Disco 4 versus X5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cartm58

comparing a x5 and D4 is like comparing a Kruger and Land Cruiser, both are wagons and both have off road abilities but are built for totally different markets and consumers no one buying a x5 is a serious off roader or buying it for towing anything and why anyone outside the Eastern ski fields and isn't a regular skier would want to buy one instead of BMW sedan is beyond my comprehension.

But then again l am poor person and don't have more money than sense

---

There are good reasons for buying a soft-roader vs a sedan even if you have no interests in going offroad - practicality in terms of carrying bulky items (bikes etc), some are better at towing and you often have a better choice of economical TD motors. There's also the greater height which make them easier to get in/out of than a low slung sedan and provides greater visibility in traffic. I recommended a Forester to my folks purely for this reason as they were struggling to get in/out of a Camry and the visibility was terrible. The on-road dynamic capabilities of a X5 will exceed most people's capabilities and the TDs are more economic than many sedans - seems a perfectly legitimate choice, even if the tyres never saw dirt...

Speaking of tyres.........just wait till you need to replace them on an X5. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by feraldisco

There are good reasons for buying a soft-roader vs a sedan even if you have no interests in going offroad - practicality in terms of carrying bulky items (bikes etc), some are better at towing and you often have a better choice of economical TD motors. There's also the greater height which make them easier to get in/out of than a low slung sedan and provides greater visibility in traffic. I recommended a Forester to my folks purely for this reason as they were struggling to get in/out of a Camry and the visibility was terrible. The on-road dynamic capabilities of a X5 will exceed most people's capabilities and the TDs are more economic than many sedans - seems a perfectly legitimate choice, even if the tyres never saw dirt...

---

Excellent...now tell that to the raving environmentalist fringe dwellers.

Ha, X5 tyres!!!!! I reckon I've replaced at least 10 over the past 7 years. Cost a bloody arm and a leg. Have to say a major service ain't much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mowog

At 5:10 in the video below pretty well sums it up. It is an X6 to be fair.

YouTube- Top Gear - 14x06 - BMW X6

---

I read one of the Top Gear articles on the X5 some time ago...to sum it up, they weren't very complimenary regarding it's toughness or off road cred. They specifically stated that you are constantly aware that it's a 5 series sedan "trying" to have off road capability.

I currently have The Audi equivalent - Q7, however after an 'unplanned' night out under the stars in Murray Sunset SP last New Year and an SES rescue (some great pics, and beer stories though), I'm currently looking to replace it with a D4. I love the Q7 (The X5 was also good, but I just preferred the Audi), but certainly wouldn't consider it for anything remotely akin to serious 4wd conditions (I think the insurance company are still reeling from the shock!).
Still haven't decided on a final spec, but thinking of the 2.7 due to the whole tyre issue, and when I had a test drive of both the 2.7 and 3.0, I was surprised about the smaller engine - more grunt than I was expecting, and don't need any more speeding fines :).

Don't forget the 2.7 is a lot less $ than the 3.0.

Sounds you're like me....the 2.7 is adequate and I don't need to spend $10k to get to 100km/h 3 seconds quicker. They both cruise at 110 with a trailer.

Someone recently said to me the 3.0 is a lot better at overtaking but I said in return I can't think of too many overtaking chances I've missed through driving a 2.7 instead of a 3.0, or anywhere offroad the 3.0 could go the 2.7 could not follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

Don't forget the 2.7 is a lot less $ than the 3.0.

Sounds you're like me....the 2.7 is adequate and I don't need to spend $10k to get to 100km/h 3 seconds quicker. They both cruise at 110 with a trailer.

Someone recently said to me the 3.0 is a lot better at overtaking but I said in return I can't think of too many overtaking chances I've missed through driving a 2.7 instead of a 3.0, or anywhere offroad the 3.0 could go the 2.7 could not follow.

---

Robert, you are right, the 2.7Lt is adequate and does a great job.
I had the D3 2.7Lt and now the D4 3.0Lt. When it comes to towing or relaxed driving you can't compare 600Nm v 440Nm.
The 3.0Lt held top gear on every hill from Melbourne to Albury towing my 2 Ton boat, whereas the 2.7Lt used to change down on any reasonble incline. Best of all, I now have confidence overtaking with my boat, knowing that I have plenty of grunt.
Having said this, not everyone is towing and are happy to wait that bit longer for a gap in traffic or an extra gear change down here and there.
For me, I will be sticking with the 3.0Lt (or better) when I change to the D5.
Cheers, Craig

Agreed.

If I was towing and not offroading I'd buy a 3.0 and not really accessorise it.

As I'm offroading and not towing it's the 2.7, and the difference in $ goes into accessories.

I do love the 3.0 engine, just don't like the cost or the tyre options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whilatron

however after an 'unplanned' night out under the stars in Murray Sunset SP last New Year and an SES rescue (some great pics, and beer stories though),

---

You had better post some pics, or even better some more details in the stories thread?