If memory serves me correctly, did someone here own an X3, the later F25 model?
Just wondering. It seems to receive favourable reviews.
|
Pretty good by all accounts.
And, provided you're sort of in touch with /at peace with your feminine side, nothing to be concerned about either on that front...
;-)
|
|
I have a set of winter tyres that'll fit it
|
Just that this Christmas has been a bit of a catalyst for me re changing the 330. The RX400h is too large, which is why I passed on my friends, and getting my mother & aunt, combined age 180, into, and more importantly, out of, the 330 is getting past a joke.
A friend of mine holds a senior position with Audi UK, and he recommended the X3 above the Q5, as a low depreciating, practical motor. I live fairly rural in the Y Dales, and although 4WD is not really necessary, the security of it would be of some assurance. A cheap Spec B Tourer would fit the bill, but selling it on would be a huge problem, and even I, with limited mileage, could not stomach 20mpg with spirited driving. As would an S6 avant. Plenty of Freelanders for sale privately, but...
Carrying all my gardening gear in the trailer, my 3 day a week Spring to Autumn 'other' part time job, is a PITA. And I fancy a change, so will arrange a test drive, and if I likee, will contact my pro auction buyer contact. Typical man maths at work.
|
|
You've probably been asked this in previous threads, LL, but isn't it worth looking for a 330 Touring? Or even a 530 if you need the room.
|
yes yes yes. A 330 Touring makes eminent sense. Change for the sake of change.
|
>> And, provided you're sort of in touch with /at peace with your feminine side
Are you thinking of the Z3 there? The X3 is a 4x4.... I know with someone with one from 2011 and it's been nothing but problems. It is made in America which doesn't help quality.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 27 Dec 13 at 23:38
|
Runfer is correct. The X3 is a girly car. Not that it bothers me in the slightest. Real men drive mud spattered, battered, dented high mileage X5's. Two of my bloke friends do. There were 4 sheep in the back of one this week! Honest injun!
|
|
LC, Why limit yourself to BMs and the pseudo off roaders? With a name like yours would have thought you'd be looking at various Subarus, what about a legacy or Explorer- sounds perfect for the job and more suited to a life in the mud.
|
|
The one I had a ride in had a shocking ride. God knows what it would have been like on 'big bang rims'.
|
Joking aside, I guess it depends what you want / need. Apparently on the upside, they handle well, they have a boot almost as big as an X5, are pretty fuel efficient if you go for the 2.0d and will be at least capable when/if the going gets rough.
I have also heard ( as ST mentions ) that the ride can be a bit harsh.
I'd consider one over an X5 for the fuel economy mainly but if that wasn't a major factor I'd still prefer the X5.
I drove a borrowed 3.0d auto X5 to Dusseldorf and back a few years ago and it was a very pleasant place to be for a long journey. Thirsty though. Less than 30mpg I want to remember.
Given where you're coming from LL, I'd be another to suggest a 3 or 5 touring as your first ports of potential call unless you particularly fancy a SUV this time.
|
|
Friends have one they are pleased with, and yes the new ones are almost as big as early X5s. Still too posh for a 4x4. LL, surely a Forester would be better?
|
A Forester, from a purely practical point of view, would fit the bill. But, I just don't like the styling, and, sad to say, I think they are outdated. Perfectly good mechanicals, decent performance from the turbo model, but not for me. My brother has recently taken delivery of a Legacy estate, only a few years old, and after 50 or so miles in it, I was disappointed. I really liked my previous Legacy estates, but this was slow and thirsty and things have moved on. By 'slow' I mean mid range acceleration. OK, the 330 has adequate performance, most of the time, and an X3 2.0d would be noticeably slower, but if push came to shove, and I found it too slow, I would be confident of selling it without losing too much if bought at the right price ie not from a glass showroom.
|
|
I agree that Subaru's styling, both internal and external, is the weakest part of their current range. I think the X3 2.0d is pretty quick (well it would be plenty quick enough for me!)
|
I plan to take a test drive in both 2.0d & 3.0d engined models. Not much difference in mpg according to the stats, but the latter would give me performance more akin to my current car. My preference would be for 18" rims, but not sure at the moment if they are available with the 3.0 engine. All 3.0 models on AT have 19" rims so I suspect not, and overall I would prefer a more comfortable ride to outright grip & handling.
RP...can I assume your previous X3 'winter tyres' are 18"?
|
You've got to go for the 3-litre.
Six months ago we swapped our 2006 X3 3-litre for a 2011 2-litre and are noticing the power deficit, even though performance is adequate. Car is much better refined than the old X3, but feels more like a lumbering 4WD, and we're not convinced that the build quality is as good.
Just spent 16 days in the UK driving a 520d M-Sport, which felt a lot premier than the X3 with the same engine. Probably not surprising given the added weight of the X3.
|
|
"Premier" should read "perkier". Damn autocorrect!
|
|
I've always thought the back end of an X3 in white looks like an Imperial Stormtroopers helmet.
|
|
Strange that. All the reviews I have read suggest that the F25, launched Nov 2010, is far superior in build quality, fit & interior materials than its predecessor.
|
Well, the F11 looks better-built (materials and finish) and is better-spec'd than its predecessor, but we've had the odd clonk and rattle whereas the old model felt bulletproof.
There's that nagging doubt - possibly irrational I know - that a US-built X3 ain't gonna be as well built as the old Austrian-built X3...
|
>> There's that nagging doubt - possibly irrational I know - that a US-built X3 ain't gonna be as
>> well built as the old Austrian-built X3
I think you're right to be concerned. My brother has had lots of problems with a US built X3 over the last 2 years. I've hosted on here about in response to other threads, including yours maybe?
I hope it is problem free. But one issue was adaptive suspension related.
|
|
I see the first generation X3 was also assembled in Egypt in the 6th October City. My birthday :-) Day not year.
|
FiL tried a then-new 2 litre X3 a little over a year ago. He found the ride hard and the price too hard to swallow by comparison to the equivalent spec Forester or Volvo he also looked at.
Really, I think he wanted to like the X3 (he's a BMW fan, after two 3 series, a 5 series and a BM bike) but he went with a 2WD 2 litre XC60. The 4WD version might be worth a look?
Tip: whichever SUV you look at, be sure to have your intending passengers try it for ease of access. FiL had an infirm relative who couldn't climb into the XC60...but he didn't discover this until after he'd taken delivery of it!
PS: FWIW, the original-shape Forester , Mk 1 Scenic, or a Mk1 Focus - were an ideal height for this relative. From standing, you can sit straight across into the Foz or Scenic without having to step up, and the Focus is tall enough that you don't have to bend your knees or back much to sit down into it.
|
We caught up with some friends over Christmas who for many years had a Volvo XC90. A year ago they replaced it for a then new X5 (i.e. not the current new shape ...)_They can't stand the uncomfortable ride, and positively look forward to getting rid of it. The current X3 is, I believe, based on the previous X5?
It's funny, road tests referred briefly to the ride being a little uncomfortable, but didn't consider it as important as handling, etc. I think most owners rate comfort higher on their list of priorities than most road testers.
|
Agreed. If your priority was handling then why buy an SUV? Ride comfort over handling anyday...although plenty of oomph to safely overtake mimsers is equally important for me.
I met up with an old friend a few days ago who has owned an '03 X5 from new. Now with 187k used and abused miles it has been 100% reliable. We often ski together and on our trips over the Pennines to Manc airport the ride in it seems perfectly acceptable to me.
|
>> Agreed. If your priority was handling then why buy an SUV? Ride comfort over handling
>> anyday...although plenty of oomph to safely overtake mimsers is equally important for me.
>>
We usually rent an SUV when in The 'States and love the comfort of them there - but you really do have to adapt your driving style. If the warning signs say 25MPH on a curved off-ramp then they really mean it!
As well as softer suspension, they generally don't seem to have gone on for massive diameter wheels that we have here. Apparently on the new RangeRover it's absolutely *vital* to get the 22" wheels. :rolleyes:
|
>>
>> It's funny, road tests referred briefly to the ride being a little uncomfortable, but didn't
>> consider it as important as handling, etc. I think most owners rate comfort higher on
>> their list of priorities than most road testers.
>>
It would appear - from articles that most motorists buy new cars and don't check out simple basics.
eg
"My new yaris trend has a terrible turning circle compared to my last 11 plate yaris. What have toyota done? Anyone else not happy regarding this? Thanks!
www.toyotaownersclub.com/forums/topic/154821-yaris-turning-circle/
Test driving a new to you car over speed humps is an essential in the modern world. As is one minute reading a brochure to check the turning circle.
As for road testers.. most (Exclude Which here which I read at Library) the results of their tests seem to me to indicate they are incapable of multitasking eg driving and thinking.
Or maybe both independently.
I treat them all as lying illegitimate offspring.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 8 Jan 14 at 13:20
|
I agree madf. Apparently the friends did test the X5 before they bought, but on smooth Milton Keynes roads, rather than anything older/harsher...
US SUVs have to have soft suspension for their generally poor roads.
|
|
I always test drive over speed humps.. Always. Most cars don't like 'em ( cf Corporal Jones)
|
>> US SUVs have to have soft suspension for their generally poor roads.
>>
You tend not to get too many potholes in Florida or California!
|
>>
>> >> US SUVs have to have soft suspension for their generally poor roads.
>> >>
>>
>> You tend not to get too many potholes in Florida or California!
>>
Try the boonies..
|
Or Interstate 80 over Donner Summit in the Sierras. At a max elevation over 7,000ft the old concrete slab is severely affected by a combination of snow, ice and big rigs travelling from SF & Sacramento to Reno and all places East. The worst dual carriageway I have ever driven on. Amazing scenery though, especially after a big storm with snow piled up in huge banks either side.
Named after the Donner wagon train party who became stuck in heavy snow and resorted to cannibalism. No In n Out Burger in those days.
|
>>US SUVs have to have soft suspension for their generally poor roads.
During summer 2013 I hired a Hyundai ix35 (Tucsan) in the states.
In Oct I bought one for myself and notice that the suspension is so much harder than the Altea it replaced.
I don't recollect having the same feeling when I was in the hire car - now much of our driving was long road trips on Interstates so relatively smooth but still leads me to think that the suspension may have been softer.
|
The ride on the F25 X3 is much improved over the old-model X3, which could be a bone-jarrer.
Our F25 rides on 17-inch wheels: they look a bit puny but the ride is streets ahead of the old X3 on 18-inchers.
|
BMW - X3 consideration - Runfer D'Hills
