X5, any advice/info

[M3AN 4016]

I'm sorry guys, you're correct.

I've removed my ranty posts.

[Neal 545]

Really good info here.

So basically the $15k difference between an 4.8 and 30d would be the same cost over 4 years and the 30d is cheaper beyond that point at about $3.5 less to operate per year (for our household) The issue will be getting the go ahead to spend high 50s rather than low 40s.

[MattA 164]

I'm sorry guys, you're correct.

I've removed my ranty posts.

I don't mind, enjoyed the read and I'm not the slightest offended.

As I tell my kids everyone is entitled to an opinion just understand mine is always correct

P.S. I'm joking re my opinion, I was incorrect once and according to my wife all the time!

Edited January 14, 2016 by MattA

[MattA 164]

We went diesel because it performs better in a heavy vehicle (more torque) most of the time it is chugging over between 1500 and 2,500 RPM which means it is unstressed - compare this to a V8 pulling 4,500 RPM to make similar torque.

We estimate our fuel savings over the last 4.5 years to be north of $20 grand over the petrol option, average servicing costs for our 'above average' use is around $900 per annum, which validates the vehicle is a much smarter choice than a petrol V8.

We drove from Wanaka to Auckland (1500km) for $106.10 plus RUC which would be another $90 -- that's a measly $196.10 the same in a V8 at 13l/100k and $2.10 / litre is $409.50

If you do 1500 k per month you would save around $200/ month that's $2400 a year you can spend on other things.

Tyres are where we pay big time as we chew though at least one set per year with a typical cost of $2,600 per set - but that is because its a big car.

Bought the 535d for the same reason, averaging 700km/week I sure feel like I'm saving.

[str8_6 275]

Totally agree with you Ron, the diesel option and the savings you get doing high annual mileage make sense.

Fuel calculations seem pretty spot on. For the record, we drove Wellington to Turangi and back over the New Year period with the final mileage on the clock being 745km when we got home. I filled up in Wellington initially with premium at $1.93 per liter. Whilst the car told me I did bang on 15ltr/100km when we got home, I calculated we used approx 114 litres at $1.93 (220.02) for the trip at approx consumption of 15.3ltr/100km. I topped the tank in Turangi when we left and put in for the total trip $254.62. There was just under half a tank left when we got home. It never once felt underpowered or stressed and we definitely don't need to rev it to 4500rpm for it to move or keep up. It generally chugs along at 2000 - 3500rpm with the boat on.

Neal, if was daily driving one, we would not go the V8 route, in fact, we'd likely buy a newer model diesel as I prefer the e70 but personally I prefer driving a smaller car day to day. The diesels are generally more expensive but will hold resale. We bought ours as the depreciation has almost all been lost and we don't use it a lot... But when we do, it safely gets us around with close to 2ton of boat and camping gear a few times a year. We chose it over a station wagon because most big wagons tow ratings came too close to the boat/trailer weight (I like to build in a little redundancy). We also bought it because it has AWD and that is always helpful on a slippery boat ramp.

Edited January 14, 2016 by str8_6

[Neal 545]

It would be the wife's vehicle , used for shopping run, carting around daughters 3 yo friends in car seats, holidays with 4 adults and a car seat. Possible caravan duties. Weekly 200km round trip to the inlaws ( needs easy access and space for walker). Maybe a tow car for the mini if I can't get it all the body mods through cert.

I think wife's doing 1200 - 1500 kms a month.

I'd be after something less that 50,000kms with heated seats and a sun roof and possibly a 7 seater option for the odd time.

Sorry to hijack this thread.

[Allanw 1071]

...most of the time it is chugging over between 1500 and 2,500 RPM which means it is unstressed

People always say this, but you've got that torque being pumped out at low RPM, so every "Bang" has to be so much bigger, so the stresses are much higher, especially in a turbocharged engine vs an NA engine.

If you have a load on, you're better to change down to increase the revs a bit, to reduce the stresses.

Doubling the engine speed, for the same torque requirement, substantially reduces the force required for each power stroke.

[zero 1162]

I'm sorry guys, you're correct.

I've removed my ranty posts.

Have a snickers.

[martyyyn 102]

For what it's worth I went through this last year and I have to be honest I'm surprised at the canning the 3.0 petrol is getting.

To be fair I have no intention of towing anything and I was on a pretty restrictive budget. We just needed something bigger for our family. I'm 6'5, my wife is 6' and you can guess how tall the kids are if we struggle to fit into an e39.

I've owned e39 528's, 530's, 540's and an e38 740 and was only ever interested in the 3.0 petrol knowing what it costs to maintain an M62 and what it costs to fix if it goes wrong. I would have loved a diesel but the premium was too great. I picked up a mint 2003 with 180k kms and a folder full of service history for under 10k. Any diesel equivalents had done well over 300k kms and were closer to 15k.

My 535is now sits in the garage, my wife drives the e39 to work and I drive the X5 on the 600km weekly motorway munching for the kids sport. You don't buy an X5 to drag others at the lights and the 3.0 petrol has more than enough grunt. We drove to Hastings and back from Otaki two weeks ago, with all five of us and the boot fully loaded and I could still overtake with ease. It's a brilliant cruiser.

I've had it three months and it's returning 11.2l/100km. My e34 is in the 12's and the e39 the 9's.

It's an absolute dream to drive and I only wish I'd bought one years ago.

[str8_6 275]

Totally agree with you Martyn on the 3.0i. I drove one before buying the V8 and it was not lacking at all. We actually had it overnight and almost bought it. The only reason we got the V8 was because it was tidier and had more service history. I do like the sound the M52 six makes. They aren't by any means lacking and when you compare to similar sized/weighted vehicles such as a previous generation Toyota Highlander etc they are excellent value for money and perform and likely handle better.

I only wish I never bothered with the Land Rover and Pajero.

[kiwi535 538]

i may be slightly biased but the pajero is a much nicer road car than a patrol,cruiser,or prado,its no x5 though

and there is nothing wrong with taking the auto out of drive at the traffic lights,it probabaly says so in the owners manual(it does in mine)

Edited January 20, 2016 by kiwi535

[str8_6 275]

We had the mid 90's Pajero. It was adequate but when we went to upgrade to a mid 2000 model, that's when we started realizing we could spend similar money and get an X. To be fair, the year 2000+ models are a huge improvement. They have excellent road manners and are far more capable as a 4x4 than the X5.

[kiwi535 538]

We had the mid 90's Pajero. It was adequate but when we went to upgrade to a mid 2000 model, that's when we started realizing we could spend similar money and get an X. To be fair, the year 2000+ models are a huge improvement. They have excellent road manners and are far more capable as a 4x4 than the X5.

last word re pajero my 2009 was 33k for 120 k complete with brand new A/T tyres from a dealer

[Neal 545]

Do the x5s come with side sun shades on the rear doors standard or is it an option extra or "highline" model only ?

I'm not getting a definitive answer via Google.

My thinking is I want something that has similar passing acceleration to a standard e36 328i if needed. The 328i I think is a good car in this regard getting passed the 80kmh brigade that like to speed up when you go to overtake.

Looks like the 30d is similar and the v8 looks very good in this regard.

[martyyyn 102]

I've never picked you to be the kind of person who believes what's written on the internet Ron

I read plenty of reports applauding the 3.0i and plenty to say it's fuel consumption was better than the v8. I guess we only see what we want to see. My heart was screaming for a v8 sportpac but my head was saying get a well looked after petrol.

Our e39 is in the 9's and the X5 the 11's, so is it really that hard to believe ? We do however spend a good 90% of our driving on the open road so I would expect it to be different if we were stuck in traffic all day.

You're right it doesn't have the kick of the diesel but that's no surprise either is it ? It's certainly got enough for what it is though and if I want to have some fun I take the 535is.

I've worked it out Martyn, you live on the top of a (huge) hill and coast down to the various sports venues then tow the X5 back with some other car.

Every test report I have ever read doesn't rate the 3.0i and slams it on fuel consumption and when you look at the facts that a 530 is more than 600kg lighter than an X5 and more aerodynamic 11.2 l/100k is exceptional.

The one I drove certainly didn't have the grunt of the diesel

Me, I'm sticking with the diesel X5 - filled it up for $68 yesterday !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 328 with a much smaller tanks still costs $127 for a full tank.

P.S took the 328 for a spin to Rotorua via Hamilton on the way down and Tauranga on the way back - I do like those sweet six petrols when you spin them up; took me a few hours to get into the swing of the more dynamic engine and out of diesel / LPT (Saab) mode. North of 5,500RPM is magic.