That's strange, a 25.56 FT3 is quite a large volume capacity. Even larger than a BMW X5, that can't be right.
According to my sources:

BMW X6
570 - 1450 L
20.13 - 51.21 FT3

BMW X5
620-1750 L
21.89 - 61.80 FT3

BMW 5 Touring
500-1650 L
17.65 - 58.27 FT3

Mercedes E-class Touring
690-1950 L
24.37 - 68.86 FT3

Mercedes M-class
500-2050 L
17.65 - 72.39 FT3

Porsche Cayenne
540-1770 L
19.07 - 62.51 FT3

Still the cargo is quite large for its shape, practical enough for its target market.
I think the BMW did a good job on the X6, its a good looking and desirable car in my opinion.

I'm with Raoul. A X6 is no different from X5 than a E90 is to a E92. Both are Coupes with smaller trunk and backseat but that always the case with with Sedan vs Coupé.
So you can say a X6 isnt more unessecary than a E92, I can agree with that.

I'm not against a X5 or X6 for existing other than the carsize is way too big for my taste.

Oh dear, did I touch a sensitive spot?
First off "good-looking" would be completely subjective, secondly there are plenty other "fun-to-drive" cars out there WITH or WITHOUT utility that don't wear the BMW badge, Thirdly where did I say the X6 was a failure.

Oh and Sunny, insults? Already? I thought we were better than that?

Oh Bum-man, you are a teaser aren't you

If fine handling was the principle criterion against which SUVs are measured then the Forester STI would've won "World SUV of the Year" way back when. It never did of course...

"Takes more than great handling to make a great SUV".

Sure, the X6 is getting heaps of accolades - particularly in the handling stakes vis a vis the favourable commentary in Top Gear, EVO and what not... So what if it handles spookily - I'd still never buy one. If all that it can do is drive on a rutted dirt road then the Cayenne GTS bests it for prestige, practicality and possibly driving enjoyment. The X6's looks still divide opinion and I will only pass judgement when I see it in the flesh.

The stock, non-AMG ML's are terrific SUVs because of exactly that: they're SUVs. They've got all the road going prowess such a car needs to have and a fat dollop of offroad ability thrown in for good measure.

I like the X6, from a marketing perspective it's a sparkling effort, but just don't ask me to dish out accolades like "this is the SUV that re-wrote the book on SUV handling" because that in itself isn't much of an achievement after all.

Did I hit a sore spot?

1. Yes, it was designed more with good looks in mind than for the car to be a lorry.

2. Yes, there are plenty of cars around there that is more fun to drive... but they are not "SUV":s - hence the redefinition of the segment or maybe a move into something new toghether with Infinity.

3. The article pionted in that direction, I did not mean for that to be laid on you.

I was just pointing out weaknesses in the argumentation. No need to get all defensive.

I agree with you, in the category "a little less huge" SUV:s the Forester is a gem and almost without proper competition.

Great handling in a huge car is impressive however ugly the car is. And in this case that ugly car is a real opinion divider. I was a bit unsure untill I saw it the other day. I was stunned.

Maybe it is because the X6 is so little SUV and more of something else? I think it is one step away from SUV and therefore it get the praise. The way it does this mean the traditional SUV buyers will look the other way.

I got the 25.6 cu ft from here - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.
Road and Track also has the same number.

That has to be the maximum load capacity with rear seats folded, right?

I guess BMW USA made a small mistake with the metric conversions.

570 Liters = 20.13 cubic feet
1450 Liters = 51.21 cubic feet

25.6 cubic feet = 725 Liters
59.7 cubic feet = 1690 Liters

Hopefully they'll correct this, it's misleading information.