|
Car and Driver television just gave an in depth report of the BMW X5 this weekend. They were impressed by it's looks, powerful V8, best in class handling, and good towing capability. They did not like the sport package because the ride was very rough. Bottom line, they don't recommend it. They didn't like the limited off-road ability, small cargo space (11 cubes less than a Ford escape), thin padded back seat, and high price. It's a good BMW but a poor SUV.
They said that there were several other choices that did the "sport utility thing" better than the BMW. I was on the fence for some time about whether to get the MDX, the X5, or the Outback H6 VDC. What I have learned is that a good sport utility and a good sports car are divergent themes. You can't make one vehicle that's good at both. I now appreciate the confident and stable handling of the MDX. It may not feel like a sports car, but that's a good thing. |
|
|
|
MDXS,
I considered all the vehicles you just mentioned plus others before I made the choice to order the MDX. I actually looked at the X5 before I even knew about the MDX and eliminated it both on the lack of cargo space and high price. I actually drove the 3.0i which has the 6 cyliner engine and was very impressed with the handling but not with the other two criterion I mentioned. Interesting I read a review of the X5 recently and the writer said the 3.0i was better than the 4.4i due to its different suspension and availability of a manual transmission for what it's worth. The Subaru Outback H6 would have be much more preferable because we have owned Subarus for the past 15 years and currently drive a 1994 SVX which is both a sports car and has AWD. The problem again with the Outback was the lack of cargo space and it is just smaller than a mid-sized SUV. Didn't even consider the ML320 because of lack of cargo space.
My wife and I do a lot of our own landscaping on a 1.1 acre lot so the ability to haul stuff is one of the major reasons we have owned an SUV or wagon for the past 10 years. Second we have a very large dog that likes to go for rides and needs to be transported to the groomer and vet frequently. A final reason is the desire for AWD/4WD to improve winter traction since we live in the Chicago suburbs. This is why we chose the MDX. It simply was the biggest SUV we could buy that provided car-like driving characteristics for the least amount money. I don't care how good or bad an SUV the MLs, the X5s or the RX300 are or their price or status position with the rest of society, they simply do not meet our criteria. This doesn't necessarily mean they would not be a match made in heaven for someone else. |
|
|
|
| If you are looking to seat more than 5 people and have more cargo space, you can skip the BMW X5. If you looking to buy the ML320 and RX300, then you owe it to yourself by not looking at the X5. |
|
|
|
At least BMW admits it's not an SUV. There are a lot of sedans that have more cargo room in their trunk than the BMW has (something on the order of 16.5 cubic feet behind the second row!).
The X5 is a very unusual vehicle. It weighs a LOT (like a Navigator) even though its dimensions aren't huge. While its 6-cylinder doesn't look powerful on paper, the vehicle is reasonably quick though it still lags behind the MDX.
The handling is great, the interior is very nice (subjective opinion), it has lots of safety features, and I love the exterior look. That said, it's frightfully expensive, doesn't fit my needs (passenger and cargo room), and its first 1.5 years of reliability looks really bad. Lots of reports of not only build quality issues but mechanical failures, on Edmunds Townhall and bimmer.org
To me, it'd be a good second car, sort of like the "sporty 2+2 coupe" to go along with my MDX-sport sedan ;-) |
|
|
|
| If you buy the X5 for sportiness, why not buy BMW's M3. It costs about the same and has much much more sortiness than the X5 !!! |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GoFast_K
If you buy the X5 for sportiness, why not buy BMW's M3. It costs about the same and has much much more sortiness than the X5 !!!
Good point. My bizarre fantasy is based on the assumption that I've decided I want to ride high (with AWD) and heavy with sufficient tonnage too ;-)
I guess for AWD-only there's always that 4wd 911 Turbo that MotorWeek reviewed in the same episode it looked at the MDX. I'd daresay that has even less cargo space than the X5! |
|
|
|
| I agree with wmquan opinions of the X5. It is a nice vehicle. It just has a very narrow scope when comes to practicality. If I had an X5 I would still want an SUV and sports car too. Like one reviewer wrote, the X5 may handle very well but few people will feel comfortable pushing a heavy high riding vehicle to it's limits. If it fits your needs, it is a very nice SUV. Same with the RX300. I wouldn't buy an ML320 or Pathfinder though, but they are both decent. The new Explorer also looks good for those that need towing and/or better off-road ability. |
|
|
|
One thing I do like about the X5, and this is personal taste, are the various approaches to using aluminum trim in the interior. I've seen similar things on some Audis and when executed correctly, it can look really nice.
You're absolutely right about pushing it to the limits. It can definitely be pushed really hard, but a lot of folks won't be comfortable doing it.
Here's an irony: for all the money it costs, it doesn't come with either front or rear mudflaps. It's a dealer-installed accessory.
I really discounted that Motor Trend comparison where the X5 beat the MDX. The reviewer spent a lot of time complaining about MDX control placement (e.g. the moonroof control on the driver's side panel, which I don't mind at all and prefer). In the end, he gave the comparison to the X5 strictly based on emotional reasons of driving feel. Granted that the X5 does have a better driving feel than the MDX, but it's not worth it for a lot of people, especially with what you have to give up. |
|
|
|
I agree with wmquan about the look of the X5 interior, especially the nice integration of leather, wood and aluminum. The split temperature controls for the front seat passengers were also nice.
In the end, we decided on the MDX for its far more practical aspects (e.g., cargo size and seating) and also couldn't justify the substantial additional costs of the X5. For us, it would have meant choosing between a loaded MDX or a stripped-down X5, in addition to sacrificing a great deal of practicality.
|
|
|
|
We too looked at the X5. First time I sat in it, I hit my head on the inside top door frame. I have never had to duck to get into an SUV before (I know BMW says SAV, but for comparisons sake its an SUV!). I am not that tall (5'11", or 6' with good shoes). On two separate occasions we visited BMW and I had to duck to get in. Apparently no one else has this problem.
Oh well, bottom line its a nice car. But we chose MDX because of price, size, and fit. |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
We too looked at the X5. First time I sat in it, I hit my head on the inside top door frame. I have never had to duck to get into an SUV before (I know BMW says SAV, but for comparisons sake its an SUV!). I am not that tall (5'11", or 6' with good shoes). On two separate occasions we visited BMW and I had to duck to get in. Apparently no one else has this problem.
Oh well, bottom line its a nice car. But we chose MDX because of price, size, and fit.
Looked at the X5 real hard prior to the MDX decision. Two major strikes: 1) It's reallllly small inside and putting down the second row seat requires removing the cargo cover which takes Houdini like skills. 2) With the options I wanted a 3.0 was $46K. Yikes! That's $16K worth of options!
MDX represented a much better value and is much larger and more flexible interior wise. |
|
|
|
wmquan,
You mentioned quality problems with the X5 in one of your earlier posts. There have been similar complaints with the ML320. I know for a fact that ML320 plant in Alabama was a brand new facility that had to hire brand new assembly workers which might have contributed to some of the problems. In the case of the X5 I believe I read that it is made in South Carolina. Is this a brand new facility or was this plant used before to make other BMW models such as the 300 series? If it was a greenfield facility like the ML320 plant that might explain some of the quality problems. If not then maybe the Germans have yet to learn how to make good vehicles in this country or Canada as the Japanese have (Honda and Toyota). |
|
|
|
| I haven't even looked at the Mercedes or the Beemer. Simply too pricey. My husband is a physician, but we have three kids to educate and I like to take my vacation every year. There is is simply no question in my mind, as a former Acura Legend owner....the MDX is beautiful, carries 6 gymnasts or basketball players in style,has 4WD and is a GREAT VALUE. I looked at the Durango, but I'm a little bored with them, and truthfully, I don't want to drive a "truck". I can't wait to get my MDX...now if I could just make my COLOR choice and decide whether I really need a navigation package. I have driven a Town and Country for the last 4 years. In Indiana, I would prefer 4WD. |
|
|
|
The plant first made the 318tii and later the Z3. Actually, the reports that I have heard are that, on average, the reliability of the X5 has been good.
Tom
quote:
Originally posted by remery
wmquan,
You mentioned quality problems with the X5 in one of your earlier posts. There have been similar complaints with the ML320. I know for a fact that ML320 plant in Alabama was a brand new facility that had to hire brand new assembly workers which might have contributed to some of the problems. In the case of the X5 I believe I read that it is made in South Carolina. Is this a brand new facility or was this plant used before to make other BMW models such as the 300 series? If it was a greenfield facility like the ML320 plant that might explain some of the quality problems. If not then maybe the Germans have yet to learn how to make good vehicles in this country or Canada as the Japanese have (Honda and Toyota).
|
|
|
|
Tom,
Thanks for the info. I thought that BMW has been producing cars there for a few years. If you have heard of few quality problems that supports my basic thought. Using an existing plant with experienced workers to build a totally new vehicle is better than using a brand new one. The MDX is made in a plant that produced Odysseys for a couple of years. |
|
|
|
Yep, and if you look at the reliability of the Odyssey for 1999 (which I beleive was the first year), it was worse than average. In fact, Consumers lists it as a used vehicle to avoid.
Tom
quote:
Originally posted by remery
Tom,
Using an existing plant with experienced workers to build a totally new vehicle is better than using a brand new one. The MDX is made in a plant that produced Odysseys for a couple of years.
|
|
|
|
debrockman: Welcome aboard!
Everyone will have their own opinion about color choices, but for me I prefer the darker exterior. Preferred the saddle interior, so we ordered the Mahogany. There are several great photos of the Mahogany (as well as other colors) over in the Gallery section. Since not all interiors are available with every exterior perhaps interior preference is a good place to start.
As for the Nav system I recommend it. It is way cool :cool:!
I also prefer the general information display that the Nav option offers over the Base display system. Info such as the Trip Computer, MPG info, temperature, etc diplays differently between the two. Good Luck. |
|
|
|
