RE: BMW X5 M50d: Driven
Discussion
schaeffs said:
JD said:
Not sure why you would have this over the X5 45e ?
Range - its the one point I keep coming back to when considering the two. When going from SE England to the French/Swiss ski fields - you still need it.Low 20's mpg from the B58 when driving not in electric mode (which will be most of the time!) just doesn't make sense.
schaeffs said:
Range - its the one point I keep coming back to when considering the two. When going from SE England to the French/Swiss ski fields - you still need it.
Oh yeah, or course, didn't think of that. I must now buy one so that I can get to the ski fields of France and Switzerland 
sr.guiri said:
schaeffs said:
Range - its the one point I keep coming back to when considering the two. When going from SE England to the French/Swiss ski fields - you still need it.
Oh yeah, or course, didn't think of that. I must now buy one so that I can get to the ski fields of France and Switzerland Ares said:
sr.guiri said:
schaeffs said:
Range - its the one point I keep coming back to when considering the two. When going from SE England to the French/Swiss ski fields - you still need it.
Oh yeah, or course, didn't think of that. I must now buy one so that I can get to the ski fields of France and Switzerland Ares said:
These cars are very very frequently bought for long-range family journeys. You may scoff and 'rolleyes', but it's a major factor.
Whether this car is used for long journeys or not wasn't my point. It was the name dropping that I was referring to. Permission to "rolleyes" again, please.sr.guiri said:
Ares said:
These cars are very very frequently bought for long-range family journeys. You may scoff and 'rolleyes', but it's a major factor.
Whether this car is used for long journeys or not wasn't my point. It was the name dropping that I was referring to. Permission to "rolleyes" again, please.Astonishing technology. Our E70 X5 3.0sd returns around 450 miles of range from a 100L tank, averaging around 23-24mpg combined. This gives more than 500 miles from a 85L tank. And it emits 170g/km, this is from a quad turbo unit. The twin turbo in ours gives out 215g/km. I think it looks great, but in our books it makes the older M50d more affordable 
rayyan171 said:
Astonishing technology. Our E70 X5 3.0sd returns around 450 miles of range from a 100L tank, averaging around 23-24mpg combined. This gives more than 500 miles from a 85L tank. And it emits 170g/km, this is from a quad turbo unit. The twin turbo in ours gives out 215g/km. I think it looks great, but in our books it makes the older M50d more affordable
The progress is amazing - We have had three X5s so far and have had better MPG from each more powerful engine. E70 3.0sd (22MPG) to E70 40d (23MPG) to F15 M50d (26MPG!) BMW have been on it engine wise in the last 5-10 years.Ares said:
sr.guiri said:
Ares said:
These cars are very very frequently bought for long-range family journeys. You may scoff and 'rolleyes', but it's a major factor.
Whether this car is used for long journeys or not wasn't my point. It was the name dropping that I was referring to. Permission to "rolleyes" again, please.HoHoHo said:
As it stands there's nothing to be concerned about buying a Euro 6 diesel, when that becomes an issue petrol will also be on the agenda 
These 6 cylinder diesels are bloody great in something as big as an X5.
They're quite unrefined. I had the "pleasure" of borrowing a 2018 reg X6 40d. What struck me was just how coarse and intrusive the engine was and how such a "premium" product felt decidedly "unpremium". These 6 cylinder diesels are bloody great in something as big as an X5.
It was powerful and economical but utterly intolerable in a car that costs THAT amount of money. The comments regarding about driving to the south of France from England with relation to the convenience of the range. Yes, but I drive from Scotland to the South of Spain. It takes a several days (I do not countenance flying) and driving putting an extra £100 or so in over an equivilent diesel is hardly here nor there. You have to stop to eat, to stretch and I truthfully cannot recall the last time I drove more than 350 miles without stopping. A Petrol X5 etc on a motorway will do 400 miles between fills (certainly more old 4.4i X5 2004 - I got 27mpg on the mway and on average it did 21mpg), a diesel more like 600. Who doesn't stop between 600 miles of driving?
Edited by st4 on Friday 15th February 12:43
rayyan171 said:
Astonishing technology. Our E70 X5 3.0sd returns around 450 miles of range from a 100L tank, averaging around 23-24mpg combined. This gives more than 500 miles from a 85L tank. And it emits 170g/km, this is from a quad turbo unit. The twin turbo in ours gives out 215g/km. I think it looks great, but in our books it makes the older M50d more affordable
Is that all. My X5 4.4i from 2004 gave me pretty much 400 miles from 93 litres. My 3.0i from 2002 did about the same on average. These new diesels aren't as economical as you think. Personally I feel the engine for the car is the 40i . st4 said:
HoHoHo said:
As it stands there's nothing to be concerned about buying a Euro 6 diesel, when that becomes an issue petrol will also be on the agenda
These 6 cylinder diesels are bloody great in something as big as an X5.
They're quite unrefined. I had the "pleasure" of borrowing a 2018 reg X6 40d. What struck me was just how coarse and intrusive the engine was and how such a "premium" product felt decidedly "unpremium". These 6 cylinder diesels are bloody great in something as big as an X5.
It was powerful and economical but utterly intolerable in a car that costs THAT amount of money. The comments regarding about driving to the south of France from England with relation to the convenience of the range. Yes, but I drive from Scotland to the South of Spain. It takes a several days (I do not countenance flying) and driving putting an extra £100 or so in over an equivilent diesel is hardly here nor there. You have to stop to eat, to stretch and I truthfully cannot recall the last time I drove more than 350 miles without stopping. A Petrol X5 etc on a motorway will do 400 miles between fills (certainly more old 4.4i X5 2004 - I got 27mpg on the mway and on average it did 21mpg), a diesel more like 600. Who doesn't stop between 600 miles of driving?
Edited by st4 on Friday 15th February 12:43
Ares said:
Really? Coarse? Intrusive? Unrefined? Unpremium? Intolerable? Either you are used to being ferried around in a Rolls Royce, had a dog of an X6 or are exaggerating/being disingenuous.
Yes. As I said all of these things. I drive a Lexus GS250 which cost about half the price but was infinitely more refined. It really sounded like a truck. I've had petrol BMW's before - they are night and day more suitable than the diesels. Refined, sonorous, and joyful. The new inline six BMW engine is a steaming pile of dog turd. Sorry.
st4 said:
rayyan171 said:
Astonishing technology. Our E70 X5 3.0sd returns around 450 miles of range from a 100L tank, averaging around 23-24mpg combined. This gives more than 500 miles from a 85L tank. And it emits 170g/km, this is from a quad turbo unit. The twin turbo in ours gives out 215g/km. I think it looks great, but in our books it makes the older M50d more affordable
Is that all. My X5 4.4i from 2004 gave me pretty much 400 miles from 93 litres. My 3.0i from 2002 did about the same on average. These new diesels aren't as economical as you think. Personally I feel the engine for the car is the 40i . You also did well average that mpg from the 4.4 V8, unless you had a light foot or had a lot of long journeys. Most owners I knew back in the day were struggling to get 20.
I had the same diesel engine, tuned to 380bhp in a 6-series. I averaged 42-44 and on longer motorway runs saw over 50mpg.
Ares said:
23/24 is poor for the X5, even if it is the 300bhp variant, although this is the 2006 model, so not very 'modern diesel'.
You also did well average that mpg from the 4.4 V8, unless you had a light foot or had a lot of long journeys. Most owners I knew back in the day were struggling to get 20.
I had the same diesel engine, tuned to 380bhp in a 6-series. I averaged 42-44 and on longer motorway runs saw over 50mpg.
Mainly long journeys - it would comfortably do 28mpg - best was 30mpg. Worst was 7.1mpg You also did well average that mpg from the 4.4 V8, unless you had a light foot or had a lot of long journeys. Most owners I knew back in the day were struggling to get 20.
I had the same diesel engine, tuned to 380bhp in a 6-series. I averaged 42-44 and on longer motorway runs saw over 50mpg.
It was really nice (it was new when I had it). Bags of power and low down torque, lousy gearbox though but it moved the car along well. It was the valvetronic engine so the superior 330 odd bhp one, not the 286.
The best one was the manual X5 3.0i. So smooth and refined but the engine I think slightly struggled with the car - with a pair of turbos I imagine that would be an amazing SUV. An X6 40i or X5 40i would be great. I do have sensitive hearing so appreciate refinement probably more than most.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff