[pvc6102]

Can someone help explain? There are "No changes" between the 2024 & 2025 X5 M60i, yet the BMW website claims a 0-60 time of 4.1 seconds for the 2024 M60i and 4.2 seconds for the 2025. Yes, I realize .1/second isn't much of a difference, but curious why the difference?

[poison]

Weather? Tires? Driver?

[BlkGS]

Probably marketing screwed up.

The conspiracy theorist in me would say they want it to seem like it's "less of a performance advantage" over the PHEVs that the government forces them to sell.

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by pvc6102

Can someone help explain? There are "No changes" between the 2024 & 2025 X5 M60i, yet the BMW website claims a 0-60 time of 4.1 seconds for the 2024 M60i and 4.2 seconds for the 2025. Yes, I realize .1/second isn't much of a difference, but curious why the difference?

Welcome to the forum. Just a test variance or error on the marketing materials/web site.

[eluded]

looking at C&D

M50i 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (same as 50e) / ¼-mile: 12.4 sec @ 112 mph
M60i 0-60 in 3.6 seconds / 1/4-Mile: 12.1 sec @ 113 mph


https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-x5-m60i-test/

[crabman]

These are possibly the least accurate acceleration times you can quote; they are almost always the fastest by a large margin and you will not be able to repeat their numbers. People love to quote them because of it but when you know something is untrue you call it what it is; a lie.

You get a much more representative number from looking at the YouTuber Average (YTA), this is the number YouTubers get when they engage launch control and show a 0-60 at a random time and place. It's much more representation of what you'll actually see in the car in the real world if you try it yourself.

As an example I'll post a video which many here might find interesting; of note is that the 60i does not break into the 3s and it appears to me they didn't enable level 3 shifting on the X5M which does cost measurable time. The latter is an important point, you get to see what they did and how they did it. In aggregate these will give an owner a number they can realistically attain.

[NGT2]

Originally Posted by eluded

looking at C&D

M50i 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (same as 50e) / ¼-mile: 12.4 sec @ 112 mph
M60i 0-60 in 3.6 seconds / 1/4-Mile: 12.1 sec @ 113 mph


https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...-x5-m60i-test/

C&D allows for roll out, I believe.

[mobilejo]

Originally Posted by crabman

These are possibly the least accurate acceleration times you can quote; they are almost always the fastest by a large margin and you will not be able to repeat their numbers. People love to quote them because of it but when you know something is untrue you call it what it is; a lie.

C&D times aren't inaccurate, they just measure 0-60 with 1ft roll out unlike BMW and most other sources that measure without. The times themselves are fairly accurate, but anyone looking at their results just needs to understand what 1ft roll out actually means in order to draw meaningful conclusions (or comparisons) from the numbers.

I use a dragy and so see 0-60 with and without 1ft roll out for the same run, C&D's times are pretty much spot on.

[BlkGS]

C&D introduces a measurement bias in their numbers by taking out rollout when nobody else does. Gives them lower numbers for acceleration so people go "wow that's fast!", and it drives click, views, and magazine buys. But it makes their numbers useless for comparison to basically any other outlet.

Manufacturer 0-60 times... Who knows where those come from. Sometimes they're so sandbagged everyone beats them. Sometimes they're perfect DA and launched with a rock strapped to it.

[mmm50i]

Originally Posted by mobilejo

C&D times aren't inaccurate, they just measure 0-60 with 1ft roll out unlike BMW and most other sources that measure without. The times themselves are fairly accurate, but anyone looking at their results just needs to understand what 1ft roll out actually means in order to draw meaningful conclusions (or comparisons) from the numbers.

I use a dragy and so see 0-60 with and without 1ft roll out for the same run, C&D's times are pretty much spot on.

For a couple of years now, they've changed their measuring standards to measure without the 1ft rollout. Although, they'll often state how long the 1ft rollout was.

For both the M50i and M50i, they mentioned: Results above omit 1-ft rollout of 0.2 sec

[crabman]

I was unclear, my bad on that. I don't think C&D is lying, I think using their numbers to represent a legitimate standing start to 60mph is what amounts to a lie, because you're not going to get it.

The times posted here are a good example of that, try and find a YouTuber that went 3.6 and you're going be frustrated, no one has posted a legitimate timed run that meets that mark, most are in the vicinity of a half secondish slower, a big margin at that performance level.

This isn't a shot at the 60i, I considered one myself, and believe it to be the best choice at it's price point. I'm strictly against using C&D's numbers because none of us are going to get them. If none of us can get them there is no arguing that they are in fact, misleading. Using them knowingly is a false representation, in other words, a lie.

[LDT]

https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-we-test-cars/

[TurtleBoy]

Originally Posted by crabman

I was unclear, my bad on that. I don't think C&D is lying, I think using their numbers to represent a legitimate standing start to 60mph is what amounts to a lie, because you're not going to get it.

The times posted here are a good example of that, try and find a YouTuber that went 3.6 and you're going be frustrated, no one has posted a legitimate timed run that meets that mark, most are in the vicinity of a half secondish slower, a big margin at that performance level.

This isn't a shot at the 60i, I considered one myself, and believe it to be the best choice at it's price point. I'm strictly against using C&D's numbers because none of us are going to get them. If none of us can get them there is no arguing that they are in fact, misleading. Using them knowingly is a false representation, in other words, a lie.

C&D's numbers are from a standing start, isn't that what omitting the 1ft rollout means?

[BMPHIL]

Comparing C&D's figures to all others I assume they do their testing on a downhill slope, genuine figure for M60i seems to be about 4.1.

[crabman]

No, If you have a 1 foot rollout if means the time starts at one foot of distance traveled, the time before 1 foot is omitted from the calculation. It comes from the NHRA and is a product of how they stage cars and then measure time across distance using triggers.

C&D will say they omit the rollout but they actually don't, they still measure with a rollout and then add 2/10s, they call this omitting the rollout.

[SteVTEC]

I don't see any issues with C&D's test methodology. They're very open about it, it's very clearly explained in numerous articles even if you personally don't agree with it, and the 1ft rollout disclaimer is very clearly made, in bold, with an article link in every vehicle test results section these days.

As far as tiny differences in officially claimed 0-60 times, that's entirely up to BMW product management. What the car will do, and what they want to say it does, can be two entirely different things. Engineering will say, well it can do "X", just don't claim it's faster than that or else we'll get into trouble. Then PdM will say whatever they want, even if they want to sandbag it a bit and claim it's slower than it really is.

[crabman]

Any successful test or experiment must have results that are repeatable by another tester performing the same test; or the experiment itself is considered a failure.

Essentially no one can get C&D's numbers. I've been through a lot of cars and it's the same with all of them. You can find this conversation on rennlist, MB world, corvetteforum, virtually any forum, and it's been going on for decades. Think about it: Say you subtract .2 from the times you see people actually getting for the 60i to give it a rollout, they are still going to be several tenths slower the time C&D posted with the .2 added in. Or so they allege...

Obviously there is variance with acceleration testing so there is going to be a range. C&D is almost always below and out of that range, and their results can't be repeated. What is the point of using a number you know is inaccurate?

[aaaaaaaaaz]

Originally Posted by crabman

Any successful test or experiment must have results that are repeatable by another tester performing the same test; or the experiment itself is considered a failure.

Essentially no one can get C&D's numbers. I've been through a lot of cars and it's the same with all of them. You can find this conversation on rennlist, MB world, corvetteforum, virtually any forum, and it's been going on for decades. Think about it: Say you subtract .2 from the times you see people actually getting for the 60i to give it a rollout, they are still going to be several tenths slower the time C&D posted with the .2 added in. Or so they allege...

Obviously there is variance with acceleration testing so there is going to be a range. C&D is almost always below and out of that range, and their results can't be repeated. What is the point of using a number you know is inaccurate?

As long as they are being consistent, you can compare the number between tests C/D does for diffeeent cars. It would be meaningless to compare the number with another media outlet.

[crabman]

It's meaningless all together when you know the numbers are what amounts to a lie. Why not go ahead and whack a full second off and say that it's comparable to other numbers that had a second taken off. If your going to accept and use a number you know is wrong, and say it's ok because you can compare it to other numbers you know are also wrong, why not go big and really impress your friends?

The whole point of taking the measurement in the first place is to get an assessment of the cars performance in the real world. This being the case why would anyone use numbers that don't represent the cars actual performance?

[BMPHIL]

Originally Posted by SteVTEC

I don't see any issues with C&D's test methodology. They're very open about it, it's very clearly explained in numerous articles even if you personally don't agree with it, and the 1ft rollout disclaimer is very clearly made, in bold, with an article link in every vehicle test results section these days.

As far as tiny differences in officially claimed 0-60 times, that's entirely up to BMW product management. What the car will do, and what they want to say it does, can be two entirely different things. Engineering will say, well it can do "X", just don't claim it's faster than that or else we'll get into trouble. Then PdM will say whatever they want, even if they want to sandbag it a bit and claim it's slower than it really is.

Shame the above doesn't apply to the official mpg figures!.

[BMPHIL]

Originally Posted by crabman

It's meaningless all together when you know the numbers are what amounts to a lie. Why not go ahead and whack a full second off and say that it's comparable to other numbers that had a second taken off. If your going to accept and use a number you know is wrong, and say it's ok because you can compare it to other numbers you know are also wrong, why not go big and really impress your friends?

The whole point of taking the measurement in the first place is to get an assessment of the cars performance in the real world. This being the case why would anyone use numbers that don't represent the cars actual performance?

100% correct-pointless

[roamio]

Basically add 0.2 or 0.3 seconds to C&D times if you want real number.


https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/