Looking to get an E70 for the wife. Is it risky to get a Diesel version?

[bfeng]

Guys there might be some good X5d’s out there but statisticslly these are extremely unreliable per owner feedback (ex Consumer Reports).i love mine but would not recommend it to most.

[crystalworks]

X5d has proved to be no more problematic than any of our other BMW's. They need an owner willing to bring it back to full operating condition. That means doing the normal maintenance AND the deferred maintenance/repairs that the previous owner (or 3 owners) didn't do.

I wouldn't trust CR for reliability reports on luxury vehicles, except maybe Lexus, as I'm not sure their sample size is comprehensive enough. Besides, if you want to drive a boring car with no worries buy a Toyota, Honda, Kia, etc. We bought 2 Kias. They were great, never had a problem with either besides a creaking pano roof the dealer took care of. But after 3 years of that the wife asked why we were paying for a new Kia when our old BMW's drove better, had higher quality interiors, and had no car payments. I told her, " because you said you wanted something I wouldn't have to work on." Her answer, "I'm over that, I want another BMW." Happy wife, happy life, so we got the x5d and an e61 wagon.

I agree with you about not recommending a used BMW, of any kind. 95% of people don't fall into the categories I would consider being able to handle owning one and be happy.

Edit: Did want to clarify, lol, currently the x5d is down with a trans issue. But that applies to all BMW's with 170,000 miles and a ZF trans that was never serviced because "lifetime fluid." So it's not an X5, or diesel specific issue. Same could be said of the ZF trans in a Ford.

[CleanIsFast]

Do your own due diligence and find a good 35d. They are out there, but be willing to set aside some money for maintenance. As others have said, they are no different than other BMWs...

Most diesel parts on the 35d have extended warranties attached - 10 year, 120k mile. I recently picked one up with 94k miles on it. One-owner, limited service history but I made sure to thoroughly check over the vehicle. Immediately upon purchase I did EVERY fluid on the vehicle: brake, transmission, transfer case, differentials, motor oil, etc. Most of these items a beginner/novice DIYer can do.

Will the suspension need a refresh at some point? Obviously, all vehicles will
Will the cooling system need a refresh at some point? Obviously, all vehicles will

Don't rush into any vehicle, get a PPI done, ask for service history (physical hard copies), etc.

[ard]

IMO the difference in ownership experience between a DIYer or someone with a keen sense of diagnosis and repair management VERSUS someone who only 'takes the car in' makes these kind of questions so hard to answer.


What kind of owner are you?

and....what kind of owner will the person be who is asking?

[wesavedchris]

After some more thought and research, i'll be looking for a 2010 petrol version because that's the last year they made the inline 6 NA without a turbo.

This also has the updated i-drive system that previous models don't have, so it's the best of both worlds.

Is the Inline-6 turbo engine still just as reliable?

[ard]

People get freaked out about 'the turbo'...but that is kinda a 1970/80s mindset. Turbos have come a LONG way in 40 years, They arent unreliable.


Honestly, I wouldn't choose based on trying to avoid that singular failure mode. There are many many OTHER things you might contend with, a turbo failure is a very small part. And even if it were to fail, replacements are cheap. Like an AC compressor. Would you buy a car without AC to avoid AC compressor replacement?
And along those lines, driving a 6 without a turbo is like driving without AC. Maybe worse.


I just cannot recall hearing (reading) about turbo failures on these cars. FRM? Yup. JBE? Yup. lots of things may fail, but turbos are pretty low on the lost.


My 2 cents

[wesavedchris]

Originally Posted by ard

People get freaked out about 'the turbo'...but that is kinda a 1970/80s mindset. Turbos have come a LONG way in 40 years, They arent unreliable.


Honestly, I wouldn't choose based on trying to avoid that singular failure mode. There are many many OTHER things you might contend with, a turbo failure is a very small part. And even if it were to fail, replacements are cheap. Like an AC compressor. Would you buy a car without AC to avoid AC compressor replacement?
And along those lines, driving a 6 without a turbo is like driving without AC. Maybe worse.


I just cannot recall hearing (reading) about turbo failures on these cars. FRM? Yup. JBE? Yup. lots of things may fail, but turbos are pretty low on the lost.


My 2 cents

Hmm. I never thought of it that way. I guess whenever I hear a car has a turbo my mind gets worried about that. But, I know BMW's have been using turbos for such a long time now.

And I never thought about how that would affect performance.

Does anyone know how the turbo affects fuel economy? Does the turbo more or less thirsty than the NA version?

[ard]

Originally Posted by wesavedchris

Hmm. I never thought of it that way. I guess whenever I hear a car has a turbo my mind gets worried about that. But, I know BMW's have been using turbos for such a long time now.

And I never thought about how that would affect performance.

Does anyone know how the turbo affects fuel economy? Does the turbo more or less thirsty than the NA version?

Think of a motor as a “fuel fired air pump”

You pump a certain amount of air, and then add a mathematically determined about of fuel to the air and you get power out. *Th e “air fuel ration” or AFR is set, all motors run the same,

The more efficient the air pump the more fuel can be added and the more power you get. So people redo air intake systems... or exhausts...all trying to make the engine move more air. (and it will therefore take more fuel and make more power)]\\


All this a way to talk about turbos...

You can take a small, fuel efficient engine- and then add a turbo. When it needs the power, the turbo/boost kicks in and you have it. Otherwise it acts as a fuel efficient smaller motor

Compare that to larger motors that just move air all the time, they will have power all the time, and are not as overall efficient.

Its why automotive technology over the last 50 years have spent SO much on forced induction (turbos, superchargers) and how to create bulletproof solutions.

[13brian]

ard is correct, fuel economy is generally not affected by a turbo. You get more HP and thus better performance out of that engine, for no increase in fuel cost, than you get with naturally aspirated. Like getting bigger engine, without the cost.

[Nyc Dito]

Ard is on point...


My wifes E90 (NA 328i) has horrible MPG compared to the E70. Its a frickin E90 and gets 11 MPG average or 13-14 if im super easy on the highways. Car is fully maintained and up to date.