I can't keep up with all these X5M and 3.5D threads

[AzNMpower32]

Well, define "wear and tear" items. And its also nice to look at the average/bell-curve.

If I had a V8 E39 or E53, I'd expect to replace and overhaul the cooling system around 70k miles. Sure, some vehicles may go beyond that but it seems like the coolant tank and hoses are more likely to fail than not at that point. That's not wear-and-tear in my book.

Same goes for the automatic transmission. I don't expect any BMW vehicle to go more than 100-120k miles without the need for a new automatic gearbox. Some folks go 160k and are still on their first one, but most folks need to go for a new one in the 100k range. Not "wear and tear", and I don't expect my X3 to be the exception.

Ditto for things like window regulators, wheel bearings, and stuff like that. Not wear and tear in my book, but I don't expect them to last forever either. We plan to keep the X3 for a long while (it's at 5 years and 132 tkm and runs great) but I expect major parts to need replacement. On the other hand, we don't intend to keep the '06 325i beyond CPO warranty.

[motordavid]

AzNMPower: no argument here, as I think the gizmos/doodads and ever increasing "electronics" provides for more
Achilles heels, and also forces the mfg'r to spend less time/dough on some of the more "basic" components...
thus, many of us see early failures on parts that most of us feel should last the life of the car, or nearly so.

The latest, probably not fully life cycle tested, whiz bang electronics, come at a
cost paring that precludes the other more basic "stuff" from being improved/upgraded, imo.

But, reviewing/re-posting, the list of parts fixed/replaced on our 8 yr old X is minimal, imo:
CD Biz Radio software fix, fan recall, oil & filter changes, new water pump, pulley dampener,
front turn signal relay, front & rear pads/rotors (one time so far), man trans/transfer case/diff fluid change,
wiper blades. Most was covered under oe warr/ext warr. Not bad for 73,000 miles/8 years. It could all go
Kaboom tomorrow, but I feel most modern cars are suffering from the same general situ.

Anecdotally, there are a million stories ranging from "my 92 Honda has 400k mile
with only oil changes" to "my E70 broke down yesterday". It is what it is, in
the "features/gizmo laden" one-upmanship the car cos. are engaged in, imo.

[BGM]

Originally Posted by AzNMpower32

Well, define "wear and tear" items. And its also nice to look at the average/bell-curve.

If I had a V8 E39 or E53, I'd expect to replace and overhaul the cooling system around 70k miles. Sure, some vehicles may go beyond that but it seems like the coolant tank and hoses are more likely to fail than not at that point. That's not wear-and-tear in my book.

Same goes for the automatic transmission. I don't expect any BMW vehicle to go more than 100-120k miles without the need for a new automatic gearbox. Some folks go 160k and are still on their first one, but most folks need to go for a new one in the 100k range. Not "wear and tear", and I don't expect my X3 to be the exception.

Ditto for things like window regulators, wheel bearings, and stuff like that. Not wear and tear in my book, but I don't expect them to last forever either. We plan to keep the X3 for a long while (it's at 5 years and 132 tkm and runs great) but I expect major parts to need replacement. On the other hand, we don't intend to keep the '06 325i beyond CPO warranty.

You can't really use early model X5s (those are the ones that are over 100K miles now) as the a-typical issues people have. Like I said the X5 was a first for BMW--and it will get perfected as time goes on like BMW's other models. As far as a transmission, if there were auto transmissions failing at 100K miles it would be a widespread problem and a huge issue for BMW. I'm not saying there aren't any that need to be replaced--- but again it's not a majority by a long shot. You can't use a message board to figure the amount of issues as most are on here only when they have a problem--especially those that have bought theirs used at higher miles.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by BGM

I'm not saying there aren't any that need to be replaced--- but again it's not a majority by a long shot. You can't use a message board to figure the amount of issues as most are on here only when they have a problem--especially those that have bought theirs used at higher miles.

So there is something like a 2-3% failure rate, which is higher than many other vehicles, at the 100k mark. That is, however, a very long way from "most transmissions need to be replaced at 100k".

[Fraser]

I always buy the most basic model that is reasonable. The less the bullshit, the less that can go wrong. And here's another tip: standard suspension and higher profile tyres help isolate your vehicle from road shock and can work in your favour in terms of long-term reliability. I'm hoping that my E53 3.0d is still going strong in ten years time...

[BGM]

Originally Posted by Fraser

I always buy the most basic model that is reasonable. The less the bullshit, the less that can go wrong. And here's another tip: standard suspension and higher profile tyres help isolate your vehicle from road shock and can work in your favour in terms of long-term reliability. I'm hoping that my E53 3.0d is still going strong in ten years time...

If you want a standard set-up and higher profile tires then stop by your local Lexus dealer. I think most of us bought a BMW with the sports package for the handling and driving experience.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by BGM

If you want a standard set-up and higher profile tires then stop by your local Lexus dealer. I think most of us bought a BMW with the sports package for the handling and driving experience.

I'm with Fraser. I didn't install tires with a higher profile than the stock 17", but that size definitely lasts the longest, results in the longest life for the suspension, and thus leads to the lowest cost of ownership. I drove 75,000 km on the OE tires, never needed an alignment or camber adjusters, and never needed to have the wheels balanced. The tires had plenty of life on them when I sold the vehicle, and were worn very evenly. That MXV4 tire is what the X5 was designed for (with input from Michelin); all the wider wheels and low profile tires look good but are a compromise in many other respects.

I like the handling and driving experience of BMWs, and having the sports package is not a prerequisite for that. On the right vehicle, sports packages make a lot of sense to me (Z4, 535). It is just that if you want to go around corners faster, you probably shouldn't start with an X5.

[BGM]

Originally Posted by JCL

I'm with Fraser. I didn't install tires with a higher profile than the stock 17", but that size definitely lasts the longest, results in the longest life for the suspension, and thus leads to the lowest cost of ownership. I drove 75,000 km on the OE tires, never needed an alignment or camber adjusters, and never needed to have the wheels balanced. The tires had plenty of life on them when I sold the vehicle, and were worn very evenly. That MXV4 tire is what the X5 was designed for (with input from Michelin); all the wider wheels and low profile tires look good but are a compromise in many other respects.

I like the handling and driving experience of BMWs, and having the sports package is not a prerequisite for that. On the right vehicle, sports packages make a lot of sense to me (Z4, 535). It is just that if you want to go around corners faster, you probably shouldn't start with an X5.

Well I got 60K miles on my MXV4s with the Sport Package so there's not much difference in wear versus non-Sport.

But that's the thing--going around corners in a 5,000 lb X5 that some cars can't even handle is what separates it from others and is the uniqueness of it--passengers say "wow" when you hit a corner and it just sticks to the road--it's pretty impressive.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by JCL

I like the handling and driving experience of BMWs, and having the sports package is not a prerequisite for that. On the right vehicle, sports packages make a lot of sense to me (Z4, 535). It is just that if you want to go around corners faster, you probably shouldn't start with an X5.

I agree, but it also depends on your driving locations. I have a Z4 and specifically did not want the sport package, as the lower suspension and lower profile tires simply are not that wise if you spend most of your driving on the "blue highways" where the road surface often is not that good, and many of the driveways in small towns are not "low clearance" friendly.

And frankly, an excellent driver in a non-sport BMW can go much faster than a mediocre driver with the sport package, Now, a lot of drivers think they are up there with the Mario in driving skills, but frankly anyone who hasn't had a lot of track time could probably do better spending their money on a driving course, than on the sport package.

So, nothing against people who prefer the sport packages, but I think it is perhaps a bit shallow of some them to believe their choice is the superior, or only, choice for everyone else.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Penguin

So, nothing against people who prefer the sport packages, but I think it is perhaps a bit shallow of them to believe their choice is the superior, or only, choice for everyone else.

In my neck of the woods where unsealed gravel/dirt roads are part of the everyday driving experience and even the sealed roads are crap, sports suspension and big wheels with low-profile rubber are more a negative than a positive.