Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MB Defectors to Other Marques Forum' started by verytalldave, Oct 31, 2008.
For goodness sake, buy the car not the badge - don't bite your nose off to spite your face!
its the principle
..that is a lot of car for the money - is that a facelifted one? and how can you tell if it is facelifted with the newer version of I-Drive?
I saw a facelifted 7 series last week and thought it looked nice
Having owned 2 petrol models I can't resist to comment and add pics of my two.
VTD is looking at an E53 X5, not the all new E70 car, which tbh is a tad on the large side and doesn't have as nice a cabin as the E53. I wouldn't rule out the car for its VED band, a c200k can't be much less to tax and the cheaper servicing of a BMW will recoup the costs. Be aware they are quite pricey to insure and many companies want a tracker, this might be something you're comfortable with, but I wasn't meaning the premium was c. £1800/year for the 4.4i and £1600 for the 3.0i. A quote for a 4.8is was over £4000. The V8's have a higher servicing tarriff too, so a frugal mans X5 fires on 6, not 8.
Avoid the V8 model, it nose heavy, not as smooth an engine, and guzzelled fuel. If V8's are your thing the 4.4i like my ex one was the car to go for for marginally less expensive maintenece and decent performance vs the 4.8is. Avoid panoramic roofed cars, there is a loss of structural rigidity, and the mechanism didn't inspire confidence. COMMS pack for resale is ideal, but I coped without.
I never owned a diesel one, and given the experiences of owners on a uk x5 forum I wouldn't want to. Turbos went. A BMW diesel engine is seriously worth the watching, personally I'd walk away and get a petrol one.
Autoboxes are a huge bone of contention, with BMW's sealed for life service regime they didn't hold out so well. The 5sp auto in the pre face lift 3 litre models was made by general motors BTW, the ZF auto (6speed) in my V8 jobbie was sh**e. It was rough and jerky and in the sport mode you got a real "drive train shunt" when it shifted down from 2 to 3. The auto box also had a nasty habit of changing into the red zone and bouncing off the rev limiter, this was amusing but probably not best for the car. Actually in high speed overtaking it was quite dangerous as whilst it was bouncing off the rev limiter the overtake was taking longer than neccessary. Manual mode was no better when you'd select a specific gear, then it lurch into its own gear disobeying driver. MB do good auto's, BMW don't in that car. Get a manual one and save a few £k and get a decent drivers car to boot.
Both cars had an interior ambience that TBH a 211 just about match, the plastics were lovely, the wood nice, lovely leather. Electrics in my cars only played up in winter, door locks were play full and the odd mischevous warning came up and went away on restarting the engine, but these were good solid cars. The body work is in an altogether different league to my 211 with stronger paint, heavier doors, proper wheel arch liners and metal door handles rather than plastic with fake chrome bits.
I had a 3 litre petrol car with a manual gear box. I regret selling it, sometimes, it was brilliant to drive and never gave any trouble in 43k hard driven miles. It was less nose heavy than the 4.4i and being a manual it was as good as the driver and reasonably economical. The I6 petrol engine is pretty solid IIRC and suits the character of the car perfectly.
Post facelift models are better tbh as they have an updated AWD system called x5 drive which varies the level of torque bias front to rear (rather than the old sysytem of 38:62) and other updates.
My advice is to go for a 3.0i petrol with a manual IMHO. It was amazing and apart from its short gearing a really hard car to fault.
Just say no
Wrong, driven Q7, Cayenne S, Range rover, RX400h and Murano. X5 was the best, I reckon a 164 ML will probably run it close but its a superb car, but you really have to get the engine/gear box combo right.
A 164 is a bit plasticy inside but a great range of engines and apparently good to drive etc. if VTD is serious about an SUV a 164 is worth a look and in the price range of an X5.
I forgot to add, sport ones come with that awful black headlining, if you like it sport is good, if you don't an SE is better. The Se comes with smaller rims but rides better and as such can press on more in it as you know what to do. All servotronic steering X5's are hopeless, it ruined my 4,4i, way too much assistance at low speed and at high speed the car felt like it was resisting steering inputs due to the level of resistance from the helm. The nornmal steering was very heavy but once moving beautifully weighted and precise.
If you think an X5 is the best out of those you seriously need to change your drugs! Q7, Range Rover and Cayenne are leagues in front of the X5
I know the weather in Scotland has been bad as I was in Erskine on Wednesday but think the cold must be affecting your judement?
I agree with Pint6x just say NO, X5 = complete bag 'o' S***e
The one to go for is the "Facelift 3.0d version" - this was in the latter part of 2004.
This has the superior engine, trim level and is the most economical.
The 2006 model will be the facelift version, and there are MANY bargains to be had in the used car market.
This model is one I would personally look for, and would be the best buy.
SAT NAV is a must... especially if you want to sell it afterwards.
Oh and the black ones (X5s) go faster... ;o)
Having had a Cayenne S - no other 4x4 comes anywhere near it.... the 4.5 is min - 3.x and you are wasting you time and money.
Q7 are still in 25k+ zone., and it would need to be the S-line + extras... = too pricey.
Range Rover = anti green society truck!!
X5 best bargains out there, plenty to choose from, drives like a car and most of all the most economoical of them all.
ML - would only consider facelift 320CDi - again mid tp upper 20s.
a 2004/5 X5 diesel - of reasonable spec would be in the teens... it comes down to how much you want spend on car in the current climate.... car market will be down over the next couple of months - many XMAS bargains!!
I owned a Cayenne for 6 months, and hated it, couldnt get rid of it quick enough, awful suspension, gear change buttons on steering wheel, so that you change gear when tuning corners, poor mph.
The ML is more civilised, good ride,diesel pulls well, gearbox is a little jurky at low speed, 37 mpg on the motorway, average 28 mpg.
Just shows this is all down to individuals experiences, taste and perception
My Choice would be a GL420 CDI or a Range Rover Vogue.
But , realistically ... Go for an X5 3.0d Sport or an ML 320 CDI
There is one reason for choosing lower CO2, if the manufacturers realise that is happening, they will work harder at lowering emissions and therefore (usually) fuel consumption - a bonus for us drivers.
Another reason - it is not a bad way to "benchmark" engines from different manufacturers.
Everyone I know who has gone from an X5 to the Q7 has gone back to the X5.
The Q7 is a pig of a car, it even gets laughed at on the Audi forums, it handles like a pig and it not very comfy either.
Got to be an X5 or new ML.
I'd love to have one of these vehicles, but, as someone else said, the X5 has a bit of an image issue, and I'd have to visit customers in mine so it doesn't do to be too insensitive!
As it happens, I have several unconnected friends, colleagues and relatives who drive VW Touareg's, and all are pleased with them.
ML looks good from an MB perspective, but I've seen body roll and turbo lag mentioned as issues.
Have the new X5 diesel. Great car and has 7 seats. very poor MPG. Older X5 gives better mpg.
Q7 has a more comfortable ride.
Merc ML doesnt have 7 seat options.
Wrong - buy a proper car without all that 4 wheel drive junk, associated extra weight and extra fuel consumption
Why do people buy 4x4s, then try and rectify all the handling issues associated with a large truck with a high centre of gravity - i.e. put bling alloys on it, thus ensuring that any advantage from having 4 wheel drive is negated by having sports tyres which are just going to spin when towing little Jocasta's pony to the gymkhana across the muddy field - doesn't make sense.
Four wheel drive makes sense for professional rally drivers, farmers, people crossing the sahara and people living high up a mountain where snow is always there. For the rest of society it's really just a pointless add-on.
Rather than an X5, try a 5 series touring or an A6 estate - available as Quattro for those who insist on the 4 wheel drive. Both much more manageable and more economical. Or if you don't mind having to replace the transmission and you can deal with the rust, try an E class W211 estate
535d sport touring can be had for similar money now, seriously quick, feels more like a small sports saloon than a 5m estate and will give better MPG.
Also a hell of a lot more room in it than the X5.
Unless you really need to go off road then what's the point?? And if you do buy a Disco.
I don't think so , the E53 X5 is larger inside than the E61 5 Series Touring , not to mention shorter too.
There is very little between the 535d and an X5 3.0d MPG wise. In the real world and not the pie in the sky figures in brochures . Low 20's in town and high 30's on the motorway.
Ive owned both at the same time before you ask
Sorry got to disagree with you, had both too, X5 I only had for 3 weeks mind where as the 535d I had for 12 months and 25k miles, the X5 feels roomier inside, but the E61 touring has more usable space, the boot can take a lot more. In fact the usable space on the X5 was the only thing I found disapointing.
And the mpg is around 10% better round town and 20% better sat at 90mph, not worth worrying about I agree, but still slightly better, and the 535d is a much more fun car.