SD or Not
 

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

The big difference between the pre and post update E53 3.0d was the torque, more so that the power. In Australian spec the max torque went from 390Nm to 480Nm while the power jumped from 135kW to 150kW.

The E53 only had one diesel on offer at any one time but it was upgraded with the 2004 facelift. The E70 has had two diesels, single and twin turbo and both have been updated a few times. In all, between the E53 and the E70 there's been about seven different diesel engine variants over the years although this varies from market to market.

Thanks for the replies I was looking at a used 2007/2008. I think I'll hold out for the SD as it sounds from what has been said there is still a substantial difference. That said probably the wrong time of year to buy one

If that's the years you're looking at you'll find the 3.0sd has around 25% more power and 13% more torque than the 3.0d. I'm not entirely sure about UK-spec but I believe it's not much, if any, removed from Aussie spec.

I've driven the two back to back (in Aussie spec) and the 3.0sd is definitely the one to have if performance is a priority. However, the 3.0d is still a great drive and just as effortless in everyday driving as the sd.
What you will notice about the sd is that it's a little more responsive off idle than the single turbo. It also likes to rev a little higher and more keenly than the the single turbo and this is where it makes its extra power. In the mid-range however there's not much in it.

As for fuel consumption, again there's nothing in it for normal driving but if you regularly access the extra power that the sd has then you pay the price.

Good luck.

I feel that the AT in the 3.0sd keeps the revs too high, likes to run it to redline although that really doesn't make use of the fat mid-range of the bi-turbo motor. I usually finesse the throttle to keep revs under 4k.

Where'd you find a 3.0sd to drive around here?

He might just be refering to the 35d we get it in the states. It also is a twin turbo I6 like the 3.0sd and maybe it has the same tune for comparison.

It's basically the same engine except that the US-spec 35d has urea additive system to meet local EPA. Slightly different power and torque figures too.

When did you buy a diesel?

Dad leased one in one of his many random moments of illogical thinking. None of us are happy about it. He's the main person that drives it, but I've driven it on occasion on short trips to the market when I don't want to subject my X3 to cold starts, short-distance trips.

These gearboxes are adaptive and respond to the driver's style by varying the part-throttle shift protocols. You say that this is not your car but your father's and he may have a different driving style. A short drive like you mention you do may not be sufficient to start adapting the gearbox to you. My experience with both the E53 and E70 single and twin turbo diesels and their five, six or now eight speed autos is that all the 'boxes generally shift up readily to the higher ratios and hang on to them by feeding off the strong mid-range torque.

Not sure I understand that logic, given that a diesel, and a new one at that, would be worse at dealing with short trips following cold starts, and have higher consequences for such use, than a 100,000 mile gasoline engine. Is it just that it is then his problem instead of yours?

I agree, a diesel is much worst for cold-start short trips but why wear out your car when you can wear out the old man's?

Since it is only a lease, after the lease is over, it will be neither of their problems I guess. :dunno:

It's a lease. If something goes wrong on the X5, its within warranty or the next owner's problem.

He was incredibly stubborn when he just showed up with it. Didn't test drive or do any research. Financially, the lease deal wasn't good and pushes the family budget. He complains that it's a bit loud and that diesel is expensive in Northern Virginia. I told him that premium diesel cures the engine rattle, but he says he doesn't want to bother looking for it. :dunno:

I also told him that diesel is cheaper than premium petrol, but that my observations reflect prices in Central, Southern, and SW Virginia. I can't possibly predict prices in Northern VA because I don't drive there often.

Ironically, I'm the only one in the family that can park the behemoth. The tire tracks on the grass near our driveway have been caused by.......well it wasn't me :rolleyes:

X5 3.5d - No Sleeper
 

After putting more than 200k on a 1987 MB 300TD - the only time Mercedes put a turbocharged I6 engine in the states, the X5 is, by comparison a race horse!

Between the great comfort of the seats and the (mostly) great ride, it's easy to "gently accelerate" and suddenly you're going 90 ~ all in serene silence (with the pararamic fully open, but the sunroof closed. That's at freeway speeds. But it can also leap from a standing start, too. There's nothing but smiles on our end!