X5 diesel on USA Configurator.

[JCL]

jimsaq:

Good comments. I will try not to be too jaded by the hype.

It is the peak torque, which Wagner was commenting on, which is only available in that relatively narrow band. That is BMW's information from their web site. I don't have a full plot to see the torque at each engine rpm, but would like one if you have it.

You note that in the X6, despite the very high peak torque of the 3.0 diesel, it is slower to accelerate than the 3.0 twin turbo petrol (35i). That 580 nm does not seem to be helping much. Yet I keep seeing comparisons to the twin turbo diesel performing like the V8. It is slower than the 3.0 twin turbo petrol, in fact. It is an attractive option in the E70 X5 primarily because BMW hasn't released the 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine yet for that model.

I am not in any way anti-diesel, in fact I have made my living for 22 years with diesel (and natural gas) powered equipment. I think there is a real place for diesel power, particularly in a track-type tractor, hydraulic excavator, or heavy mining truck. I think diesels belong on the road, too, particularly in small economy sedans or trucks such as the F450/Dodge Ram/etc. I just think that the driving experience suffers so much with a diesel sports sedan that I don't see the point. I have had several modern diesel powered vehicles (in Europe), and every month when I visit now I rent one. They are great at stretching the distance between visits to the petrol station. They just aren't the ultimate driving machine anymore. The lack of manual transmissions, the rev limits, and the perceptible lack of refinement compared to a modern direct injection turbocharged petrol engine is what turns me off.

I do agree with you that they are getting better. It is just that I still here, from all the recent converts, phrases like "you can hardly tell it is a diesel any more". Well, I can tell.

Cheers

Jeff

[AzNMpower32]

You know what I'd really like to see? The X3 3.0sd. But that's never gonna come.

Remember a few years ago, Jeremy Clarkson tested the 535d and found it to be brilliant. But the 545i was still preferred and faster around the track. Honestly folks, the diesel aint a substitute for the 4.8i, just the 3.0si.

[jimsaq]

I reckon it is easily a substitute for the X5 4.8i, absolutely surpasses the X5 3.0si but isn't even close to the new 4.4 V8 which the X6 gets, and I presume X5 might at some point.

jcl: yeh you can definitely tell it's a diesel by it's idle sound from outside the car, and if you push it past around 4000 rpm you hear it rattle a little. but it's acceleration is very punchy and responsive. I guess as a wide generalisation I can understand that "can't tell it's a diesel" comment but yeh it is a bit of a stretch.

I'll snap a couple of pics of the torque/power graphs from the brochure later and upload them, gotta go out now and I'm late

[jeep]

I configured the Xdrive35d similar to my 3.0si and the price difference came out to a whopping $6500. Assuming that the discounts on the diesels are not going to be similar to gasoline(petrol) I think I made the right choice by going with the 3.0si, got it 14.5K less than the diesel as configured (MSRP). with just a 5cent/mile savings with Diesel, the price of admission is too high to go for them.

[jimsaq]

finally snapped those pics:

petrol
diesel

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by JCL

Nice peak torque, 580 nm, but it is only available from 1750 to 2250 rpm, a very narrow band.

The 35i has 400 nm torque, but it is available from 1300 to 5000 rpm.

The 50i has 600 nm torque, available from 1800 to 4500.

Now that is nice torque.

Diesels are fine, but still a compromise.

Diesels are no more of a compromise than petrols. For your info the 35d torque numbers go like this:

1000rpm - 335Nm
1250rpm - 490Nm
1500rpm - 565Nm
1750rpm - 580Nm
2000rpm - 580Nm
2250rpm - 580Nm
2500rpm - 570Nm
2750rpm - 557Nm
3000rpm - 543Nm
3500rpm - 520Nm
4000rpm - 488Nm
4200rpm - 472Nm
4400rpm - 456Nm
4600rpm - 415Nm

As you can see there's still plenty of torque available higher in the rev range and beyond the 1750-2250Nm peak torque plateau.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by jimsaq

I reckon it is easily a substitute for the X5 4.8i, absolutely surpasses the X5 3.0si but isn't even close to the new 4.4 V8 which the X6 gets, and I presume X5 might at some point.

jcl: yeh you can definitely tell it's a diesel by it's idle sound from outside the car, and if you push it past around 4000 rpm you hear it rattle a little. but it's acceleration is very punchy and responsive. I guess as a wide generalisation I can understand that "can't tell it's a diesel" comment but yeh it is a bit of a stretch.

I'll snap a couple of pics of the torque/power graphs from the brochure later and upload them, gotta go out now and I'm late

I agree 100% that the 35d is easily a substitute for the 4.8 V8 and is far beyond the atmo 3.0-litre petrol. As the turbo petrol engines aren't available in the X5 as yet, it would seem to be argument without substance comparing them until they are available. By way of comparsion, the 35d makes more power than the 4.8 right up to 4400rpm where the 35d reaches its power peak. It's only after this point that the 4.8 starts to make more power. As mentioned before the 35d does the standing start kilometre (0.62 mile) in 27.3 seconds while the 4.8 takes 26.6 seconds (Aussie spec figures). That's hardly a crushing victory.
I guess that at the end of the day some people like the style of power you get from a petrol engine where others prefer the power delivery of a diesel. It just depends on what you want from a vehicle. But for me I would never go with a petrol V8 (atmo, at least) after experiencing the performance and economy of a modern turbodiesel.

[AzNMpower32]

Folks, this argument is easily solved by taking a test drive. Some will value the electric response of the petrol V8 and are willing to trade higher consumption for it. Others are satisfied with the diesel and don't really need the extra revs.

Take me for example. On a 1er hatch, we had a very brief stint with the 118d and spent a week with a 118i petrol. I loved the petrol motor, something I know is in the minority in Deutschland, and the high revs and the fact I could rev the lil bigger up to 6500rpm with nary a protest. But I'm more concerned about fuel consumption, so that's why my dream 1er would be a diesel, not a petrol motor. I can live with the handicap of lower redline and less top-end power, and a less pleasant motor sound, despite the fact I really enjoy revving up my engines on occasion. The combined fuel consumption figure of 5,2l/100km is substantially lower than the 8,3 litres consumed in a 130i sport. Plus there's a lower price starting point. Similar logic would apply in the case of an X5. The X5 I would buy, even if I was not paying for it, would be the diesel. The V8 is just too wasteful and reeks of excess.

Let's be honest, with a few exceptions, most of us Americans have not driven the X5 3.0sd to give it a good comparison to the petrol 4.8i. I'm not a person who cares about numbers and technical specs. Other car makers have better numbers than BMW. Better EPA numbers. Better prices. Perhaps even better horsepower numbers. But it's really how a car feels to the driver.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by jimsaq

finally snapped those pics:

petrol
diesel

Thanks for the charts.

[Aspenisland]

Now you can think your everyday driving.
With automatic gearbox, what kind of RPMs you mostly use?
In town or in highway, what is the real need for accelerating 0 to 60 as fast as you can, or your car can?
From crossing to crossing, from lights to lights, driving behind slower cars I see it is useless.
Do you always or mostly kick down the pedal and go like racing, braking, racing, braking? Not very smooth way to travel.
Racing cars are different story. To me X5 is gentlemen choice and should drive with style.