BMW X5 CCV

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Sniffer

...and that the average owner (ie someone who simply wants a vehicle to get from A - B ..... should not have to contend with

I completely agree with this part. Hence my suggestion that you sell it, as this is not what the vehicle was designed for. Similarly to most BMWs, actually.

[Sniffer]

Originally Posted by JCL

I completely agree with this part. Hence my suggestion that you sell it, as this is not what the vehicle was designed for. Similarly to most BMWs, actually.

Had BMW used the internal CCV found on the 5 series (which can be retrofitted to the X5 apparently at considerable cost owing to the labour involved) then I believe we probably wouldnt be having this debate and I would be enjoying my X to its full potential without the troubles I have faced with it

Food for thought......

[JCL]

I don't believe that someone who simply wants a vehicle to get from A to B will be likely to realize the full potential of the 4.6 X5.

It is an older, very high performance SUV, with all the compromises that entails.

[Sniffer]

Originally Posted by JCL

I don't believe that someone who simply wants a vehicle to get from A to B will be likely to realize the full potential of the 4.6 X5.

It is an older, very high performance SUV, with all the compromises that entails.

Please elaborate...?

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Sniffer

Please elaborate...?

Cost to purchase. Cost to maintain. Cost to operate. Weight. Fuel consumption. Handling in snow and on slippery roads. All of these are suboptimal for a winter commuter car. Having awd doesn't make something a good winter car in and of itself. What the 4.6 was designed for is decent performance and handling on good roads, considering its weight. And exclusivity. And because it is now 12 years old, it will be much more expensive to maintain, which is why they are cheap to buy (relative to original purchase price). It is also why many owners maintain them themselves.

Just as one example, consider the existence of the CCV system. BMW wanted to reduce tailpipe emissions. They used a CCV instead of a PCV because it put less oil into the intake, and thus had lower emissions. So low, that BMW was able to qualify the X5 as an Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV) in California. That became a point of pride for BMW, who advertised that achievement. It came with tax breaks as well. But, many people claim, a PCV would have worked. It would have cost less. It would have been easier and cheaper to repair on. See the trade offs? These were conscious decisions. The 4.6 came with larger wheels with wider tires than the 17" tires that the X5 was designed for. That allowed them to use larger brakes. It also resulted in faster suspension wear due to the higher loads. And it made the vehicle perform worse on winter roads. And larger tires were more expensive to replace. But some liked the look of the wider tires. Everything is a trade off. The 4.6 is an example of a vehicle where those trade offs were weighted in terms of performance and exclusivity, at the expense of cost and durability.

The thing is, that performance was very high in 2002 when the vehicle came out, relative to other SUVs. Today, there are many higher performance (newer) SUVs that outperform the 4.6. So they become cheap, people buy them and can't afford to maintain them, and the vehicles deteriorate. Then when they break people call the issues design defects, when in fact they are predictable failures that are the result of all of the above.

[upallnight]

Wow, and I thought I was the only one on this forum that told people that a BMW was/is not the right car/truck for them.

[JCL]

Many BMWs are the right cars for many people, you can't generalize. I have been happy with each of mine. That doesn't mean that I advise my friends and acquaintances to all buy them. It depends on what each person is looking for.

What I said was that a poorly maintained 12 year old X5 4.6 is likely not the best choice for someone primarily interested in transportation from point A to point B, particularly when A and B are so close together that the vehicle never properly warms up.

But if it was 2002 again, and you wanted the best performing SUV out there, not weighting cost, the 4.6 would be a pretty good choice.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by JCL

Cost to purchase. Cost to maintain. Cost to operate. Weight. Fuel consumption. Handling in snow and on slippery roads. All of these are suboptimal for a winter commuter car. Having awd doesn't make something a good winter car in and of itself. What the 4.6 was designed for is decent performance and handling on good roads, considering its weight. And exclusivity. And because it is now 12 years old, it will be much more expensive to maintain, which is why they are cheap to buy (relative to original purchase price). It is also why many owners maintain them themselves.

Just as one example, consider the existence of the CCV system. BMW wanted to reduce tailpipe emissions. They used a CCV instead of a PCV because it put less oil into the intake, and thus had lower emissions. So low, that BMW was able to qualify the X5 as an Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV) in California. That became a point of pride for BMW, who advertised that achievement. It came with tax breaks as well. But, many people claim, a PCV would have worked. It would have cost less. It would have been easier and cheaper to repair on. See the trade offs? These were conscious decisions. The 4.6 came with larger wheels with wider tires than the 17" tires that the X5 was designed for. That allowed them to use larger brakes. It also resulted in faster suspension wear due to the higher loads. And it made the vehicle perform worse on winter roads. And larger tires were more expensive to replace. But some liked the look of the wider tires. Everything is a trade off. The 4.6 is an example of a vehicle where those trade offs were weighted in terms of performance and exclusivity, at the expense of cost and durability.

The thing is, that performance was very high in 2002 when the vehicle came out, relative to other SUVs. Today, there are many higher performance (newer) SUVs that outperform the 4.6. So they become cheap, people buy them and can't afford to maintain them, and the vehicles deteriorate. Then when they break people call the issues design defects, when in fact they are predictable failures that are the result of all of the above.

My IQ of 37 interprets some of your points appicable to the 4.6 and some apply to all E53s of those years.

That said, as the owner of a 4.6 purchased new, a sample of one, it has been quite different than your point of view. I purchased the 4.6 for the overall performance and how it looked different than a 4.4. I didn't know it would have any exclusivity but I like that it does.

I paid a price premium but I got more for my money than I thought I would. I did expect I would have more problems than a 'regular' X5 as that is usually the case if a vehicle is performance oriented. That has not been the case. Based on what I read here, there is significant indication this 4.6 has had greater durability than most X5s. I have not realized less durability even with my engine mods and driving so hard I hear a distant banshee fairly frequently. I have only seen the upside of bigger brakes--stopping quicker.

I do most of my own work but it is nothing different than I have always done. It has nothing to do with the 4.6. I think performance minded owners are more likely to be gearheads, they would not have it any other way, lower cost means there is more money for other mods.

I agree tires cost more. I'm pleased it is not as much as it used to be.

I agree that running the standard tires and wheels on a 4.6 would be a big challenge in snow country. I would just do what so many other E53 owners say is the only safe thing to do. I would have appropriate winter wheels and tires.

I agree that 4.6 prices are cheap. The 4.4 and 3.0 of those years are also cheap. That makes the current price of E53s are a value based on original price and it appears to me similar mileage 4.6s are still for sale at a premium. They don't seem to be seen as has beens or road hard and put up wet.

Cold weather CCV issues are not limited to the 4.6 or even non BMWs. I have not had an issue but am not in cold country.

I agree, if you are saying all X5s are heavy. I am not positive because I see varying numbers but it appears to me the only E53 lighter than the 4.6 is the 3.0.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is not unusual that worn out E53 parts are called defects. I ignore the majority as not realistic. My impression is the owner is just as likely to have a 3.0 or 4.4 as a 4.6.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by JCL

If you put a non original engine in it you will not recoup your costs and will diminish the value of the vehicle.

If you simply band aid it (patch it up) it will fail again. It takes some time to make enough condensate to freeze, so we know it wasn't fixed properly. Same will happen again.

If you fix it properly and have the CCV checked regularly you will have your best chance of success IMO but you have said you don't believe that, so you have left yourself no option but to sell it. You could even save the $1000 and sell it as is.

Parts that are not original will decrease the price of a collectors car. In your case I can see where it could increase the value if you have documented mileage of the replacement engine.

[bcredliner]

Originally Posted by Sniffer

So Ive been to two well different local BMW specialist and both have told me that the replacement heated kit would not cure my problems - it is simply insufficient for the extremes of temperature that we see here

Interestingly both have advised that a different CCV system be fitted - one mentioned that this system is from the 5 series and it takes away all the external parts which are prone to freezing up and places them internally where they are better protected

This is a fairly intensive task it seems - both have quoted figures in the region of $4K for this including parts and labour - it was quite the shock

So as it stands these are my options:

Spend a relatively small amount of cash (say $1000) and repair the damage but leave it as standard - the problem will almost certainly reappear IMO (I know others may disagree with this statement but if the last month has taught me anything its this), I suppose I could trade it for something else before this happens

Spend big cash (around $4K) and fit all the internal running gear which I think will make it winter proof - this is however a lot of cash for a car that isn't worth a lot of cash - is it worth it?

Leave the car as it is and sell it for parts (not sure I could be bothered with the hassle)

I should also mention that the mechanic suggested he may be able to lay his hands on a low mileage motor (mine is pretty high mileage - around 125,000) which could then be fitted with the internal CCV running gear much easier before swapping the motors and, I`m guessing selling my original motor to claw back some cash

Thoughts?

I don't know what other problems you have had but as far as this one goes you have paid to get it fixed three times with no results. In Texas that mechanic better dust his guns off and sit way back in the corner of the bar if he ever wants to see blue bonnets again.

Before throwing in the towel on just fixing the CCV system you have, I would continue to ask input as to how others solved the problem. If they are here they either didn't have the problem or they fixed it. I can't imagine anyone going through what you are one winter let alone any more than one. I would also check around at places you haven't gone for input. Have you been to the BMW dealer service or parts counter to ask if they have a solution or called a couple of the BMW parts sources and talked to technical support? Texas gets weather cold enough to freeze water. The flu epidemic has made the news, haven't heard anything about all the BMWs down for the count between you and me.

Have you considered something else might be going on? If your CCV system was fixed properly and you don't have another contributing problem, I don't think you would be having the same problem again this soon. I would have the system checked to see if it is operating normally. I would have them do a smoke pressure test to see if I had a vacuum leak at the same time.