Low range
 

Anyone else here think the X would be more "complete" if it had low range. I'm not thinking about roughing it up to bad but it would be nice to know it's there, especially whent the winter conditions are bad.

Also I think it would boost the sales if they had it, one could guess that some people rather go for the Cayenne or Range Rover because of the off road possibility.

Saxi

i think it should be an option but not standard. I wouldnt get it but i know alot of friends that didnt buy an x5 because of that

Cayenne is a rebadged VW. I believe 68% of the components are identical. My Lemony Touareg weighed more than my X5. Lemony Touareg V6 got way less gas mileage than X5 4.4i. The low range was great off road but who gets to play Paris Dakar every weekend?

I drove the Range Rover Sport...IMHO they should not have borrowed all the knobs and buttons from the LR3...and the rear overhang is bit strong; it has more cargo space than the X5 but does not have the feel of the X.

It is also slower 0-60 and get less mpg than the X5. Low range is great but I hear that you can disable the DSC on the BMW and have a great off-road vehicle:) ...Also, just like the Range Rovers, the X5 has descent-control. And, from I believe 2001 through 2004, when they were owned by BMW, the Range Rover used the BMW motor.

PS...I just noticed you are from Iceland Saxi, so you obviously make better use of low-range than we Florida suburbanites...I assume you just get the diesel model there?

There is no point in the X5, Toureg, or Cayanne having a transfer case. None are designed for serious off roading. For snow use, you don't want to run in low range, as generally you want to reduce the amount of torque to wheels when you start out, not increase it. The only time you run in low range in the snow is when cutting trails in 3+ feet of snow, and usually then you winching yourself half the time.

:iagree: :iagree:

I definately agree that there is no point into having a low range in the X5. and i definately dont need it. But i feel in some parts of the world people do need it like if you live in iceland or south america. They should offer it as an option as part of somekind of offroad package with a better air suspension system and limited slip differentials and underride gaurds. Because i think there are alot of people out there that want an X5 badly but cant for the reason that all though they dont need an outright offroader they need something a little tougher than the current X5. Because for some people its not for fun t is a neccesity for where they live. Just my opinion

Maybe somebody in Spartanburg is listening--but the key is "option". In Australia, Iceland, Costa Rica, Brasil, VZ, South Africa, Morocco etc...a skid-plated low range HD tranny cooled X5 with 2" of lift might do very well but but in the USA we mght be mistaken as posers...everytime I've landed somewhere with an unpaved airstrip it seems like Nissan Patrols and Toyota Landcruisers (and the A/C never works) rule the roost...but, I say, why not build an X5de---as in diesel con cajones?

The X isn't designed to be an off road vehicle (althought the X3 has done very well in off-road racing). It's designed to be a performance on-road vehicle with improved utility over a car. Even with a drive train suited for off-roading, the X5 ground clearance is still too low to be very usable off-road. The X3 has better clearance, but both are still far behind other vehicles that are designed to be driven both on and off-road.

In my opinion, keep it on the road where it belongs. If you have a need for an off-roading vehicle, buy something else.

Here's something else:
http://cgi.ebay.de/Unimog-Wohnkoffer...QQcmdZViewItem