E30 Zone

Hi all,

I'm thinking of trading in my X5 for something different or newer. Had a really good time with my 2006 X5 but it's becoming 5 years old and already the parking sensors are dead...the panoramic roof is problematic as the 2nd sunroof doesn't close and BMW want £3000 to fix it

I'm thinking either a grey RR Sport 2.7 or the new X5 7 seater. Diesel obviously as not only do you get more MPG but also they hold their value better. One of my good friends is a Land Rover specialist and kinda makes sense to get everything done by him. It will help keep maintenance costs low too. Not stupid enough to buy anything brand new not to mention I can't afford to waste money like that in this current climate BUT maybe something 2 years old with minimal mileage.

So what do you guys think? Grey colour is favourite. Thanks and haters keep your negative comments to yourself (you know who you are).

Have a nice day

I have drove both and I think the RR is a much better drive. Although not used one as a daily car, but it was an absolute pleasure!
The X5, I had a 06' one and I loved that alot, but they can become quite dull in the end. So my cards would be on the RR... Although I wouldnt go for the sport... I'd go for a nice top spec Vogue as they are just so much more 'classy'.

I did a MOT on a RR Sport the other day. I'd been a fan before, but I didn't like this one. interior felt plasticky/cheap. Not sure that's acceptable given how much they are.

IIRC they are a Disco underneath.

Rich_W wrote:
IIRC they are a Disco underneath.

what, loads of cheap tarts in white stilettos tie wrapped to the suspension arms, or multi coloured flashing lights?

I had a RRsport for 3 year and loved every minute of it. contrary to common belief the are very reliable, it never failed me once. Rarely went thru tyres like x5's do. 25mpg as a daily and phenominal in the snow and off road!

I would've kept it but a new house and company car deemed it an unneeded expense

I very well may buy the replacement coming out 2012 tho. the evoque looks pretty good too mind. but i imagine it will be pants off road with 2x4.

If you're going fot the newer one the 3.0 TDV6 is very smooth. wont wind any races but a fantastic drive and a proper car!!!

Wonderful info gents! I am still undecided but I will look into what best value I can get for my money

A 10 year old bog standard RR still looks good today, 2 year old X5 looks dates already- except at a push the top end sport versions.

No contest, RR everyday.

With a RR you know it can tackle almost anything in it's path and it will survive. My old neigbour had one and he let me have a go in it , very nice drive and I loved the driving position.

mrLEE30 wrote:A 10 year old bog standard RR still looks good today, 2 year old X5 looks dates already- except at a push the top end sport versions.

No contest, RR everyday.

AGREED!

Meant "dated" not "dates!"

Never liked the RR sport. Felt cheaper. I'd rather have a normal RR.

BIGJO wrote: 2006 X5 but it's becoming 5 years old and already the parking sensors are dead...the panoramic roof is problematic as the 2nd sunroof doesn't close and BMW want £3000 to fix it

I keep hearing horror stories about newer (after E46 era) BMW's and it's really putting me off.

My 190k E36 325tds, still has working parking sensors, the traction and stability control systems still work! Which is an expensive problem in a lot of newish expensive VAG and German cars.

How about a x6? I repair both a tdv8 and a tdv6. They aint brilliant. Faulty egr's. Back order alternators. Problematic air suspension.
I'd say the bmw's are more reliable...

The newer e70 shape x5 has a 3 litre twin turbo engine that is much more refined and 272bhp as opposed to 218 from the older 2000 odd-to late 2006 3 litre SINGLE turbo engine or 184 if you're an early bird.

Remapping that would shit on a 325 sport off the line and a range rover happy days.

scotty86d wrote:The newer e70 shape x5 has a 3 litre twin turbo engine that is much more refined and 272bhp as opposed to 218 from the older 2000 odd-to late 2006 3 litre SINGLE turbo engine or 184 if you're an early bird.

Remapping that would shit on a 325 sport off the line and a range rover happy days.

old thread

anyway it doesnt take much to shit on a 325i sport off the line. a mapped 120d will give a sport a hard time

An E70 weighs twice as much as an E30.

No Diesel E70 would shit on my Sport.

bss325i wrote:An E70 weighs twice as much as an E30.

No Diesel E70 would shit on my Sport.

the 40d is supposed to do 62 in 6.6seconds. thats on par with any sport

Kos wrote:

bss325i wrote:An E70 weighs twice as much as an E30.

No Diesel E70 would shit on my Sport.

the 40d is supposed to do 62 in 6.6seconds. thats on par with any sport

On par, not "shit on".

I'm looking to get rid of the missus;s ML350 for one of these

bss325i wrote:

Kos wrote:

bss325i wrote:An E70 weighs twice as much as an E30.

No Diesel E70 would shit on my Sport.

the 40d is supposed to do 62 in 6.6seconds. thats on par with any sport

On par, not "shit on".

i never said it would shit on a sport, that was badassya but he did say a mapped one would shit on a sport

Almost right, Rav. Do like me. Substitute "M" for "S".

Kos wrote:

bss325i wrote:

Kos wrote: the 40d is supposed to do 62 in 6.6seconds. thats on par with any sport

On par, not "shit on".

i never said it would shit on a sport, that was badassya but he did say a mapped one would shit on a sport

I am aware of who said what, it was Scotty86d that said a mapped E70 would shit on a sport.

Bottom line is an E70 is a 2.2 tone car. I have driven many E70's (two today infact) so i think its fair to say that i have a fair idea of what they are capable off.

bss325i wrote:

Kos wrote:

bss325i wrote: On par, not "shit on".

i never said it would shit on a sport, that was badassya but he did say a mapped one would shit on a sport

I am aware of who said what, it was Scotty86d that said a mapped E70 would shit on a sport.

Bottom line is an E70 is a 2.2 tone car. I have driven many E70's (two today infact) so i think its fair to say that i have a fair idea of what they are capable off.

my error baz,

they are quick for a 2200kg barge though. on paper they seem very capable. having driven a few x5's i remember the first time drove a 4.4 v8. paper said it was quick and it was. deceptively quick !

we all like e30's baz, but a 325i sport will be out dragged by a lot of mediocre cars these days but they dont have the the spirit and soul of an e30

fozzymandeus wrote:Almost right, Rav. Do like me. Substitute "M" for "S".

No room for the kids in that one

Mine has 9 glove boxes....

Double R anyday for me. Only 4x4 id ever have.

Kos wrote:we all like e30's baz, but a 325i sport will be out dragged by a lot of mediocre cars these days but they dont have the the spirit and soul of an e30

I'm well aware of your average E30 being out dragged by newer humdrum cars but my example is not you average worn out old turd. I have been up against plenty of newer supposedly quicker cars and not been had or better still, beat them.

I've done a 15.3 quarter which i reckon i could better with practice and a GPS 140mph. Would be good to get some 0-60 and 0-100 times done but i reckon its well into the 6's to 60.

Besides all that, why the f*ck would you want a big wobbly turd that go wrong often and cost £££ to fix?!

X5 or RR!

bss325i wrote:

Kos wrote: I've done a 15.3 quarter which i reckon i could better with practice and a GPS 140mph. Would be good to get some 0-60 and 0-100 times done but i reckon its well into the 6's to 60.

X5 xDrive40d SE

top speed 236 km/h (147 mph)
accelerations
0- 60 mph 6.3 s & 0- 100 km/h 6.6 s
0- 1/4 mile 14.8 s

some people like newer cars,

why would some one want to drive an e30 every day? they are old and dated. i certainly dont want to, only as a weekend toy.

every one has their reasons for driving a car, and what ever they are its their choice.

your sports a very nice car and in good health, but it will still get spanked by demlots derv e46 in straight drag

Kos wrote:

bss325i wrote: I've done a 15.3 quarter which i reckon i could better with practice and a GPS 140mph. Would be good to get some 0-60 and 0-100 times done but i reckon its well into the 6's to 60.

X5 xDrive40d SE

top speed 236 km/h (147 mph)
accelerations
0- 60 mph 6.3 s & 0- 100 km/h 6.6 s
0- 1/4 mile 14.8 s

some people like newer cars,

why would some one want to drive an e30 every day? they are old and dated. i certainly dont want to, only as a weekend toy.

every one has their reasons for driving a car, and what ever they are its their choice.

your sports a very nice car and in good health, but it will still get spanked by demlots derv e46 in straight drag

I like newer cars to, and i dont drive one every day, i drive an E46 every day.

An E70 is an expensive ticking time bomb, trust me on that one!

I cant comment on demlots 320Cd because i have not driven it or been up against it but i can tell you now that a standard E46 320d/Cd has no chance of out dragging my sport. Never!

I have driven countless E46, E90 320d's and they aint even close! Even on paper.

A standard 320Cd manual has a 0-60 time of 8.5 secs.

I doubt very much that a remap and decat will shave 2 seconds off the 0-60.

Range Rover anyday. But what about an XC90? They're nice.

They're all complete w**ker chariots X5's ML's XC90s RR sports. They make my blood boil! don't know why? is it the people who drive them? Or the way they drive them? both?!

RR & X5 while nice are lardy old buses, Cayenne Turbo FTW if you wast a fast 4x4 that doesnt feel like your in a 4x4!

i'd be suited to the both then, or do cunts drive other cars ?