e53's from 2000-2006. :rofl:

Just kidding. Carry on...

Hm.. you must have filled a couple of notebooks by now :D

i would stick with the 3.0L models....there is a guy on this forum with 300k miles and another with 200k all on original transmission. From reading this forum it seems like the 4.4, 4.6, 4.8 had transmission issue. Does anybody agree?

All BMW automatics had issues, whether they are the GM or ZF units, 5 speeds or 6 speeds. 4.6 models had additional issues with torque converters, but beyond that I don't think it is model-specific.

3.0 models are easier to work on, and probably more reliable. That said, a well-maintained 4.4 will be a better bet than a poorly maintained 3.0.

:thumbup::D

I admit, I have a flawless 3.0L in my E46 and its never once caused issues in her 190,000 kms, but I'm also a stickler for maintenance and NOT letting anything slide.
BUT I just fear the 3L engine would be too underpowered for this big a vehicle. I've spoted a 2005 4.4i with good options I'm going to investigate this saturday. ALSO still has 65,000 kms of warranty left on it.

I just made a huge rookie mistake

holy cow. I was looking for cargo space for both the X3 and X5 and noticed the X3 has more cargo space apparently.
Also, I assumed the 4.4i would have slightly better gas milage than the 4.6 and 4.8, but according to the Canadian Driver article ( CanadianDriver » BMW » Used Vehicle Review: BMW X5, 2000-2006 ) the 3.0 and 4.8 have best gas millage. Am I being lied to???

No, of course they are not the same mileage if measured to the last drop of gas. However, the difference is that small (less then half a liter per 100km) that it makes the 4.8 more worthy. If you live in an area where they don't tax you per engine capacity, you should definitely go for the 4.8.
As about the cargo space, yeah, the E53 does not excel in that area. Without the net (to prevent luggage to trip in the passenger area) I feel the trunk is pretty much the same as the E60.

Well, you hadn't mentioned the X3 up until now. Is it a candidate? It does have more cargo space, and more usable cargo space, than the E53, as it doesn't have the sloping rear window. It has a more usable roof rack as well (it is longer). That said there are things it doesn't have, like dual-zone climate control, and all the bells and whistles that you can find on the E53 on some models.

But if you don't need to tow more than 3500 lbs, if the SUV is for poor road conditions as much as for anything else, if you want x-drive, if you like the 3.0 in your E46, and you like the agility of the E46, then the X3 is a very good choice. It certainly has fewer issues than the more complex E53 in my opinion. I enjoyed our E53, but when it came time to replace it the E70 was not a consideration, as it was larger and heavier, two things I wanted less of. We went to a 2007 E83 and are very happy with it. Ours has the 260 hp 3.0, 6 speed manual, around 800 lbs less weight to carry around, and thus more performance than the 4.4 E53s.

The problem with comparing fuel economy is that the test changed over the years you are considering. There were various correction factors applied to try and get closer to real world conditions.

Up through 2003, the 3.0 got better mileage than the 4.4. From 2004 onwards, the government test figures showed very similar fuel consumption between the 3.0 and the new 4.4 engine. The trouble is, that is from a dyno test, and it didn't show up in the real world. On a simulation run on a dyno, the acceleration rate is predetermined, and is very slow. If an owner has power available in the real world, they tend to use it. In the real world, the 3.0 is generally better, all V8 models are worse, but the 2004+ 4.4 is the best of the V8s.