Any regrets getting a 3.0i instead of a 4.8i?
 

Sorry if its been asked already.....

Search doesn't seem to yield any results.....

Any members regret getting a 3.0i instead of a 4.8i?

Does your 3.0i satisfy your HP needs?

well judging by the other cars in your stable, i bet you would feel underpowered in the 3.0, unless you accept it as a vehicle for different uses.
our 3.0 is a family hauler and although its a little revvy i think the power meets our reasonable needs. runs great on the hwy with the step in M mode too.

I test drove both and chose the 3.0si because the 4.8i wasn't worth the extra $8k+ in my opinion. On top of that I would've skimped on some options. It certainly had a lot of go to it but that's where it ends. The difference in fuel economy and the premium wasn't worth what I experienced. They are essentially the same car except the engine obviously... and I'll be hauling a kid around anyway.

Now if it were the 3.0si vs. 3.0sd, I'd pay up to $4k for the difference. Better fuel economy too.

test drove both... no regrets whatsoever!!

power is more than my previous landcruiser and E53... good pickup, strong on freeways, quiet, and very stable... no complaints there..

change to the titanium griles and 4.8 exhaust tips and it's perfect!

No regrets here! This is my second 07' X5 as my first was totaled. I immediately ordered another X5 3.0. I agree with jago that this vehicle is what it is and will be used by me accordingly. I did however lease my X5 for 2 years in the hopes that the diesel will be available by the conclusion of my lease.

You are used to HP so not sure you would like the 3.0. I have an M5 and an M3 and I got the 4.8i. Glad I did. It is a heavy vehicle but moves quite nicely with the extra hp. Gas mileage, not much difference between the two to give up on the power. I also tow a boat so the 3.0 really wasn't feasible. You won't be unhappy with the 4.8i but you might be with the 3.0.

No regrets but yesterday I was on Hwy 50 on my way to Lake Tahoe and during a passsing situation and during the last climb up to the summit I felt underpowered. I did have 6 people in the car and it was packed full.

Is it true that the 3.0 uses 20% less gas than the 4.8?

Finally, I do not tow and have a 2 year lease and as mentioned here I was able to get a fully loaded 3.0 for what a less optioned 4.8 would have cost.

^ did you try DS mode? Shift the lever over to the left... it provides better acceleration since it plays with the gears/revs.

This is a very subjective question and strictly depends on your needs and desires.

I would highly suggest you test drive both. If cost isn't a factor then I would go with the 4.8. Based on your other cars, I gather your someone who likes performance cars?

The 4.8 still puts a smile on my face!

I have been "playing" with the DS shift. It makes a difference and makes the car even more fun to drive. I did not try it in the mountains but will in the return trip.

I test drove both before the purchase.....3.0 was underpowered, even the dealer warned me before test driving. Then I drove the 4.8 and ordered that same day. Like what 08WhtX5 said, "This is a very subjective question and strictly depends on your needs and desires. If cost isn't a factor then I would go with the 4.8."

4.8i
 

IMHO, even the 4.8i will not give you the bang (its what i call it, the neck breaking acceleration) that is comparable to the M5. With 5 passangers merging onto a busy highway can get revvy very quickly with the 4.8i but really everyday driving 3.0 is just right.

I agree that it is subjective. Test drives don't do justice unless done a lot.

I trust that the 4.8 has enough power ( driving the 3.0 I thought i'd consider what if...) since it is the top of the line. just my 2 cents.

4.8 is fun but I would like more torque.:rofl: Totally individually subjective.

p.s. Got my eye on that twin turbo engine on the X6...

I've had the 3.0 for one week now and so far I think it moves along great for a 5000 lb vehicle. No problems on the on ramps, hills and freeways.

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts and opinions.

Love the 4.8!
Once you go big, you don't go back! Ha ha !

No regrets
 

No regrets whatsoever. Like many, I've asked myself the question again and again after getting the car but no regrets at all. Hong Kong is very hilly and I live on the Peak and have no problems getting up them steep slopes at all. My other car is a v12 750iL and I really don't feel that the 3.0 is under powered at all. I am spending the difference in the Y spoke wheels, kidney grills etc.

Hey Drod - can you share with us how you managed to change to the oval exhaust tips? I was under the impression that the OEM oval tips won't work.

Nice view you get from out there ! Been there many times, will probably go this year again... Which way are your windows facing -the bay or the ocean ?

You seem to know Hong Kong well. My place faces the Hong Kong harbor but part of the view is blocked by some trees. Maybe you can help me go cut down them trees ;)

In my opinion, some folks (not necessarily any of y'all, but in general) need to use more right foot and more revs before dismissing a car as "underpowered". If you're accelerating with 50% throttle and 4000rpm and you don't feel it's enough, that's not a real excuse to blame the car. You're not maximizing the potential of the vehicle.

Now, if you're at full throttle, redlining the car multiple times, and still begging for power, then a bigger motor may be in order.

I do a lot of one-lane passing on VA backroads, and I manage to complete most passes. In those cases, it's usually a 90-140 km/h pass, and with a mere 2.5 litre 184hp engine, I find the X3 acceptable most of the time (of course, it's always full throttle, redline in 3rd). Sure, a Merc SL55 would pass with more swagger, but hey, I managed the pass, right?

I do have one and find it to have more than enough power for what it is; it is an SAV, and it isn't slow for this class of vehicle.

It isn't an M3, an M5 or an F430 for that matter.

In the 4.8i configuration it is a well driving, SAV with more than adequate power for most driving condions your average owner will come up against.

It is after all hovering just south of 2.5 tons...

In my opinion, that is.

KEF

Eh, SANguru's ragging on me again, not you.

haven't changed them yet... but will.... no oem oval tips but aftermarkets... some dealers will cut and weld the 4.8 tips (which can be made to fit the 3.0) but i don't think i'm going that route... will post pics later when it's done...

Is that so?

3.0si: 15/21 MPG

4.8i: 14/19 MPG

I feel the exact opposite... the 3.0's mileage is already terrible, so why not go all the way for the extra performance? If we truly cared about fuel economy over performance in our SUVs, we wouldn't be in a BMW X5 forum, would we? ;)

No dispute on the performance difference, but I don't think it is realistic to compare those mileage figures. I assume those are the published consumption figures. Yes, I know that the figures are designed to help consumers. However, if they are the published figures then they are run on a dyno, using pre-set (very slow) acceleration rates. To get those comparable mileage figures in the real world, you would have to drive the cars identically, accelerating at the same rate each time, or in other words, never use the power of the V8. That is what doesn't seem realistic, and the purchasers of the 4.8i that are getting 11 mpg may agree. They are also likely enjoying the power under their right foot.

Using test figures other than the EPA test that is used in the US, there is a 10% difference in the city, and 15% on the highway, between the two engines. Even those deltas are conservative IMO.

Just my $0.02

My dealers here in San Francisco area had many more left over 4.8 07s than 3.0s. Different demographic? One sales manager said that their sales were 70% 3.0 and that the overall mileage difference was 20%. I have not confirmed this with hard numbers it's just what these guys told me.

Even if the difference is 20%, I don't see how fuel economy or lack thereof would play any part in the decision process. The difference is probably at most $500-1000 extra per year in fuel costs unless you are a cab driver or a pizza delivery guy. ;)

> Even if the difference is 20%, I don't see how fuel economy or lack thereof would play any part in the decision process.

I agree; however, I gravitate to the six simply because that generally is a better and more reliable BMW engine than their V8s. Not that BMW V8s aren't good... it's just that BMW's sixes are extremely good engines, being naturally more balanced than a V8, among other things.

I guess alot of it is that if you have to worry about fueling the car you probably shouldn't be getting it. That said, I originally wanted a 3.0 but with the left over '07 4.8s there were some great deals but I couldn't come to an agreement with the dealer. Some here got even better deals on the 4.8s than I got on my 3.0. That said, I am pleased with the 3.0 as it so far has fit my needs. Btw, I do not intend to tow anything, ever.

They both suck gas. But my 3.0 sucks a little less than the 4.8 (about a quart of gas every 5 miles).

But then again, if I wanted a gas saving skateboard, I'd have bought a Prius.;)

I already drive a 13.75 mpg SUV (fresh calculation today). The bottom line is I don't feel the extra push the 4.8i had (and it did have plenty) was worth $8k plus whatever I'm already paying to keep my current car. I'll take some relief while having a brand new X5 too. The difference is just the engine and some cosmetics. And the 3.0si likely gets 17mpg in the long run while the 4.8i gets closer to 14mpg... if you wanted to do the math. I won't be needing the power often enough to justify it plus the premium. Again, not worth it to me... that is, unless money grew on a tree out in my backyard.

Face it, we'd all have better vehicles if we really didn't care to prioritize our spendings. You have to have a cut-off for what you will and will not spend on. Right now, $2-3k is all I'd pay for the extra I experienced. The U.S. gimped version of the SD, I'd pay no more than $1-2k for.

In the end it all comes down to what 08WhtX5 said....."This is a very subjective question and strictly depends on your needs and desires. If cost isn't a factor then I would go with the 4.8."

I thought both engines required premium. Could I be using reg. or mid. grade in my 3.0?

The short answer: No.

The technical answer: not the best for your motor. It'll take it, but won't like it. Would you feed an athlete only canned foods?

Off Topic Response
 

Well, the premium being referred to is a price premium, not premium fuel.

To balance out AZNm's post:

The short answer: Yes

The technical answer: It will not hurt your engine. It MAY cause reduced power, and increased fuel consumption, depending on the actual fuel quality in your area, and your ambient conditions. The only way to know is to try it. If you notice any deterioration in power or fuel consumption, it is a pretty good bet that the ECM is retarding the timing to prevent predetonation; in that case, you should go back to premium fuel and get all the performance you paid for. I used mid-grade (89) for years with absolutely no adverse effects, but did notice a power drop on 87. That said, you won't save much in annual fuel costs, and many will slag you with analogies such as tinned food for athletes, don't buy a BMW if you can't afford the fuel, it isn't a Honda, etc. ;)

So I guess you don't want to be a 20% better global citizen? :rofl:

I don't see why it always comes back to fuel price. Fuel is dirt cheap compared to world prices. We need to get past the price issue.

My decision process was to buy a new 3.0 E53, not for the fuel cost, but because it used 20% less fuel than the 4.4 at the time. Improved handling and a smoother engine was icing on the cake. When we replaced it, we bought an X3 3.0si, and cut fuel consumption by another 15% in the city, 20% on the highway. Added bonus: the X3 is a second faster to 60 than the X5 with the same engine, and the 400kg we left in the showroom means the vehicle is that much more nimble. No, it isn't an X5, but it does what we want to do. I needed a six passenger vehicle in December, for a day, and rented a Durango with a 3rd row seat. Worked perfectly.

This is just one vehicle. But compared to a 4.8, we are up to 40% better on fuel consumption, in round numbers. What if everyone did that?

/eco mode off

I have to disagree with the 2nd part. As discussed many times before, over time you are doing damage to the engine. Engine will retard timing WHEN knock sensors say there IS detonation. Even when continuous monitoring, you still are getting the initial knock first for anything to happen. Over time, with detonation, you will have issues. Plain and simple.

The $$ that you save between premium vs mid or low grade is really little. ~10-20 cents a gallon. and say your fill up is 20 gallons. Well that's only $2-4 dollars a fill up. *52 weeks and that is only $104-208 dollars a year. If that's a problem, you shouldn't be buying a X5.

Point well taken. I do use premium.

Continuing Off Topic....
 

I fully respect your opinion. Mine is just different. The knock sensors are measuring vibrations representative of pre-detonation, on every firing cycle, per cylinder. It is an active feedback. Any active control system is going to require a feedback loop. It all depends on the threshold setting, how severe the abnormal combusion is (or if it ever even reaches the knock point). It would be reasonable to detect pre-detonation prior to any severe knock condition). BMW does state in their literature that lower octane fuel will not damage the engine. They also rely on the sensors for other than low AKI fuel: they are there to protect the engine from fuel problems, exhaust problems, carbon build up, and other things that cause abnormal combustion. They have to have designed in a threshold level.

As to the $$ that you save, I agree. In my area, it is $0.12 per litre, 80 litres per week, about $10 per weekly fill. $500 per year, and that is for regular. I used 89, for half that saving. (Note: I don't use 89 on the twin turbo 3.0, it is illogical) For the E53, it was completely irrelevant in the economic big picture. For many, it is easier just to pay it and not think about it. For others, there is no option because they require 91 or similar from their local pumps or experience power and mileage loss, due to their local fuel quality.

Good stuff Jeff. More things to consider beside knocking... these built-in thresholds can only accomodate so much. Typically with cheaper grade fuel, pretonation is only the tip of the iceberg. You still need to consider the ill effects/after effects of the carbon buildup from carbon deposits on your valvetrain, etc. Over time considering this and the fact the valvetronic motors with the high compression ratios, that $100-200 you save will end up costing you a much prettier penny.

Also the degradation will get more severe causing other things such as further retarding of the timing. You can only go such much BTDC before throwing CEL's, etc.

The manual on page 213 reads,

"Super Premium Gasoline/AKI 91; This gasoline is highly recommended. However, you may also use gasoline with less AKI. The minimum AKI Rating is 87. If you use gasoline with this minimum AKI Rating, the engine may produce knocking sounds when starting at high outside temperatures. THIS HAS NO AFFECT ON THE ENGINE LIFE."

Mind you, not every country in the world, (BMWs are driven there too) including South Korea, will not have three little buttons letting you choose the "different quality" gasoline at the pumps. They only have one nozzle for Gas and another for diesel and thats it!

It would not make any sense at all to specifically make the engine suitable for the 91 octane fuel as BMWs are driven internationally. (rumor has it that some countries even utilize gasoline with higher than 91 AKI rating for vehicular usage, ie close to jet fuel).

However, when you go to fill up your X5, there is that sign that says, "Premium gas ONLY" which helps to makes life extremely...simple?! lol

but really, to get into the business end of the whole premium gas deal and the cleaning agents and what not,, its highly an ethical issue than a scientific one.

I'd like to know why we have 87 89 and 92/93/94 here ... I want 91! :D

Then again, they say even going from 93 to 94 makes a difference in acceleration.

And just for kicks, check these out: http://www.dynotab.com/octanebooster.htm

:trustme:I'd put 87 gas in my X any day over any of that octane boost crap:thumbdown

Outside North America the AKI is measured by the RON method, not the pump method (average of research method octane rating and motor method octane rating, two different tests). That higher rated fuel is not usually higher. 98 RON is very close to 92 pump octane. 95 RON is very close to 89 pump octane, what we call mid grade.

Don't try jet fuel, it is kerosene, much closer to diesel than to gasoline.

You may have meant aviation fuel, as it has a higher AKI than road fuel, but that is measured by a different test and isn't directly comparable.

yup.. it will burn right through your fuel lines...