It's not my first choice. If I had to buy a convertible, it'd be the 330cic or a 325cic. If I had to buy a roadster, first choice would be the pre-facelifted Honda S2000.

I guess the basis of my question is, is that because it's made in SC, or just because you don't want it?

:withstupi I kept 6 mos.

I realize it is only a sample of one, and therefore statistically insignificant, but my Z4 has been better built than my X5. Nothing major with the X5, but the Z4 has had zero problems.

Given a choice, I would have taken both the X5 and the Z4 from a plant other than SC, preferably one in Germany, even for a small price premium. That is no slam at all on the SC workers, but it is a comment on the difficulties in managing supplier coordination when most of your engineering and planning staff are on another continent.

Where its assembled plays a factor into whether I'd buy a car, but its not the determining factor. But yea I guess I'd just prefer something that's imported. The s2000 is more fun to toss around though, and I usually prefer convertibles for open-top medium speed cruising, not hard driving (thus the 330cic)

The S2000 might handle well, but $32k for a Honda? Maybe i'd let it slide at $26. But $32 ?! That gets you a bare bones 3 series for that price !

Honestly, given $32k I'd rather get a e46 3-series coupe or sedan. I just brought up the s2k since it's my preferred roadster. Nothin wrong with Honda either.....I love the s2k's exhaust note when someone redlines it!

The X5 is probably built fine, but the problem is probably because the X5 isn't really a BMW design. It was essentially designed by Range Rover for BMW, thus somewhat flawed compared to other BMWs and the X3 (which is really BMW's first true SAV design). Once BMW had the chance to design their own SAV (the X3) they vastly improved its handling compared to the X5, improved its ground clearance and made it larger on the interior despite having a smaller wheelbase and lower roofline.

Couldn't be farther from the truth... The Range Rover is based off of the X5 platform - which itself is based on a raised E39 platform. It is true that BMW used RR engineers to counsel the X5 team (various things came from this counseling two of which are - the two piece tailgate as well as HDC), however its not like the X5 is a re-branded Range Rover, its the other way around.

The reason why the X3 handles so much better is that it is based on the E46 platform, is much lighter, lower and a much much much tighter suspension. Simple physics. If you really want an honest opinion, it is the X3 (and the Z4 to a lesser extent) is the one in the BMW family that is the least BMW. I love my X3, but it cannot hide the penny pinching its experienced as well as the obvious cuts made here and there in order to rush it to market in the most profitable way possible.

What you're saying is contrary to every article I've ever read on the subject. You're confusing the 2003+ post-X5 version of the Range Rover (which does use some x5 components such as engine and transmission and was largely designed by BMW) with the original genesis of the X5. The X5 originally grew from Range Rover, and subsequently some components and design flowed back to Range Rover in the 2003 MY and later models, but BMW's stamp has ended as of the 2006 MY. The X5 is definitely not built on the E39 platform (it was an all-new platform), which one article I read stated is the main reason why the interior space is the X5 is small relative to its size. It's certainly not a rebranded Range Rover, but much of it's heritage and many aspects of its engineering are Range Rover based.