X5 [Official] BMW X5 (F15)

[Giannis]

I find BMW's M and Performance Packages for the X-Line way to much for a SAV. I'd say they are a bit overdone. I'd stick with the regular bodykit and spend my extra cash in upgrading the interior.

 

[kip]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

+ Delivers amazing speeds also on winding roads
+ Travel comfort in a sporty car
+ Consumption and power in this class
- Price in Finland
- Door rubber seals swing out
- Front seat leather worn in a relatively new test car

We were convinced by the new BMW X5 F15 when we tested it and that's why we decided to test the sportiest version, the BMW Motorsport tuned M50d. On paper it promises a lot from the same three-liter engine, which we found plenty strong already in the 30d. This version promises 381 horsepower (280 kW) thanks to triple-turbo technology and variable turbine geometry. Acceleration 0-100 km/h takes only 5.3 seconds and this was achived easily in the previous model (E70). Similar power can be found in the Porsche Cayenne and Volkswagen Touareg, but they are equipped with less economical V8 diesel engine and are not available as 7-seaters.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The car looks impressive, with its large air intakes that visually separate it from other models. Ferric Grey exterior mirrors and a titanium kidneys further emphasize the sporty look. The appearance resembles the upcoming X5M model based on spy photos. The interior is also a significant improvement over the basic car's already impressive interior. The M-Sport steering wheel is designed to be functional and sporty at the same time, the Hexagon trim is modern and stylish, the iDrive Touch is working perfectly and the LED stripes and M logos promise performance. The cabin is elegant and eye-pleasing, but we still crave for a full-LED instrument panel.

Is the M50d a real M car ? Yes and no. Acceleration is smooth rubberband-like and devoid of drama, but when the gas pedal is floored, this car moves. A short time ago we test-drove the M5 and that kind of hooligan is not present in this car, but in its defense, let it be said that the M6 is also considerably more moderate, and a car of this size and purpose has never felt sportier. Factory acceleration claims were difficult to achieve due to the snowy weather conditions, but at no time was there doubt if it could deliver as promised in dry conditions, it feels that powerful. It would be interesting to know how much horsepower the engine actually produces, as the previous E70 M50d weighed approximately 40kg (2225 kg vs 2265 kg) less, and yet the rated power and torque figures are unchanged. How then has the acceleration time decreased by 0.1s? A SUV will never be nor should it be a sportscar. The high performance delivered combined with an average fuel consumption of 6.7 l/100 km and CO2-emissions of 177 g / km is a magnificent achievement from a car that produces incredible speeds almost unnoticeably. Nokia Hakkapeliitta 7 SUV tires surprised us with the grip they delivered when cornering. It has a clear sporty character, but at the same time it is very stable and predictable at the limit.

Our test consumption was a positive surprise. Instantaneous consumption rose to more than 9 liters per 100 km, but incredibly at the end of our dynamic cold weather test the consumption fell to even smaler digits. In the SUV class we are accustomed to see such readings in cars with half of the power of the M50d and only in recent years. Unbelievable!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The adjustable M- chassis ensures that the M50d behaves accurately and with a good steering feel. Dynamic dampers and rear air suspension is fitted with a particularly sporty driving style in mind, but not at the expense of passenger comfort, at least in our test car with 19-inch wheels. We drove the M50d back-to-back with an Audi Q5 with the S-line package suspension and the BMW chassis is plenty more comfortable. The M50d is very relaxing to drive and it also offers a surprisingly comfortable ride.

We need to mention the Night Vision -assistant in our test car. It picked up pedestrians wearing dark clothing in the dark without any problems, but luckily we had no chance to test it's ability to warn us of animals such as moose. This option expands night time driving safety for all concerned. The test car's high-powered LED-headlights pleased with their tone and function, even though in a recent Auto Bild magazine test the LED's were destroyed in light performance by the Xenon-headlights in a BMW 435i. The LED headlights of the BMW X5 are higher, however, and it is possible therefore, that they work better than in the 4-series. Subjectively the LED-lights impressed us. In any case, the LED lights should only be considered if their appearance pleases, because the high beam assistant and the adaptive features are available for the standard Xenon lights for 2000 euros less.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Thanks to the Dynamic- suspension package, our BMW X5 M50d was very agile. The Dynamic Performance Control torque vectoring technology and the Dynamic Drive active chassis control system give the car a neutral steering feel and minimize lateral body movement while cornering. One can truly travel at incredible speeds straight and in the bends. From April 2014 onwards the Driving Assistant and the individual tire pressure sensors will be included as a standard option in the X5 and make the car an even more desirable package. The change also renders the Driving Assistant Plus -package unnecessary as by ticking only the active cruise control option box, one saves a tidy sum of money. Of course, the Traffic Jam Assistant Assistant is then not included, but who really needs an assistant that works only in speeds of less than 40 km / h on motorways in Finland? We do not really support equipment, which gives the driver the opportunity to draw his attention away from the traffic. Autopiloting in our opinion should only be reserved for safety equipment, such as in lane departure warning technology, but BMWs do not have this feature at the moment.

The M50d's only real problem is it's price in Finland. Even with moderate emissions of only 177 Co2, the environment tax on our car raised the total price to an unbelievable 170 000 euros. The price list will be updated on 1.3.2014, but we have no information on its contents yet. With the popularity of this car causing delays, we suspect the prices won't be falling. We have heard rumors that for example in the UK the prices have gone up. If one forgets the price, the current M50d is by far the best sporty SUV on the market, as it has an economical and powerful engine combined with seven-seat practicality. The car is a unique combination of practicality and power at least until the new Audi Q7 arrives. Can the upcoming X5M be any better? We look forward to finding out.

Test Results:

Acceleration from 0-100 km / h: 6.2s (1 person , slick and snow-covered surface and a full tank of winter diesel)
Test consumption: 8.9 l/100 km

Technical Specifications:

Fuel consumption
City 7.6 l/100 km
Road l/100 km 6,2
Combined in l/100 km 6.7
Co2 emissions in g / km 177
Tank capacity l (about ) 85

Performance
Top speed km / h 250
Acceleration from 0-100 km / h ( s ) 5.3

Weight
Curb weight 2265 kg EU
The maximum permitted gross weight kg 2900
Load capacity 710 kg
Permissible axle front / rear kg 1.370/1.580

Motor
Number of cylinders / valves per cylinder 6/4

Displacement 2993 ccm
Stroke / bore mm 90.0 / 84.0
Rated output kW ( hp) RPM 1/min 280 ( 381 ) / 4000 to 4400
Maximum torque Nm at rpm 740 1/min / 2,000 to 3,000
Compression ratio : 1 16.0

Wheels and Tires
Front tire size 255/50 R19 107W
Rear tire size 285/45 R19 111W
Wheel size and material in front 9J x 19-inch light alloy
Wheel size and the material behind the 10J x 19-inch light alloy

http://autohullut.fi/english/autohullut-fi-test-2014-bmw-x5-f15-m50d-review/

 

[Rainer271]

 

[kip]

 

[EMpower]

I would imagine RRSS vs X5 50i would have been a better comparison. Gas vs gas, rather than gas vs diesel.
When will RR loose it bread box looks? Give it some nice shoulder lines to reduce that boxy appearance.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

I would imagine RRSS vs X5 50i would have been a better comparison. Gas vs gas, rather than gas vs diesel.
When will RR loose it bread box looks? Give it some nice shoulder lines to reduce that boxy appearance.

Actually, that's what I find appealing about it.

 

[Cashmere]

I dont know if it's just the lighting but the RR's interior looks terrible in that pic. Don't think its going to age very well.

 

[Merc1]

The interior is has been sanitized. It doesn't have the character of the old interior with all the buttons and switches. Looks terribly plain now. The outside is equally dull now that I've seen it on the road more frequently. I think for the first time since there has been both a RR and RR Sport, I like the Range Rover better. RR Sport has been made too sleek and nearly characterless IMO.

M

 

[klier]

The only nice Range Rover is the real Range Rover.

The Sport is ugly with an even uglier interior, and the Evoque is a very bad joke.

 

[EnI]

BMW's formula SAV vs SAC (or in the latest case Sedan vs Gran Coupe vs Gran Turismo) dictates tamer core models (sedans, SAVs) compared to more specialized niche spin-offs like SACs, Gran Coupes & Gran Turismos - all of them offering a more specific character vs the sedan / SAV.

Therefore eg. an SAV model always will be a bit more constrained and "dull" in character than its SAC spin-off. Same case with Sedan vs Gran Coupe. And even in the case of Sedan vs Gran Turismo - where Gran Turismo is a more comfortable model vs the Sedan.

So, making the core models like SAVs & Sedans more "vanilla" is to make a bigger difference to the niche spin-offs of those models. Just like eg. Land Rover offers Range Rover in standard & Sport guise, BMW offers 2 models in this particular segment: more utilitarian X5, and sportier X6. So, if anything the X5 should have been compared to the standard Range Rover variant, while the Sport one to the X6.

So, comparing X5 to RR Sport or to Cayenne will almost always result in X5's defeat ... Since X5 has been deliberately made tamer. So, sportier SAVs like Cayenne, Macan, RR Sport, RR Evoque, Infiniti FX, the upcoming SAVs from Jaguar, Maserati & Lamborghini etc are NATURAL RIVALS to BMW SAC's, not really the SAVs. Sure M Performance versions of SAVs come closer but still being more utilitarian & comfortable and a bit less dynamic then the SAVs from sportier brands.

On the other hand BMW SACs are there to cover that particular segment ... to fight with Porsche, Jaguar, Infiniti, Maserati, RangeRover Sport etc SAVs. Sure they come in compromised coupeish shape - being less practical / spacious. But oozing sportier appearance due to their coupeish roof line.

With this particular dual formula BMW covers both customer pools - with 2 different models, both being more suitable for what do they intend to offer. Sure there are some customers out there wanting an über sporty more practical SAV (eg. without M badge) - those are now forced to switch the brands & look at Porsche, Jaguar, Maserati etc. Good thing or bad thing? It looks like BMW's formula is working. A vast majority who need a sporty & practical SAV are totally satisfied with what X5 & X3 & X1 do offer ... Yet when in need for more focused & a more showy vehicle in this segment they are offered an SAC model: being that X6, soon to come X4 and in the foreseeable future also an X2.

OK, perhaps in US in particular SACs are not very popular - but this market in particular is the one demanding more comfortable SAVs from BMW. And one of the biggest market for M variants (incl vehicles featuring M Sport package) - and this covers the vast majority of SAV customers there. Without making SAVs too hard core. While in other markets SACs are very popular - bought & driven by people who want a statement car of a SAV size but in more exotic shape (eg. with coupe roof line), with sportier character & not being too practical (yet obviously those who buy SACs don't need SAV practicality at all).

In the end: in all markets this formula works. In this or other way. As explained above. Therefore more SACs are coming. First X4, then X2, and most probably even the X8.

You have to have in mind BMW cars are offered globally - and what it matters to BMW AG most is a WORLDWIDE total performance. So, it's totally wrong eg. to judge some model's (un)success by pointing out its performance in particular market. Eg. some model sells extremely well in some markets, while totally underperforming in others. And it can be completely opposite with some other model. Not all models are performing equally well in all the markets - thats totally natural with so many different models in the portfolio. The troubled models are the ones completely underperforming in total (worldwide) ... and currently Z4 is such a model, unfortunately.

 

[Kilcrohane]

Quote from Autocar NZ's R/Rover Sport v BMW X5 M50d article above:

'the Range Rover will go further into the wilds than the X5, with all of its proper 4x4 hardware'

'proper 4x4 hardware'? Isn't this R/R Sport Supercharged sans a low-range transfer box, and thus essentially just like any other faux/soft-roader, dependent on its tyre type for its off-road ability more than anything else?

Autocar, even if it is NZ, up to its old mis-information tricks?

As to the claimed weight-loss of the 'new' R/R Sport, if you add back the weight of the low-range transfer box, which the first R/R Sport had as standard - as it was just a 2004 Discovery in drag - the claimed up to 400 kilos weight loss shrinks further, to about 150 kilos maximum, around 2,550(with low-range transfer box) v 2,700 kilos.

I agree with the others. The first R/R Sport may have just been a re-bodied Discovery with a £20k larger price tag, but at least it was rather honest - slow as molasses, massively over-weight, shoddily built, but properly off-road capable and its chassis over-engineered, thanks to Ford's deep, deep pockets. A dinosaur but it had some credibility.

The 'new' R/R Sport, without its as A/Car NZ says 'proper off-road hardware' is a poseur, pretending to be hard as nails but now just another faux off-roader, and one that's still 200 kgs overweight, poorly built, with outdated engines, and costing up to £30k more than the better built, much more frugal and up to date with safety and infotainment tech competition.

No one in New Zealand is going to buy a petrol Range Rover, that in reality will do around 17 litres/100 kms driven carefully. Is that why the A/Car test didn't give the actual fuel economy? I'd guess the X5 50d managed about 11-12 litres/100 km, so around 50% better than the R/R Sport, for very similar performance.

The majority of R/R Sports and new BMW X5s sold will be diesels. The first available comparison done by Auto Motor und Sport showed the base X5 30d(€59k) outperformed the higher-powered, on paper, SDV6 R/R Sport(€70k), and with better fuel economy:

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...sdv6-schwergewichtige-diesel-suv-8031238.html

And is this why A/Car NZ didn't show a picture of the Range Rover from the rear?

So much like a hippopotamus it's uncanny.

 

[klier]

Well said!

 

[Kilcrohane]

So, comparing X5 to RR Sport or to Cayenne will almost always result in X5's defeat

eh? and you're supposed to be on BMW's side? 'With friends like that... '.

Did you read the NZ Autocar article? You do realise that the outcome was preordained, and that if you strip out their ludicrous bias the X5 is the eminently better car, even in this irrelevant 50d v R/R S/C level?

Dear God, is it any wonder ordinary people get taken in by JLR/the media's propaganda when a seasoned, notionally pro-BMW car enthusiast can't see what's going down.

The almost entirely irrelevant 50d had very simliar perfomance - I'll bet 100 NZ bucks they never actually tested the acceleration times by the way, and if they did the R/R never recorded 4.9s 0-100 km/h(L/R themselves only claim 5 s for 0-60 mph) - similar off-roading 'hardware', was much better built, more spacious, up to date, infinitely more frugal, yet A/Car pronounced the R/R the winner.

As others said this comparo is irrelevant. It should have been the X5 50i, which I have no doubt would out-perform the 2.5 tonne R/Rover, for far less bucks, and with 20-30% better fuel economy, and that's before the X5 M with nearer 600 hp arrives later this year.

The only objective, relevant comparo of the new X5 versus the R/R Sport so far is the AMuS one. In that the base six-cylinder X5 demolished the higher-powered 'sporty' R/R 'Sport'.

Please, Enl, I know you mean well but absorb all the available info before hasty, in this case 180 degree wrong assumptions. JLR has quite enough media helpers and paid 'internet maketers' out there without scoring own goals.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

Did you read the NZ Autocar article? You do realise that the outcome was preordained

Dear God, is it any wonder ordinary people get taken in by JLR/the media's propaganda JLR has quite enough media helpers

@Kilcrohane

YOU are the one who posts so much propaganda. You clearly don't like JLR, for whatever reason, so you are now continuing your relentless campaign on here. I've no idea why you're not still banned, but anyway.

You only see things which fit in with your narrow viewpoint. You claim Autocar and British car magazines in general are just paid shills for JLR. If that is the case then please explain to me these three verdicts.

Two days ago. In Autocar posted two days ago, Jaguar F-Type comes third out of four.
http://www.germancarforum.com/commu...vs-rivals-911-r8-f-type-v8.50330/#post-684547

Posted three days ago. Car Magazine vote for the Mercedes-Benz E 63 AMG S and NOT the Jaguar XFR-S.
http://www.germancarforum.com/commu...-rs7-vs-m5-vs-e63-vs-xfr-s.50327/#post-684327

Posted 5 days ago. Autocar compare the Evoque with the Macan. The Macan doesn't just win. It annihilates the Evoque, and Steve Sutcliffe makes this perfectly clear. If Autocar were on JLR's payroll, wouldn't they at the very least say the Evoque is ALMOST as good as the Macan?
http://www.germancarforum.com/commu...acan-vs-range-rover-evoque.50314/#post-684183


Those three reviews are just in the last 5 days alone, and completely disprove your theory. If you were open minded you would look at this evidence and realise that Autocar are not just a mouthpiece for JLR, but you're not. You have your completely biased viewpoint and nothing is going to change that.

I've no idea what's happened in your past that you have this complete irrational hatred of a certain manufacturer. Personally I couldn't give a toss about JLR, but I hate seeing someone coming on here and just posting nonsense and getting away with it.

 

[mini_cooper4]

The M-Sport has the best BMW interior in the current line up IMO.
No doubt the best interior ever in a SUV! Woahhh! I love it!!!!
Pity that the exterior is a complete piece of shiz!

 

[EnI]

eh? and you're supposed to be on BMW's side? 'With friends like that... '.

Did you read the NZ Autocar article? You do realise that the outcome was preordained, and that if you strip out their ludicrous bias the X5 is the eminently better car, even in this irrelevant 50d v R/R S/C level?

Dear God, is it any wonder ordinary people get taken in by JLR/the media's propaganda when a seasoned, notionally pro-BMW car enthusiast can't see what's going down.

Sure even a standard X5 in non-M guise could be a better CAR than eg RR Sport but it lacks the emotional appeal (an exotic factor) that Cayenne, RR Sport etc offer due to their more focused & exotic image - being more exclusive than X5, also due to lack of base-engine offerings. So, for more focused & exotic image compared to a regular SAV BMW does offer SACs - which are more (image wise) comparable to Cayenne, RR Sport etc. And also character wise.

It's also about (people's) perception ... not necessarily about objective facts. And in many eyes RR Sport > X5. After all RR has more brand cachet than BMW X-family. And just like Porsche & Jaguar & Maserati has more brand cachet than BMW (also due to bigger exclusivity). And PR & "propaganda" just enforce that fact.

Yet in this aspect BMW, MB & Audi are phenomena - still perceived as premium & luxury & in some cases even exclusive although selling several times more vehicles than eg Porsche, Range Rover, Jaguar, Maserati etc.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

I thought the RRS with s/c V8 had a low-range transfer case?

 

[JLBM]

Oh god, now I'll have even less time for this site, with kilcrohane unbanned, I'll have to trundle through pages and pages of vexatious crap.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

Oh god, now I'll have even less time for this site, with kilcrohane unbanned, I'll have to trundle through pages and pages of vexatious crap.

You could just block him like I've done, but if you're anything like me you won't be able to resist looking. It's like a car crash.

 

[SCOTT27]

In the end: in all markets this formula works. In this or other way. As explained above. Therefore more SACs are coming. First X4, then X2, and most probably even the X8.

I was speaking to someone who expects an X8 to happen before the end of the decade.

An X8? that would be a monster.

You can imagine the line up here.