low mileage S90 D5

[Tony Harrison]

Re the above from m2, I don't regard my average of 45mpg as "drinking". My previous E Class's averaged 39 (E350) and 46 (E220) so 45 is representative of this class of vehicle.

I suspect an XC90 is a harder drinker but look at Quacker's figures. The bloke's almost teetotal considering the size of vehicle.

[m2srt]

Originally Posted by Tony Harrison

Re the above from m2, I don't regard my average of 45mpg as "drinking". My previous E Class's averaged 39 (E350) and 46 (E220) so 45 is representative of this class of vehicle.

I suspect an XC90 is a harder drinker but look at Quacker's figures. The bloke's almost teetotal considering the size of vehicle.

Considered that my 3 litre straight six is getting comparable mpg, has in excess of 300hp and can hit 62 mph in under 6 seconds then the D5 starts to look thirsty in comparison.

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by m2srt

Considered that my 3 litre straight six is getting comparable mpg, has in excess of 300hp and can hit 62 mph in under 6 seconds then the D5 starts to look thirsty in comparison.

Oddly, my previous X5 which was only just under 200 hp iirc ( single turbo version) only managed 30mpg on a good day. No doubt newer ones improve on that somewhat. The Q7 has similar consumption.

At the time I thought these great compared to the previous four cylinder Range Rover 26mpg and my Land Cruiser 4.2 at 24mpg on a really good day.

[Tony Harrison]

I agree Beemers are generally said to be pretty efficient but the official (presumably optimistic test version) combined figure for an X5 40D was 40mpg from what I can see. The current XC90 D5 figure is around 47mpg according to What Car?. So by "comparable" you actually mean "quite a bit less"?

Let's have some numbers to help our friend jotka (not that inferring he should have bought a beemer helps him much).

[m2srt]

LĹ

Originally Posted by Tony Harrison

I agree Beemers are generally said to be pretty efficient but the official (presumably optimistic test version) combined figure for an X5 40D was 40mpg from what I can see. The current XC90 D5 figure is around 47mpg according to What Car?. So by "comparable" you actually mean "quite a bit less"?

Let's have some numbers to help our friend jotka (not that inferring he should have bought a beemer helps him much).

Okay, my average fuel consumption based on 40% urban, 40% A roads and 20% motorways is about 36MPG. 100% motorways 70mph is about 44. Considering size, capacity and power I consider that to be pretty good going. I never use Start Stop and am no longer on runflats I am however quite a sedate driver and only 'use' the motor to overtake.

[Tony Harrison]

Thank you for the data. So "comparable" actually means "a lot less". Just so we understand.

Nuff said.

[m2srt]

Originally Posted by Tony Harrison

Thank you for the data. So "comparable" actually means "a lot less". Just so we understand.

Nuff said.

If you're trying to compare a boxy SUV to saloon cars then yes but if you're comparing apples to apples then the X5 uses about the same amount of fuel as a XC90 D5. A friend mine has the N57 straight 6 in his 335d Touring and claims to be getting 51 MPG. So my original point remains valid that the BMW straight 6 offers similar levels of efficiency whilst at the same time offering superior levels of refinement and performance.

PERIOD!

[Quacker]

Originally Posted by m2srt

If you're trying to compare a boxy SUV to saloon cars then yes but if you're comparing apples to apples then the X5 uses about the same amount of fuel as a XC90 D5. A friend mine has the N57 straight 6 in his 335d Touring and claims to be getting 51 MPG. So my original point remains valid that the BMW straight 6 offers similar levels of efficiency whilst at the same time offering superior levels of refinement and performance.

PERIOD!

Again, I found my X5 to be fairly noisy. Noisier than the XC90 but slightly quieter than the same BMW engine fitter to the Range Rover. Its not a quiet engine per-se but admittedly has a quieter drive-by-under-load noise for bystanders, where the Volvo sounds somewhat like a Perkins 1100 series. However that is hardly noticeable inside the cab due to very good engine mounts and the double-bulkhead fitted to 60 and 90 series cars.
The Q7 V6 is a more refined performer in my opinion. But frankly the difference is not particularly significant when by far the greater noise during normal driving comes from tyres, whether taking about Volvo or the Germanic brands.
This is my experience from personally owning and driving all these cars for between a minimum of 35,000 miles and a maximum of 70,000 each. Range Rover and BMW were owned for the least mileage, the RR because I got an offer I couldn't refuse to change it for the Audi and the BMW because it left us stranded and was carted back to dealer on a truck, three times.

[m2srt]

Originally Posted by Quacker

Again, I found my X5 to be fairly noisy. Noisier than the XC90 but slightly quieter than the same BMW engine fitter to the Range Rover. Its not a quiet engine per-se but admittedly has a quieter drive-by-under-load noise for bystanders, where the Volvo sounds somewhat like a Perkins 1100 series. However that is hardly noticeable inside the cab due to very good engine mounts and the double-bulkhead fitted to 60 and 90 series cars.
The Q7 V6 is a more refined performer in my opinion. But frankly the difference is not particularly significant when by far the greater noise during normal driving comes from tyres, whether taking about Volvo or the Germanic brands.
This is my experience from personally owning and driving all these cars for between a minimum of 35,000 miles and a maximum of 70,000 each. Range Rover and BMW were owned for the least mileage, the RR because I got an offer I couldn't refuse to change it for the Audi and the BMW because it left us stranded and was carted back to dealer on a truck, three times.

The Range Rover actually had the predecessor to my engine, the M57! Great engine but quite different to it's successor the N57. To start with, the RR still had a cast iron block as opposed to later iterations of the M57. It also had almost half the power of the N57.