RE: BMW X5 M50d: Driven
Discussion
st4 said:
These new diesels aren't as economical as you think.
Given you don't own one how would you know..... 
My 40d X5 is way more economical than my E82 135i with the N55 engine, and that weighed about 600kg less and didn't have the aerodynamics of a house brick.
Yeah, these diesels sure aren't as economical as you think.....
And even coming from 6 years of the N55, I don't think the N57 is that unrefined for an oil burner, and at cruising speed, its pretty much inaudible.
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.
The BMW 3 litre diesel engine in any guise is many things, but none of the above. The only variant I found a "little" wanting was the single turbo version - but that was comparing back to back with the M50d... It's also a little disingenuous (nice word btw) comparing it to the 3 litre petrol - I have one in my M135i and its a cracking unit but its totally different to the M50d engine and not sure I'd want it in the X5 where being carried around on a mountain of torque just feels right IMO.And on the range piece - you make a good point on stops / fills. It's a good thing to stop every couple of hours for a refresh on a longer journey so yes the range is less of an issue from that perspective. I guess its just less of a concern when you look down after a good stint and the car is still 2/3 full...
st4 said:
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.
schaeffs said:
The BMW 3 litre engine in any guise is many things, but none of the above.
Respectfully - I don't agreeschaeffs said:
back with the M50d... It's also a little disingenuous (nice word btw) comparing it to the 3 litre petrol - I have one in my M135i and its a cracking unit but its totally different to the M50d engine and not sure I'd want it in the X5 where being carried around on a mountain of torque just feels right IMO.
The new petrol engine has stacks of torque too. It's hardly IMHO a weedy unit. Price wise they are quite close so a comparison is perfectly fair. schaeffs said:
And on the range piece - you make a good point on stops / fills. It's a good thing to stop every couple of hours for a refresh on a longer journey so yes the range is less of an issue from that perspective. I guess its just less of a concern when you look down after a good stint and the car is still 2/3 full...
I get your point. It doesn't bother me per se, petrol stations are everywhere but less fills aren't a bad thing. Ares said:
You had a dog then. 20d is course. 30d is smoother. The 40d is a nice lump and very unobtrusive. It's not 2007 330i smooth, but no review, no opinion, no rational comment has ever described it as Coarse/Intrusive/Unrefined/Intolerable.
I just have. It's my view on the subject. I really did not like it at all and am grateful that it was not my car. The car I drove had only 4000 odd miles on it. I drove it a good while so got it warm. Powerful, yes, brilliant gearbox, yes, but the NVH was appalling for a car that lists over £50k. You could feel it in the cabin, the noise at high rpm was unpleasant, at idle it was there. Sorry but everyone's views are different and intolerable is my considered view on the subject. Edited by st4 on Friday 15th February 13:22
schaeffs said:
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.
The BMW 3 litre diesel engine in any guise is many things, but none of the above. The only variant I found a "little" wanting was the single turbo version - but that was comparing back to back with the M50d... It's also a little disingenuous (nice word btw) comparing it to the 3 litre petrol - I have one in my M135i and its a cracking unit but its totally different to the M50d engine and not sure I'd want it in the X5 where being carried around on a mountain of torque just feels right IMO.And on the range piece - you make a good point on stops / fills. It's a good thing to stop every couple of hours for a refresh on a longer journey so yes the range is less of an issue from that perspective. I guess its just less of a concern when you look down after a good stint and the car is still 2/3 full...
Contrast that to the road trip I did in the 640d - 600 miles between stops meant I filled when it suited, not by necessity.....
.....although I'd have the Alfa every day for a road trip
st4 said:
schaeffs said:
back with the M50d... It's also a little disingenuous (nice word btw) comparing it to the 3 litre petrol - I have one in my M135i and its a cracking unit but its totally different to the M50d engine and not sure I'd want it in the X5 where being carried around on a mountain of torque just feels right IMO.
The new petrol engine has stacks of torque too. It's hardly IMHO a weedy unit. Price wise they are quite close so a comparison is perfectly fair.I took a new Cayenne S out recently for a day to see if I could start to like a Petrol SUV given the way the world is turning and despite headline figures of 440BHP - it still feels blunted in a way that the M50d does not.
It also needs revs and when you are really going for it sounded - dare i say it - a little thrashy. Granted the M50d runs out of puff but it takes a new gear, pulls back into a nice torque heavy sweet spot and just gets the job done. It genuinely feels quicker than the Cayenne in the real world - and coarse and unrefined it really isn't - respectfully of your opinion of course.
aeropilot said:
Given you don't own one how would you know.....
My 40d X5 is way more economical than my E82 135i with the N55 engine, and that weighed about 600kg less and didn't have the aerodynamics of a house brick.
Yeah, these diesels sure aren't as economical as you think.....
And even coming from 6 years of the N55, I don't think the N57 is that unrefined for an oil burner, and at cruising speed, its pretty much inaudible.
Given the laughably bad figures quoted in this thread for mpg on diesel X5's vs the figures I got from my petrol X5's. They're barely different.My 40d X5 is way more economical than my E82 135i with the N55 engine, and that weighed about 600kg less and didn't have the aerodynamics of a house brick.
Yeah, these diesels sure aren't as economical as you think.....
And even coming from 6 years of the N55, I don't think the N57 is that unrefined for an oil burner, and at cruising speed, its pretty much inaudible.
Unrelated I had an E350cdi and now the Lexus GS250. The petrol lexus is 500cc short of the Merc, runs on petrol, not diesel, and there is barely 5mpg between them. One was unrefined and coarse, one is refined and sonorous.
schaeffs said:
It feels great in the M135i - but its blunted in the X5, something the M50d engine is most respectfully not.
I took a new Cayenne S out recently for a day to see if I could start to like a Petrol SUV given the way the world is turning and despite headline figures of 440BHP - it still feels blunted in a way that the M50d does not.
It also needs revs and when you are really going for it sounded - dare i say it - a little thrashy. Granted the M50d runs out of puff but it takes a new gear, pulls back into a nice torque heavy sweet spot and just gets the job done. It genuinely feels quicker than the Cayenne in the real world - and coarse and unrefined it really isn't - respectfully of your opinion of course.
As we know power is a function of engine speed and torque. Higher engine speed/less torque or lower engine speed/more torque produces the same power - and power is an expression of work done by the engine. I took a new Cayenne S out recently for a day to see if I could start to like a Petrol SUV given the way the world is turning and despite headline figures of 440BHP - it still feels blunted in a way that the M50d does not.
It also needs revs and when you are really going for it sounded - dare i say it - a little thrashy. Granted the M50d runs out of puff but it takes a new gear, pulls back into a nice torque heavy sweet spot and just gets the job done. It genuinely feels quicker than the Cayenne in the real world - and coarse and unrefined it really isn't - respectfully of your opinion of course.
My father had an old 4.5 Cayenne S - lovely thing that to drive. The roar from the engine made it special in a way no diesel could replicate. I don't mind rev'ing the engine - it makes a nice sound and involves you in the process of driving the car. I've yet to drive an X5 with the 40i engine but I expect I would really like it - given how much I enjoyed my old E53 generation petrol X5's and indeed my current V6 petrol Lexus.
We're all different but given the relatively small economy gap between petrols and diesels and the better refinement at idle, on the move and sonorous engine note I cannot agree. The performance is undisputed and an X6 40d is a fast car and the M50d X5 will perform even better but I just don't think I could live with the nvh characteristics of that engine given the amount of money the car costs.
st4 said:
Given the laughably bad figures quoted in this thread for mpg on diesel X5's vs the figures I got from my petrol X5's. They're barely different.
Unrelated I had an E350cdi and now the Lexus GS250. The petrol lexus is 500cc short of the Merc, runs on petrol, not diesel, and there is barely 5mpg between them. One was unrefined and coarse, one is refined and sonorous.
I note you live up in Scotland - that could explain why your MPG in a petrol isn't a lot different to the quoted Diesel numbers. Down in the smokey south a real world drive in a petrol SUV gave me mid teens. So it's more like 10MPG plus - which is a bigger difference.Unrelated I had an E350cdi and now the Lexus GS250. The petrol lexus is 500cc short of the Merc, runs on petrol, not diesel, and there is barely 5mpg between them. One was unrefined and coarse, one is refined and sonorous.
st4 said:
As we know power is a function of engine speed and torque. Higher engine speed/less torque or lower engine speed/more torque produces the same power - and power is an expression of work done by the engine.
My father had an old 4.5 Cayenne S - lovely thing that to drive. The roar from the engine made it special in a way no diesel could replicate. I don't mind rev'ing the engine - it makes a nice sound and involves you in the process of driving the car. I've yet to drive an X5 with the 40i engine but I expect I would really like it - given how much I enjoyed my old E53 generation petrol X5's and indeed my current V6 petrol Lexus.
We're all different but given the relatively small economy gap between petrols and diesels and the better refinement at idle, on the move and sonorous engine note I cannot agree. The performance is undisputed and an X6 40d is a fast car and the M50d X5 will perform even better but I just don't think I could live with the nvh characteristics of that engine given the amount of money the car costs.
On NVH - there is negligible difference between the N57S and N55 - I drive both regularly. Both are refined and powerful engines - the diesel suits the X5 better. On engine note - yes the petrol 6 has the edge, its fantastic.My father had an old 4.5 Cayenne S - lovely thing that to drive. The roar from the engine made it special in a way no diesel could replicate. I don't mind rev'ing the engine - it makes a nice sound and involves you in the process of driving the car. I've yet to drive an X5 with the 40i engine but I expect I would really like it - given how much I enjoyed my old E53 generation petrol X5's and indeed my current V6 petrol Lexus.
We're all different but given the relatively small economy gap between petrols and diesels and the better refinement at idle, on the move and sonorous engine note I cannot agree. The performance is undisputed and an X6 40d is a fast car and the M50d X5 will perform even better but I just don't think I could live with the nvh characteristics of that engine given the amount of money the car costs.
schaeffs said:
st4 said:
Given the laughably bad figures quoted in this thread for mpg on diesel X5's vs the figures I got from my petrol X5's. They're barely different.
Unrelated I had an E350cdi and now the Lexus GS250. The petrol lexus is 500cc short of the Merc, runs on petrol, not diesel, and there is barely 5mpg between them. One was unrefined and coarse, one is refined and sonorous.
I note you live up in Scotland - that could explain why your MPG in a petrol isn't a lot different to the quoted Diesel numbers. Down in the smokey south a real world drive in a petrol SUV gave me mid teens. So it's more like 10MPG plus - which is a bigger difference.Unrelated I had an E350cdi and now the Lexus GS250. The petrol lexus is 500cc short of the Merc, runs on petrol, not diesel, and there is barely 5mpg between them. One was unrefined and coarse, one is refined and sonorous.
The only posts I've seen of a new UK 40i owner and his average is 21mpg and he lives in Lancashire.......so if not heavy urban, that will indeed be sub-20 if you spend much time near the M25!
That's 10-12 mpg average worse than my F15 40d, and frankly I don't see that as 'barely different'. Laughably bad for the petrol, yes, not the diesel.
And its a SUV FFS, not a sports car
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 . Ares said:
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.
aeropilot said:
st4 said:
These new diesels aren't as economical as you think.
Given you don't own one how would you know..... My 40d X5 is way more economical than my E82 135i with the N55 engine, and that weighed about 600kg less and didn't have the aerodynamics of a house brick.
Yeah, these diesels sure aren't as economical as you think.....
And even coming from 6 years of the N55, I don't think the N57 is that unrefined for an oil burner, and at cruising speed, its pretty much inaudible.
And yet, there are less fuel station visits than our 290hp supercharged A6, especially when they both are being used mainly in the city. Think there's 500kg weight difference between them as well.
And I don't get the coarseness that people mention on here. It idles very smoothly for a diesel, but at the end of the day it is no N53. When it gets going it is much smoother, no vibrations, and pulls like a train, especially in the X5. What does feel coarse is the V6 diesels, which goes to show why Merc have decided to put straight 6 diesels in the S-Class now. But what feels the most coarse of all the engines is the straight six 272hp petrol that the X5 had. That was something that struggled with the weight of the X5, and issues arose from that engine being used. Some of the petrol engines in these large SUV's run out of puff at higher speeds, where torque really matters. It is the torque of these diesels that give these cars the overtaking ability they have, the petrols have to really rev out so that they can get past. On a motorway, at 2-3K revs, these cars really shine, the advantage of having a larger turbocharger as well really comes to use then. Cleverly engineered cars which you can only appreciate when you own one! Did I mention that they drive great?
schaeffs said:
I note you live up in Scotland - that could explain why your MPG in a petrol isn't a lot different to the quoted Diesel numbers. Down in the smokey south a real world drive in a petrol SUV gave me mid teens. So it's more like 10MPG plus - which is a bigger difference.
Yep. Bulk of my miles are done on sweeping A and B roads and motorways/autoroutes/autopistasMost of my cars end up averaging between the extra urban figure and combined figures.
Though if I lived in England I’d really have to have the petrol or hybrid. That idling/low speed racket from the diesel - I couldn’t be doing with that!!!
st4 said:
Yep. Bulk of my miles are done on sweeping A and B roads and motorways/autoroutes/autopistas
Most of my cars end up averaging between the extra urban figure and combined figures.
Though if I lived in England I’d really have to have the petrol or hybrid. That idling/low speed racket from the diesel - I couldn’t be doing with that!!!
I beg to differ on Idling / low speed "racket". Of the cars I have at the moment - the one that makes the most "racket" at idle is the GT4... quite happy to live with that though...Most of my cars end up averaging between the extra urban figure and combined figures.
Though if I lived in England I’d really have to have the petrol or hybrid. That idling/low speed racket from the diesel - I couldn’t be doing with that!!!
st4 said:
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".
It must have been broken. I have commuted to France for a few months in a 2017 X5 3.0d. I couldn't hear it, extremely refined and NVH easily commensurate with the price.schaeffs said:
st4 said:
Yep. Bulk of my miles are done on sweeping A and B roads and motorways/autoroutes/autopistas
Most of my cars end up averaging between the extra urban figure and combined figures.
Though if I lived in England I’d really have to have the petrol or hybrid. That idling/low speed racket from the diesel - I couldn’t be doing with that!!!
I beg to differ on Idling / low speed "racket". Of the cars I have at the moment - the one that makes the most "racket" at idle is the GT4... quite happy to live with that though...Most of my cars end up averaging between the extra urban figure and combined figures.
Though if I lived in England I’d really have to have the petrol or hybrid. That idling/low speed racket from the diesel - I couldn’t be doing with that!!!
nickfrog said:
It must have been broken. I have commuted to France for a few months in a 2017 X5 3.0d. I couldn't hear it, extremely refined and NVH easily commensurate with the price.
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s just how it is - not refined. If it were broken it wouldn’t have driven and would have been lit up with warning lights.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff