X3 Wanted

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Regarding the manual vs auto thing, of course this is why both are offered, but to say 'the manual is a much better drive' is only the opinion of those who think it is a much better drive. ;)
 
Why the 'huh'. I was just saying that you changed your figures to keep the difference as 3mpg as that suits the point want to make. Wasn't trying to be cute, just making an observation. :dk:


That is absolute nonsense imho, the auto suits the 2 litre diesel perfectly, far better than the manual, the manual is an absolute ball ache as the rev range is so small,
It's not nonsense. Just relating my experiences when we test drove the X3 before buying.
Bear in mind that we are specifically talking about the X3 2.0D 150bhp auto here.
The BMW 2.0D auto does suit the car alternatives (Eg 320D) where it gives significantly better performance and mpg returns.
But the OP is looking at older X3's (pre 2007 model year) which would be 150bhp autos. This X3 is just a bit too big (1850kgs empty) and already slowish (0-62 over 10 secs) to do anything but feel lethargic coupled with an auto box. It put us off completely.

This altered as BMW went ED (later 2007) and after that as the X3 benefitted from more bhp which improved the auto. But we aren't talking about that variant - or the car variants.


I can see the point of a manual in a Porsche, sort of see it in an M3, but in a 4x4??!!
I've had a number of 4x4's over the years for road and off road and all have been manuals. I don't see the problem personally unless you do a lot of towing in which case the auto makes it much easier. That said we towed with our manual X3 (bike trailers and caravan) and it was fine.
 
Regarding the manual vs auto thing, of course this is why both are offered, but to say 'the manual is a much better drive' is only the opinion of those who think it is a much better drive. ;)

I personally prefer autos. Have the C220 Cdi Auto now.
Would have def gone for 2.0D Auto on the BMW X3 were it not for the fact that it simply wasn't anywhere near as good to drive as the manual variant. :)
 
Why the 'huh'. I was just saying that you changed your figures to keep the difference as 3mpg as that suits the point want to make. Wasn't trying to be cute, just making an observation. :dk:

The Huh? was because you said I was moving the goalposts, which implied I was trying to massage the figures to my advantage.
I couldn't see how I had done that. :)

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor meaning changing the target of a process or competition by one side in order to gain advantage.
 
Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor meaning changing the target of a process or competition by one side in order to gain advantage.

Good quote. Thanks. That does describe my meaning perfectly. :thumb:
 
Good quote. Thanks. That does describe my meaning perfectly. :thumb:

Again, huh? :dk:

How does it?
Sorry to be pedantic here, but how does it?

All I said was if you get 3mpg more than me in a 2 litre diesel you will also get 3mpg more than me in a 3 litre diesel.

3 mpg difference at 38mpg is a smaller difference than 3mpg at 35mpg, so how is that me massaging figures to gain an advantage?

To me it simply shows you used an expression incorrectly?
Or am I missing something very obvious here??
 
Would have def gone for 2.0D Auto on the BMW X3 were it not for the fact that it simply wasn't anywhere near as good to drive as the manual variant. :)

For the main use you put the car to (long motorway commute) there wouldn't have been much gearchanging, but a colleague of mine had a manual VW Touareg and he's changing gear so often it's exhausting even being in the passenger seat when he's driving it in town!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom