Jump to content
nzsapper

07 X3 - yay or nay?

Recommended Posts

Hi

Genuinely asking for a friend 

He is looking at purchasing this vehicle , ask for my thoughts and I know absolutely nothing about these vehicles

Anyone have advice for him?

https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/motors/cars/bmw/x3/listing/2734630929?bof=hfloiQyP

 

Thanks in advance

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought an 05 2 litre diesel about 3 weeks ago-  that listing is the facelift model which isn't as butt ugly as the early ones ( like ours) . 

 They drive well and are very versatile, more so than the X5 we have

Not sure I could live with the fuel bills of a petrol 1800kg vehicle propelled by a 3 litre NA engine 10 - 13l/100k vs 7.6 for the diesel 

Edited by 3pedals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive gotta ask, but why would you buy that f**k ugly thing over an E91 wagon or the likes?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought the 2.5 a while back for the wife, has been a stellar car, we have put 150,000km on it and only failure was the front control arm bushes and a plastic gear in the transfer case actuator.

Buy the whole new actuator as a bosch or land rover item to save a fortune or just replace the gear.

Reason we bought it vs a wagon was ground clearance and price for a 4wd version.

Petrol consumption is sitting at 10.2L/100km 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Paul - was looking at one of these for the wife a while ago. Good seating position and visibility if you're not tall - better than the more modern F25 X3. With the N52, the water pump is the expensive thing that is likely to fail and that one you're looking at has had that done already :)

200KW should go well... Motorsport suspension can be very hard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transfer case and stepper motors are the only other thing that really goes wrong on these

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Runs the same transfer case as the  E53 X5 (ATC400) so surprised there are issues in the X3's - Killers of the transfer case are: lack of service and un-matched tyre sizes. 

If the motor/ actuator is playing up / the gears are worn there is usually a bigger problem inside the transfer case 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KwS said:

Ive gotta ask, but why would you buy that f**k ugly thing over an E91 wagon or the likes?

Try fitting two road bikes in the back or, a full sized mountain bike or a bunch of sailing gear and towing the boat, or ;  the list goes on --- the X3 is simple very versatile  and is just as easy to drive and park as a 3 series car/ wagon and it will go more places more comfortably.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Not sure I could live with the fuel bills of a petrol 1800kg vehicle propelled by a 3 litre NA engine 10 - 13l/100k vs 7.6 for the diesel 

This would be the biggest drawback IMHO, the fuel consumption on the 3.0ltr can be a bit ferocious, especially if you use it for lugging stuff around or towing trailers / boats / etc.

If they are keen on the X3 then I would steer them towards the diesel variants, maybe a bit more expensive but even with RUC it would pay off in the long run I would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the obsessive negative perception in NZ regards RUC on diesels the rate for a light vehicle is $76/1000km and in Auckland the current fuel prices in our area  are $1.28 for diesel and $2.39 for 98 

So:

an X5 using 9l/100 k uses 90 litres to do 1,000 k - 90*1.28 = $115.20 ad the RUC and that becomes $191.20  or 19c/k 

an X3 using 8l /100k uses 80 litres,  same equation that becomes $178.4 or 17.8c/k

a 120d using 6.5 l/100k $159.2  or 15.9c/k 

Based on my mates average consumption in his 4.4 X5 at17l/100k  ( he tows a boat ocassionally)  that's 170 litres for 1000k = $406  or 40.6c/k  

At the other end  of the scale it's about even 6.5l/100k in a 120i is $155.35 or  15.5 c/k 

However - I've never seen a 120i do the claimed 6.5 - it's more often 8 and when you do that calc its $191.2 or 19.1 c/k 

In short anything using more than 7.5 l/100k is cheaper in diesel and the disparity in consumption broadens with vehicle weight so the heavvier the vehicle the more compelling the argument for diesel  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really shits me is that a 43 tonne truck only pays around $400 in RUC - you can't tell me that a juggernaut pounding up and down the same road only does the same damage as 5 light vehicles - thats B.S ??? 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@3pedals - thanks for the diesel v petrol comparison, very helpful.
Serious question, when regular servicing Is factored are diesels still more cost effective than petrol? How about maintenance (i presume this would be similar/same between the two)?
I have been contemplating a diesel but have been a bit reluctant to jump in so insights are welcome

OP - having previously owned a manual petrol X3 2.5l for 3 years (which was a fantastic combo and wagon) i highly recommend them. Good practicality, visibility and did long distance travel well. Not as practical as my holden wagon but not much is these days 😎 (sorry couldn’t help myself and had to put that in). Only issue i had was a failed plastic actuator as discussed.  Replace the cog and all was good from then on

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife has 2008 LCI version, nice to drive, good viz from every angle, for a NA bigish six cyl, is great on gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've gone from 3 petrols & a diesel to 3 diesels & a petrol over the last 5 years , a short trip is 40 k and an average week is 300k times 2 (vehicles) 

Servicing costs are about the same, discounting the obvious extra cost associated with running a 4WD system and the scale of the vehicle. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our 2006 X3 2.5 with the M54 engine uses around 13.5l/100km around town, and around 10l/100km on road trips outside of Auckland. I once managed to get 8l/100km on a trip to Ngatea, but there were hardly any hills on that drive, and I was using cruise control the whole time (yawn).

Around town it does about 400kms on a tank of petrol, so anywhere between $120-150 depending on price at the time - it is a pretty expensive run around, but thankfully my wife does hardly any mileage nowadays, and I daily on a motorbike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Petrol cars have become much more efficient in the last decade and RUC has increased, which has narrowed the gap.  My 535i can do 8.5/100 outside of Auckland making it about 20.5c per km.  It averages about 10/100 in Auckland.  Can't be arsed paying for RUC and the N55 is plenty grunty.

Diesel would still the go for big rigs and towing though.

Edited by GorGasm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 1:38 PM, 3pedals said:

I don't get the obsessive negative perception in NZ regards RUC on diesels the rate for a light vehicle is $76/1000km and in Auckland the current fuel prices in our area  are $1.28 for diesel and $2.39 for 98.

No negative obsession here, just part of the calculations if you are making the petrol v diesel comparision (as you have in your calcs).

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 1:42 PM, 3pedals said:

What really shits me is that a 43 tonne truck only pays around $400 in RUC - you can't tell me that a juggernaut pounding up and down the same road only does the same damage as 5 light vehicles - thats B.S ??? 

That $400 figure seems a bit light to me... but then it's been a while since I looked at HT RUC. To be up around the 43T you would most likely be looking at a truck and trailer combo, or a prime mover and a full trailer, so there would be two lots of RUC to pay, and then there are all the axle groupings, etc. to take into account. However, I do take you point about the comparable wear and tear each would put on the road. I think the on-cost of putting up the price of freight v an increase on personal transport is a big factor there.

The bit that gets my goat is the fact that the lowest band of RUC covers everything in the light category, upto 3.5T, so I pay the same amount of RUC per Km on an E87 116d as an X5 towing a boat, etc. No comparison there in terms of road "usage"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$400 figure is straight off the NZTA website for exactly the classes of vehicle you refer to - figures depending on axle configuration vary from $370 odd to 400+ a bit. 

At the lighter end of things there is less clarity about it because an E87 116 @ 1400 kg running on puny litte 185 or 195 15 or 16 inch tyres is putting the same mass per unit area into the road as a 2300kg  X5 on 255/18 or 19's .  

 the boat is a spurious argument - because it's not the normal configuration for the (X5) vehicle whereas for  a class of truck it is. 

Put your 116on 235/18's and you have a case- but thats not how they come from the factory 

 

Edited by 3pedals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 1:38 PM, 3pedals said:

I don't get the obsessive negative perception in NZ regards RUC on diesels.

This.

I first went to diesel two years ago replacing an 2l manual Focus Zetec with a manual e90 320d msport. It's done nearly 80k kms and saves us just about $1800 a year.

I've owned everything from 316's to 750iL's and it's in my top three cars it's that good to drive. It averages 5.1l and the combination of torque and manual is fantastic over Paekok Hill and the Remutaka's.

Then 12 months ago we moved from a 3l petrol X5 to an F10 535d and it's a glorious cruiser. No matter how much I kick it's arse I can't get it any higher than 7.1l. On the open road (which is where we do most of our driving) it's peerless. My wife has never really liked cars, but she said I wouldn't get her out of this one, ever.

Servicing on both hasn't been any worse than the petrols we've owned and buying RUC's is no harder than renewing your rego.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, martyyyn said:

Then 12 months ago we moved from a 3l petrol X5 to an F10 535d and it's a glorious cruiser. No matter how much I kick it's arse I can't get it any higher than 7.1l. On the open road (which is where we do most of our driving) it's peerless. My wife has never really liked cars, but she said I wouldn't get her out of this one, ever.

The N57 twin turbo is extraordinary for performance:economy ratio - just wish I got to open the taps on mine a bit more over over the hill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balancerider said:

The N57 quad turbo is extraordinary for performance:economy ratio - just wish I got to open the taps on mine a bit more over over the hill!

Fixed that for you 😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 3pedals said:

$400 figure is straight off the NZTA website for exactly the classes of vehicle you refer to - figures depending on axle configuration vary from $370 odd to 400+ a bit. 

That's just for the front end...

RUC 1.PNG

Don't forget to add on the bit that's being dragged along behind (or both bits if it's a B-Train)

RUC 2.PNG

So as an example a 44 Ton 4-axle Truck and 4-axle trailer combo, would have $401 worth of RUC on the truck AND $238 worth on the trailer for every 1,000kms. So a TOTAL RUC of $639. A few more multiples of the light vehicle RUC, but arguably not enough to account for the wear and tear.

8 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Put your 116on 235/18's and you have a case- but thats not how they come from the factory 

Already on wider tyres than that anyway, so wouldn't want to go go onto thinner pizza slicers. The fact that the whole RUC system doesn't take into account the tyres on the vehicle is a bit of a bug bear as well. However, when you try and factor in all the possible variations for every vehicle that could be covered it gets totally un-feasible. Even having guide tyre pressures for the government fuel efficiency web-site came a cropper when the manufacturers pointed out the huge number of different sizes available ex-factory, let alone after market.

The boat is worth a mention as 1) it is much more likely to be pulled by an X5 than a 116d, 2) that trailer would not be subject to RUC as under 3.5T even though it would be contributing to the road wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...