SD or Not

[dazzpowder]

Hi,

Can anyone give me some real world comparisons betwean the normal 3l diesel or the twin turbo sd version?

Are they really poles apart? most of my driving will be around town, I'd like to know if it's worth the extra money.

Thanks

[DBC]

I had a E53 diesel, an early one and am now on an SD and to say they are like chalk and chease would be an understatement. Nothing much will ever pass you if you dont want them too. The sinc turbo set up makes this one of the true grat engines, if brass is an issue forget the sat nav and get the better engine, i did and never regretted it. I would never have used the st nav but every time i'm out in it you use the extra surge.

[dazzpowder]

thnx DBC I also owned the E53 diesel even after I had it tuned the lag was a killer

[Galion]

e53 3.0d is slow.
e70 3.0d is a pretty good drive, I would say a night and day difference with the previous model, but a minimum lag may bother depending how you catch the turbo spooling while accelerating.
No such problem with the 3.0sd Twin Turbo (3.5d in America)

[Fraser]

The twin-turbo diesel has gained performance as it progressed from 3.0sd, to 35d and now 40d. At the same time the single-turbo 3.0d and now 30d has also progressed so much so that the current model E70 LCI 30d isn't far behind the original E70 3.0sd. Note also that the 3.0d in the early E53 is nothing like the 3.0d that appeared in the 2004 update. In Australian spec the single turbo diesel has progressed from 135kW/390Nm in the early E53 to 180kW/540Nm in the LCI E70 while the twin turbo diesel has progressed from 200kW/565Nm to 225kW/600Nm. I believe that the state of tune of the UK models isn't too different from the Australian spec.

[DBC]

I went from E53 3.0d to a E60 535d and vowed never to have another X5 untill the sinc turbo motor was installed and i am not disapointed with the SD. It is only 2 grand difference between the two, easiest thing is cut down on the goodie options and have the better car,

[AzNMpower32]

I believe that the current 3.0d (E70) is a good match for the vehicle, and that the 3.0sd has a lot of extra power that is superfluous, unless you live in Germany. Granted, the consumption figures aren't that big a difference, but the torque in the bi-turbo is massive and you'll be racking up a lot of speed camera tickets.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by DBC

I went from E53 3.0d to a E60 535d and vowed never to have another X5 untill the sinc turbo motor was installed and i am not disapointed with the SD. It is only 2 grand difference between the two, easiest thing is cut down on the goodie options and have the better car,

Which E53 3.0d? There's a huge difference between the pre and post update models not to mention the post update 3.0d gained an extra ratio in both the manual and automatic gearboxes.

[DBC]

My E53 was a 2001 it had quoted 184 (193 actual) bhp, when they were facelifted 2004ish they went to 218 bhp and that is where E53 stayed. E70 was launched with 235 bhp and 230 odd grams of whatever which put it into the £400 + Road Fund class, about the end of 2007 they did some alterations that brought it down to 214 grams which reduces the Road Fund down to the same as the SD on £245. The SD was launched with 286 bhp and i think 426 lb ft of torque and puts out 216 grams, hence £245 Road Fund. Since Lci and now 40d it puts out 306 bhp and 340 odd ib ft and is 180 odd grams so road fund licence has fallen.

[blue dragon]

I can't believe you guys get so many choices for diesel.