Ok, would this 520D M Sport Touring be better than the X3?

Ant C · 17 May 2011 at 16:04

Last week I asked if anyone had experience of the BMW X3.

While nobody seemed to have owned one I was pointed towards a 5 series touring as a better option for my needs.

Found a 520D M Sport Touring here, same place as the X3 I was interested in:

http://www.hamptonautomotive.co.uk/306402/used-cars.htm

Mileage is higher than I would like at 84k but with one owner and full BMW service history it should have some life left in it. I don't do many miles a year anyway. Also 2k cheaper than the X3.

Going to see it tomorrow morning, anything I should be on the lookout for?

Disco Boy · 17 May 2011 at 16:07

No nav and only half leather? Bit basic really.

bandit · 17 May 2011 at 16:11

think its a bit pricey to be honest.
I'm putting my 55 plate 525D on for a similar price soon, but thats loaded with wood veneers, leather, satnav, panoramic roof, memory seats and a few other bits a pieces, and 20K less mileage!

Ant C · 17 May 2011 at 16:31

bandit said:
think its a bit pricey to be honest.
I'm putting my 55 plate 525D on for a similar price soon, but thats loaded with wood veneers, leather, satnav, panoramic roof, memory seats and a few other bits a pieces, and 20K less mileage!

Not on the look out for a 320D are you?

bandit · 17 May 2011 at 16:33

FenixTorch said:
Not on the look out for a 320D are you?

nah,

would love to keep mine, but the wife just passed her test and shes pregnant, so now we need more room and cheaper on insurance

basically i'll have to sell the E61 and buy a barge

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2011 at 16:54

Mileage is too high for the BMW warranty - it will cost 4 figures a year on an 84k mile car.

Do not buy one without a cast iron warranty.

Go for an unloved petrol one unless you desperately need a noisy diesel as you will get a nicer car for your money.

Ant C · 17 May 2011 at 17:03

Thanks Fox - was hoping you would respond.

Back to the drawing board....

LupoLover · 17 May 2011 at 19:17

Touring will be far more useful then a X3 as more load space. Fair easier to drive, far better drive.

No choice to me!

hurfdurf · 17 May 2011 at 20:36

I just want to thank the OP for listening to the advice given and showing some effort in taking that advice on board, makes a refreshing change. Please do not ruin it by going out and purchasing a bad car.

realscot · 17 May 2011 at 21:01

[TW]Fox;19160205 said:
Go for an unloved petrol one unless you desperately need a noisy diesel as you will get a nicer car for your money.

Which petrol engined bmw's would give as good performance as the 2.0 diesel? Don't quote me figures, tell me which ones feel as quick to drive?
The 2.0 derv is pretty rapid with good low down grunt, I think most of the lower end petrols would struggle to look at the diesel in real world driving conditions.
This is my current problem with all smaller engined petrol cars. You still get crap fuel economy and they are slower than their diesel counterparts. I firmly believe you should get a diesel unless the petrol car you are choosing has minimum of 150bhp (you get away with a little less in a small car)

Disco Boy · 17 May 2011 at 21:50

realscot said:
...2.0 derv is pretty rapid...
...low down grunt...
...real world driving conditions...

You're a living cliché.

bandit · 17 May 2011 at 21:53

LupoLover said:
Touring will be far more useful then a X3 as more load space. Fair easier to drive, far better drive.

No choice to me!

much more useful, i looked at X3 and X5 before getting my E61 Tourer

realscot · 18 May 2011 at 07:37

Disco Boy said:
You're a living cliché.

Only problem there is it's true. Unless you buy a large powerful petrol engined car then diesel will always be better. When I sit in these expensive bmw's etc and fire them up and realise some mugs bought a 1.8 or a 2.0 petrol I almost want to laugh. If you can't afford the 6 cylinder petrol then do yourself a favour and buy the diesel. I 100% believe it's a better driving engine.

[TW]Fox · 18 May 2011 at 13:32

realscot said:
Which petrol engined bmw's would give as good performance as the 2.0 diesel?

All of them.

Don't quote me figures, tell me which ones feel as quick to drive?
The 2.0 derv is pretty rapid with good low down grunt, I think most of the lower end petrols would struggle to look at the diesel in real world driving conditions.

Errr surely you want actual performance not just 'feel'?

This is my current problem with all smaller engined petrol cars. You still get crap fuel economy and they are slower than their diesel counterparts. I firmly believe you should get a diesel unless the petrol car you are choosing has minimum of 150bhp (you get away with a little less in a small car)

What are you talking about? I am talking about the LCI E60 - the SMALLEST petrol engine in this car is a 3 litre and develops 218bhp!

realscot said:
. When I sit in these expensive bmw's etc and fire them up and realise some mugs bought a 1.8 or a 2.0 petrol I almost want to laugh.

Which 1.8 or 2.0 LCI E60's are you sitting in then? :confused:

If you can't afford the 6 cylinder petrol then do yourself a favour and buy the diesel. I 100% believe it's a better driving engine.

Err the 'lesser' petrol engine I am talking about *is* a 6 cylinder.