> Hi folks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> tia
Don't know about the 2001 models, but according to BMW NA, the current EPA
mileage for the 2006 X5 3.0 is about the same (or slightly worse) than the
4.4. I guess 4,700 pounds is a bit much for a 3 litre.
Tom K.
Floyd Rogers - 09 Oct 2006 19:51 GMT
> "bt" <bt@nospam.co.uk> wrote
>> Thinking of buying an x5 around 2001 model and was surprised by the mpg
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> mileage for the 2006 X5 3.0 is about the same (or slightly worse) than the
> 4.4. I guess 4,700 pounds is a bit much for a 3 litre.
Many people don't understand this point. For instance, I had an Isuzu
Trooper with the 2.3L I4 engine. It got almost exactly the mileage as
the 2.8L V6 model. Most trucks' (including SUVs like the X5) mileage
figures are limited by air resistance at highway speeds, and by the weight
factor at low (city) speeds.
Since you're in the UK, buy a diesel X5 3.0 - the mileage will be better by
far.
FloydR
Dave Plowman (News) - 10 Oct 2006 00:35 GMT
> Since you're in the UK, buy a diesel X5 3.0 - the mileage will be better
> by far.
Yes - but it will cost a lot more to buy. Early 3 litre petrol are pretty
cheap now.

Signature
*My designated driver drove me to drink
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
>Hi folks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>tia
http://www.x5world.com
bt - 11 Oct 2006 18:48 GMT
Cheers!
>>Hi folks,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> http://www.x5world.com
Toby - 12 Oct 2006 03:13 GMT
>Cheers!
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
>> http://www.x5world.com
Anytime!
> Hi folks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> tia
On paper but in a 4.4 the temptation is to boot it a lot which will drink a
lot more. I got 33.6mpg on a 500 mile motorway run yesterday in a 3.0d