X5 [Official] BMW X5 (F15)

[7saen]

This is exactly what I am talking about, people get mislead by the name. These extensions works with the roof spoiler as an entire system, these things won't do much good by itself.

And where exactly did you write that instead of calling it "yet more marketing BS from BMW's spin doctors"
You're not providing any information by posting something like that.

And btw I have been on this forum for probably a longer time than you have and I know a useful discussion when i read it.
What I am talking about is the quality of the discussion. If you think that you have an information then provide it. Be accurate as you claim to be.

 

[Monster]

And where exactly did you write that instead of calling it "yet more marketing BS from BMW's spin doctors"
You're not providing any information by posting something like that.

I am simply pointing out the inaccuracy of the marketing term.

And btw I have been on this forum for probably a longer time than you have and I know a useful discussion when i read it.
What I am talking about is the quality of the discussion. If you think that you have an information then provide it. Be accurate as you claim to be.

Yes you signed up half a month earlier than me, the difference is insignificant. I cannot predict what people know and don't know, I can only notice it when people develop some misunderstanding, or when they raise a question.

 

[7saen]

Yes you signed up half a month earlier than me, the difference is insignificant. I cannot predict what people know and don't know, I can only notice it when people develop some misunderstanding, or when they raise a question.

hey! it's 18 days ok?

Saying that these air flow conditioners work only with the spoiler at the end of the roof was a useful information that didn't come until members complained about you choice of words.
What I'm saying is: You'r a qulified person, so if you think that you could correct any information, please do so that we all can benifit from your knowledge. I do the same in my field, but I try to give the information right away without causing an irrelevant side-discussion (like this one) that wastes time and space
All I want is read a discussion with efficient inputs and useful information. And I realize that the quality of dialogue is dropping, which drove so many good members away from this forum.

 

[Gianclaudio]

Don't take it so hard my friend. I bet it was the only time you have received the dreaded red X. BTW, were you under the influence of a foreign substance when you made that comment?

No, I wasn't In fact, past saturday I had my first drinks in 6 months

 

[rollo]

No, I wasn't In fact, past saturday I had my first drinks in 6 months

And I just had my 6th drink in the past 2 hours!

 

[Monster]

Saying that these air flow conditioners work only with the spoiler at the end of the roof was a useful information that didn't come until members complained about you choice of words.
What I'm saying is: You'r a qulified person, so if you think that you could correct any information, please do so that we all can benifit from your knowledge. I do the same in my field, but I try to give the information right away without causing an irrelevant side-discussion (like this one) that wastes time and space

For those who wants to know a little more, a sudden change of direction of surfaces, such as the transitional section from the side of the car to the rear windscreen, will cause the attached air flow to become turbulent. These air flow conditioners or "blades" are there to provide a clean separation of the air flow away from the rear windscreen, minimize the amount of the air flowing from the side of the vehicle to the area behind the rear windscreen, thus reducing the size of the wake behind the vehicle, and the overall aerodynamic drag. The roof spoiler does the same thing for the air flowing over the top of the vehicle. So basically these components work together to prevent air flowing along the top and the side of the vehicle to leak into the area behind the car.

All I want is read a discussion with efficient inputs and useful information. And I realize that the quality of dialogue is dropping, which drove so many good members away from this forum.

We are well aware of this situation for quite a while now, unfortunately it is caused by the general change in modern culture, and I have witness this trend in many other forums.

 

[Denis91]

Anyone know, will be multifunctional instrument display available as an option?

 

[Tapsa70]

I wonder why BMW has not made completely new platform as Range Rover has and next Audi Q7 will have. X5 may lose its edge as best handling big SUV. Some media talked previously about new "X for all platform" or modified 5 platform. There seemed to be a lot of false information in the media before F15 introduction.

 

[Levi68]

I wonder why BMW has not made completely new platform as Range Rover has and next Audi Q7 will have. X5 may lose its edge as best handling big SUV. Some media talked previously about new "X for all platform" or modified 5 platform. There seemed to be a lot of false information in the media before F15 introduction.

Indeed. See what Lexus did for the LS? The same BMW did for the X5, it is such a huge facelift, that you can call it a new model. The reason is that building the new X5 on F10 platform would make the X5 even heavier. The new platform is not ready yet, the G11 7 Series will introduce it. It is on that platform that the X7 will be based. Current X5 platform is good enough, in fact it is the very best in this segment, it was also improved. X5 might have a small disadvantage in the next years, especially when the the new Q7 will be out, there are yet 4 years left till new Cayenne. There still was a huge gap between X5 and its rivals, now this gap will just narrow, but X5 is competitive enough, unlike the LS.

 

[bimmerjph]

Indeed. See what Lexus did for the LS? The same BMW did for the X5, it is such a huge facelift, that you can call it a new model. The reason is that building the new X5 on F10 platform would make the X5 even heavier. The new platform is not ready yet, the G11 7 Series will introduce it. It is on that platform that the X7 will be based. Current X5 platform is good enough, in fact it is the very best in this segment, it was also improved. X5 might have a small disadvantage in the next years, especially when the the new Q7 will be out, there are yet 4 years left till new Cayenne. There still was a huge gap between X5 and its rivals, now this gap will just narrow, but X5 is competitive enough, unlike the LS.

Is there anything other than speculation that BMW did indeed use the reuse the chassis in the new X5?

 

[Tapsa70]

"The new car is based around a lightly modified, lighter version of the existing model's monocoque steel platform. There's more hot-formed high-strength steel in the floorpan to cut weight. According to BMW, the top-of-the-line xDrive50i weighs 4,784 pounds -- 209 less than the outgoing model, even though the new one is a little bigger."

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130530/CARNEWS/130539990

 

[EnI]

All the future BMW RWD vehicles will use the modular RWD platform in the future - starting with the new 7er. The current BMW Large Platform platform will be discontinued - the last car utilizing it is the RR Wraith.

The modular RWD platform will be used for the mid size (X3, X4) & large SUVs (X5, X6, X7 etc) as well since it's suitable for xDrive as well.

Therefore putting the X5 & X6 on the heavily modified & redeveloped Large Platform (the one utilizing F10 5er, F12 6er, F01 7er, Ghost & Wraith) would not be economical, while the new RWD Modular Platform is not ready yet to be utilized. The new 7er will be the first car to use that matrix platform.

So, the most logical decision was to put the new X5 F15 on the slightly updated E70 platform, which is good enough for another 7 years. Yes, X5 will probably lose the top spot - not being the best or even second best handling SUV - but since Cayenne X5 have been 2nd already, and now others (like RR Sport etc) will probably overtake the F15 X5 in this particular field. We shall see. But still ... there will be X6: for the more driving dynamics & shaper handling. The difference will be greater than today E70 vs E71.

Yes, we can say F15 is a victim of platform transition ... some large series / model had to be. And X5/X6 seems to be "a perfect choice" since it's the last big vehicle before Modular Platform is introduced (on the new 7er).

I'm not sure what will they do with the next generation X3. It's possible they put it on the slightly modified F15 platform rather on a new modular RWD platform. I don't know. We shall see. I guess they'll put either the next gen X5 on the new matrix platform first - or the new X7 which will not come until the US plant is expanded even more. Right now (although just been expanded) it can barely handle X5/X6 + X3/X4 production.

 

[JLBM]

All the future BMW RWD vehicles will use the modular RWD platform in the future - starting with the new 7er. The current BMW Large Platform platform will be discontinued - the last car utilizing it is the RR Wraith.

The modular RWD platform will be used for the mid size (X3, X4) & large SUVs (X5, X6, X7 etc) as well since it's suitable for xDrive as well.

Therefore putting the X5 & X6 on the heavily modified & redeveloped Large Platform (the one utilizing F10 5er, F12 6er, F01 7er, Ghost & Wraith) would not be economical, while the new RWD Modular Platform is not ready yet to be utilized. The new 7er will be the first car to use that matrix platform.

So, the most logical decision was to put the new X5 F15 on the slightly updated E70 platform, which is good enough for another 7 years. Yes, X5 will probably lose the top spot - not being the best or even second best handling SUV - but since Cayenne X5 have been 2nd already, and now others (like RR Sport etc) will probably overtake the F15 X5 in this particular field. We shall see. But still ... there will be X6: for the more driving dynamics & shaper handling. The difference will be greater than today E70 vs E71.

Yes, we can say F15 is a victim of platform transition ... some large series / model had to be. And X5/X6 seems to be "a perfect choice" since it's the last big vehicle before Modular Platform is introduced (on the new 7er).

I'm not sure what will they do with the next generation X3. It's possible they put it on the slightly modified F15 platform rather on a new modular RWD platform. I don't know. We shall see. I guess they'll put either the next gen X5 on the new matrix platform first - or the new X7 which will not come until the US plant is expanded even more. Right now (although just been expanded) it can barely handle X5/X6 + X3/X4 production.

I wonder where Kilcrohane is? No ranting about BMW doing exactly what JLR did with their platforms being extended across new models??

 

[Levi68]

Now that I mentioned it, in a positive way, BMW Social Marketing went into more details while bringing out the positive side. What about all the negatives (not platforms but cost reductions/quality decreases for example)?

 

[klier]

Is there anything other than speculation that BMW did indeed use the reuse the chassis in the new X5?

No. The platform is as new as the W222 is compared to W221.
The car isn't called the all new X5 for nothing.

 

[Kilcrohane]

I wonder where Kilcrohane is? No ranting about BMW doing exactly what JLR did with their platforms being extended across new models??

Hello JLBM, I guess you skipped over this: http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/2014-bmw-x5-f15.49069/page-16#post-646237

new X5 v new R/R Sport:​

​

xDrive 30d: 0-100 km/h 6.9s, Vmax 230 km/h, 6.2l/38 mpg US, CO2 162g/km £47k​

Sport TDV6: 0-100 km/h 7.4s, Vmax 218 km/h, 7.3l/32 mpg US, CO2 194g/km £52k​

​

xDrive 40d: 0-100 6.1s, Vmax 236, 6.4l/37 US, 169g​

SDV6: 0-100 7.2s, Vmax 222, 7.5l/31 US, 199g​

​

xDrive 50d: 0-100 5.3s, Vmax 250, 6.7l/35 US, 177g​

xDrive 50i: 0-100 5.0s, Vmax 250, 10.4/23 US, 242g​

V8 S/C: 0-100 5.3s, Vmax 250, 12.8l/18 US, 298g​

​

Question to all the JLR fanboys: given the above, how is it that the by 420 kilos weight reduced new R/R Sport is so appallingly sh*tter in all metrics than the now much heavier and cheaper X5?​

​

But we know the answer, or at least part of the answer, don't we, JLBM:

http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/2014-range-rover-sport.48684/page-4#post-643982

So EVO weighed the car at around 2450kg with half a tank of fuel​

​

There's that habitual JLR lying again. What happened to the '420 kg weight loss'? At 2.5 tonnes real weight, without a transfer, low-range box, that makes it about a third of a tonne heavier than a ML, X5 or Cayenne.

So, JLBM, granted the 'new' X5 is no great shakes for BMW's engineering pedigree, but it still makes the R/R Sport look like the fat, bloated, overpriced, unreliable, outdated, hyped up POS it is. The fact that a slightly updated seven year old BMW platform can cream an apparently all-new Range Rover, that costs up to £25k more, leaves you impressed, apparently. That's fanboyism for you.

 

[JLBM]

Hello JLBM, I guess you skipped over this: http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/2014-bmw-x5-f15.49069/page-16#post-646237

new X5 v new R/R Sport:​

​

xDrive 30d: 0-100 km/h 6.9s, Vmax 230 km/h, 6.2l/38 mpg US, CO2 162g/km £47k​

Sport TDV6: 0-100 km/h 7.4s, Vmax 218 km/h, 7.3l/32 mpg US, CO2 194g/km £52k​

​

xDrive 40d: 0-100 6.1s, Vmax 236, 6.4l/37 US, 169g​

SDV6: 0-100 7.2s, Vmax 222, 7.5l/31 US, 199g​

​

xDrive 50d: 0-100 5.3s, Vmax 250, 6.7l/35 US, 177g​

xDrive 50i: 0-100 5.0s, Vmax 250, 10.4/23 US, 242g​

V8 S/C: 0-100 5.3s, Vmax 250, 12.8l/18 US, 298g​

​

Question to all the JLR fanboys: given the above, how is it that the by 420 kilos weight reduced new R/R Sport is so appallingly sh*tter in all metrics than the now much heavier and cheaper X5?​

​

But we know the answer, or at least part of the answer, don't we, JLBM:

http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/2014-range-rover-sport.48684/page-4#post-643982

So EVO weighed the car at around 2450kg with half a tank of fuel​

​

There's that habitual JLR lying again. What happened to the '420 kg weight loss'? At 2.5 tonnes real weight, without a transfer, low-range box, that makes it about a third of a tonne heavier than a ML, X5 or Cayenne.

So, JLBM, granted the 'new' X5 is no great shakes for BMW's engineering pedigree, but it still makes the R/R Sport look like the fat, bloated, overpriced, unreliable, outdated, hyped up POS it is. The fact that a slightly updated seven year old BMW platform can cream an apparently all-new Range Rover, that costs up to £25k more, leaves you impressed, apparently. That's fanboyism for you.

I appreciate you have a lot of knowledge about all this, so please indulge me and share further knowledge apart from consumption and acceleration differentials. What is the wading depth and offroad performance difference between new X5 and new RR-Sport?

 

[Kilcrohane]

What is the wading depth and offroad performance difference between new X5 and new RR-Sport?

I guess you're trying to highlight the R/R Sport's vast, 900mm? wading depth? All the large SUVs, like the X5, ML, Cayenne, Q7 and Touareg, should be easily able to wade a 450mm depth, if not 600mm/2'. The reason the R/R manages 900mm/3' is because its engine air intake is channelled from the edges of the clamshell bonnet. Big deal. Anyone who buys a £75k/$100k SUV will not be fording 3 or even 2 feet deep rivers. Anyone who wishes to do so will fit a proper snorkel for the air intake.

As to the offroad performance, are we talking a R/R sport with or without a low-range transfer box? A 2,5 tonne R/R Sport or a 2.6 tonne R/R sport?

If you are talking a non low-range transfer boxed R/R Sport then in essence the new R/R Sport is no different to a current series Cayenne or an X5. The ML and VW Touareg can both be spec'd with a low-range box.

A Cayenne certainly and probably an X5 on suitable tyres would match and probably beat a non low-range R/R Sport off-road, thanks to the one-third of a ton lighter weight, and all round better powertrains - the 4.2 V8 and 30/40/50d straight-six diesels especially - and general engineering.

A low-range equipped ML or Touareg would match and probably better a FF R/R and low-range equipped R/R Sport, again thanks to less weight, better powertrains and better overall engineering. Even a 2.6 tonne Mercedes GL with the low-range including offroad package would match and probably beat handily these hyped Range Rover pair.

PS For those who see the new Range Rover and R/R Sport as vastly superior to the German competition off-road it might be an idea to acquaint yourselves with this:

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...eme-im-vergleich-suche-nach-grip-6582583.html

Not only is the V8 diesel engined €100k Range Rover beaten clearly by the Porsche Cayenne but also by the BMW x-Drive 335i, the Opel Mokka and VW Golf 4Motion.

 

[martinbo]

Let's not disregard the still-vital off-roader attributes of ground clearance, approach, departure and breakover angles. In this regard the RR Sport non low-range will still be more capable than X5 and Cayenne.

 

[EnI]

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