship and technological wizardry.

The Cadillac Sixteen is rear-wheel drive powered by an all-aluminum 13.6-liter engine. It includes technology such as Displacement on Demand, which allows the engine to run on four, eight or sixteen cylinders depending on driving conditions. Other advancements include:


7,000 rpm capability

1,000 horsepower and 1,000 lbs.-ft. of torque

Advanced cylinder head port design

Titanium alloy valves and valve springs

Variable camshaft phasing

--

1000 horsepower. I like the sound of that. Hope something like it makes it into production.

--J

[Nimisys]

lutz really really wants to have it make it into production as an image car for cadilac, at the tune of 250 grand per.

[imaxxedout]

I've read a bit about this caddy 'sixteen' and am surprised nobody mentioned where it came from. There was ANOTHER caddy 16 backin the 60s.... prototype of course. IT was basically two v8s mated together, and looked like a normal caddy except it had a HUUUGGGEEE hood. THe idea was to have tiny pistons butmore of them to make the engine smoother.

- Ca$h