Car Forum / UK Car Forums / 4x4 Cars (UK group) / June 2005
X3 to buy or not?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Brian - 03 Apr 2005 16:09 GMT I've been in South Africa for over 2 years so I'm slightly out of touch with things back in the UK. When we return in June 05 we need a family car and one on the short list is a BMW X3 2.0d SE. I currently use a Jeep Cherokee 3.7 Sport Auto, which I like as I don't pay for fuel. I have no intention of going off road in the UK, but like the high driving position and the poor weather grip (X-drive?). Mostly, being a private buyer, the depreciation of SUVs seems to beat similar estate and saloons (3 series, C class diesels) into next week.
Is this car any good. Some press reports say avoid due to poor ride quality. Will it hold value as predicted, X5s and ML seem too. MLs get rubbished in the press too. Does anyone here drive this car and can give me first hand opinion.
TIA Brian
P.S. I you've never driven this car, or don't like it just because it's a soft roader, then keep it to yourself please.
Chris Burns - 06 Apr 2005 15:44 GMT > Is this car any good. Shame nobody's got an opinion as I would quite like to hear about some experiences with the X3 too.. The two main criticisms of it appear to be a) poor ride (but how poor is poor? are we talking soapbox racer here?) and b) poor build quality although it has good levels of kit and is apparently decent offroad.
I will give you my opinion anyway Brian :-) From what you've said, the new Discovery could be right up your street, or failing that you could buy a Cherokee/X-Trail/Freelander/HRV/CRV and have some handy change from what you would've spent on a X3.
Cheers, Chris
Tim.. - 06 Apr 2005 17:45 GMT > > Is this car any good. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have some handy change from what you would've spent on a > X3. Aside from it not having a BMW badge, the X-Trail is by far a better drive, especially in 136 Dci flavour.
You can have it in a 2 wheel drive version if you never intend to go offroad too.
Tim..
Adrian - 06 Apr 2005 21:41 GMT > Shame nobody's got an opinion as I would quite like to hear about > some experiences with the X3 too.. We're not blind. Of *course* we wouldn't go near one.
> The two main criticisms of it appear to be a) poor ride (but how poor is > poor? are we talking soapbox racer here?) It's a BMW. What do you expect?
> and b) poor build quality Are they built in the US, like the X5 and Zs?
> although it has good levels of kit and is apparently decent offroad. That I doubt. If the ride's that poor, that doesn't exactly bode well for axle articulation.
Brian - 08 Apr 2005 07:53 GMT Thanks for the response Chris, you seemed to have generated more replies than I managed.
As for the X3, let me explain where I'm coming from. The largest cost of owning a new(ish) car these days is depreciation, so I wish to minimise this as far as possible whilst still driving a car that I'm going to enjoy driving and owning (BMW, high driving position, X drive 4x4, not a far east copy, quality build).
Using the What Car depreciation index most 4x4, especially premium brands appear to only loose 30% in the first 3 years, against say an estate car of 45%. This means that an X3 will cost me approx ?203 per month in the first 36 months (just in depreciation), against a C class diesel of ?300 p/m. Interestingly a Mondeo ghia X TDCi works out at ?220 using the same calulation method, assuming you bought it via a car supermarket.
So providing the X3 isn't totally pants then it looks like a good buy. As I'd go for the 2.0d SE then fuel ecconomy shouldn't be too bad either. Obviously if the car's a lemon then the predicted depreciation index won't be worth a fart.
I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git?
Brian
Adrian - 08 Apr 2005 08:06 GMT > I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone > else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git? How can anybody attempt to justify owning a new car by "saving money"?
First, you've got to factor in the ?30k (a *shitload* of money for something that size) that's tied in to the car, and the loss of return on that. Let's say 5%. There's another ?5 grand to factor in over three years.
Now bear in mind that the residuals on BMWs/Mercs and the like are calculated against the list price of the standard spec without options. You can't sell a used BMW or Merc that's not had the option list thumped hard against it. They just don't sell. And the options aren't cheap.
Finally, factor in the likelihood of a backlash (or even just a slump in used values because of oversupply and the fashionability fading) against "lifestyle SUVs" like the X3 in the next couple of years.
Unless you're leasing, in which case you *know* what it's going to cost but have a completely different can of worms with condition and mileage potentially biting you, don't bank on the residuals.
If you want to drive something newish *and* save money, buy something 6-12 months old that's lost a big chunk of the original list price - and that means something less "fashionable" and "bling". If you want an X3, fine - your choice - but don't try and justify it as "saving money".
Still, at least the X3 isn't American like the X5 and ML, it's Austrian- built, in the same Steyr-Puch factory as the Jeeps. Steyr-developed, too.
chrisu - 09 Apr 2005 16:44 GMT >>I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone >>else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Still, at least the X3 isn't American like the X5 and ML, it's Austrian- > built, in the same Steyr-Puch factory as the Jeeps. Steyr-developed, too. ignore the badge and buy a year old diesel x-trail.
Brian - 11 Apr 2005 08:04 GMT > >>I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone > >>else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > ignore the badge and buy a year old diesel x-trail. Lots of people are telling me this. Is this based on price, driving, 4x4 ability or all. Either way I'll look in to it.
chrisu - 12 Apr 2005 22:03 GMT >>>>I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone >>>>else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Lots of people are telling me this. Is this based on price, driving, 4x4 > ability or all. Either way I'll look in to it. what car mid size 4x4 of the year for the past 3 years. dynamically and price wise way ahead of the x3. the x3 is for those who like the badge.
my $0.02.
Derek - 30 May 2005 12:55 GMT > >>>>I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone > >>>>else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git? [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > my $0.02. probably the Subaru Forester although its bull nose looks are not to everyone's taste it certainly performs and handles well according to the moterati journalists plus you are not starting at 30k so immediately you have a saving around 8k your 3 year depreciation works out at £281 per month at http://www.whatcar.co.uk/DepreciationIndex.asp personally I prefer the Legacy outback but its a slightly different animal Derek
Big Ron - 01 Jun 2005 16:19 GMT According to "Honest John" in the Telegraph, X-Trail diesels are holding their value better at auction than BMW 3-series diesel at auction.
Steve Firth - 01 Jun 2005 23:33 GMT > According to "Honest John" in the Telegraph, X-Trail diesels are > holding their value better at auction than BMW 3-series diesel at > auction. "Honest John" is a brainless c.nt. If you believe him, I have a bridge you would like to buy.
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Martin Sapsed - 02 Jun 2005 10:42 GMT >>According to "Honest John" in the Telegraph, X-Trail diesels are >>holding their value better at auction than BMW 3-series diesel at >>auction. > > "Honest John" is a brainless c.nt. Would you care to ellaborate slightly on that? Some evidence perhaps to support your theory? I would have thought that at least, his observations of auctions were fairly factual?
Martin
Ian Rawlings - 02 Jun 2005 11:32 GMT > Would you care to ellaborate slightly on that? Some evidence perhaps to > support your theory? From Steve? You've got to be joking!
 Signature For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
Steve Firth - 02 Jun 2005 15:23 GMT > > Would you care to ellaborate slightly on that? Some evidence perhaps to > > support your theory? > > From Steve? You've got to be joking! Pokes out tongue.
Why is that those who propose bollocks (such as believing anything written by "Hones (yeah right) John") must be belived without a shred of evidence, whereas someone like me, or any of th eother thousands who know he talks bollocks have to provide notarised copy?
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Martin Sapsed - 02 Jun 2005 17:13 GMT > Why is that those who propose bollocks (such as believing anything > written by "Hones (yeah right) John") must be belived without a shred of > evidence, whereas someone like me, or any of th eother thousands who > know he talks bollocks have to provide notarised copy? I was only asking for maybe an example of something he's said/written which backs up your opinion. All you've said so far is he's brainless. If you can back that up with "he says blah, but actually blah" that could help me to realise he's brainless and ignore his stuff in future.
Martin
Ian Rawlings - 02 Jun 2005 19:35 GMT > I was only asking for maybe an example of something he's said/written > which backs up your opinion. All you've said so far is he's brainless. > If you can back that up with "he says blah, but actually blah" that > could help me to realise he's brainless and ignore his stuff in future. Hehe, I just said that in another post, but in about 50x the number of words, I think I need to get out more ;-)
In Steve's defence, most published experts talk sh.t, often because what they say has been edited heavily, or they're expected to talk on a wide variety of subjects, or getting correct information across is only a small part of what they have to do (e.g. Top Gear).
If you're going to spend lots of cash on something it pays to check up on what you read. The internet is excellent for this and it's as reliable as more conventional media, i.e. not at all reliable ;-)
 Signature For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
Ian Rawlings - 02 Jun 2005 19:29 GMT > Pokes out tongue. Har har sorry mush ;-)
> Why is that those who propose bollocks (such as believing anything > written by "Honest (yeah right) John") must be belived without a > shred of evidence, whereas someone like me, or any of th eother > thousands who know he talks bollocks have to provide notarised copy? To most people in this world, what's said by a published expert is regarded as reasonably trustworthy as they are telling people something they don't know. It's only when you know enough about a subject to spot the bollocks that you can really start to assess the experts properly.
This means that if you say "he talks crap" it doesn't tell anyone anything other than that you don't like him, but if you give an example, especially in the form of pointers to a more comprehensive source of information (e.g. a user group web page for a car he's rubbished) then you give others enough information to allow them to form an opinion other than "Steve doesn't like him".
You can usually find an expert who will contradict another expert, and hopefully show others that the world's not the black-and-white right-or-wrong place that many like to think it is. Just saying "he's sh.t" just tells people you don't like him, nothing more.
 Signature For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
Steve Firth - 02 Jun 2005 11:47 GMT > >>According to "Honest John" in the Telegraph, X-Trail diesels are > >>holding their value better at auction than BMW 3-series diesel at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Would you care to ellaborate slightly on that? "Honest John" is a brainless witless c.nt.
> Some evidence perhaps to support your theory? Oh do take a flying f.ck you tedious prick.
> I would have thought that at least, his > observations of auctions were fairly factual? I doubt he's been to an auction in years, if ever. What he knows about cars could be written on the back of a postage stamp and still leave room for his entire autobiography.
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
TightGuardSecurity® - 02 Jun 2005 19:36 GMT "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in >> >> Would you care to ellaborate slightly on that?
> "Honest John" is a brainless witless c.nt. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cars could be written on the back of a postage stamp and still leave > room for his entire autobiography. I see your still acting the c.nt Mr Firth.
Adrian - 02 Jun 2005 21:20 GMT > I see your still acting the c.nt Mr Firth. He's acting?
Still, at least he's honest about his identity and vaguely literate. Unlike some.
Huw - 20 Apr 2005 22:52 GMT >> I know this is a 4x4 group not a money saving group, but does anyone >> else look at car buying this way? Or am I just being a tight git? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that. Let's say 5%. There's another £5 grand to factor in over three > years. I am another one that attempts to buy based somewhat on depreciation. My last one, an X5 was a tremendous buy and cost less in depreciation than a mid range focus over two years. Initial cost is not a consideration of mine within reason and if a car holds its value exceptionally well it will be sold but if not then it is kept until convenient. this way my family have a fleet of quite high profile vehicles of varying ages.
> Now bear in mind that the residuals on BMWs/Mercs and the like are > calculated against the list price of the standard spec without options. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > used values because of oversupply and the fashionability fading) against > "lifestyle SUVs" like the X3 in the next couple of years. X5's are ten a penny around here so my thought is that the residual bubble must burst at some point, hence I got rid of it.
> Unless you're leasing, in which case you *know* what it's going to cost > but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Still, at least the X3 isn't American like the X5 and ML, it's Austrian- > built, in the same Steyr-Puch factory as the Jeeps. Steyr-developed, too. My Mercedes ML was Steyer built and was just as shabbily finished as the US built ones.
Huw
Adrian - 21 Apr 2005 07:30 GMT > My Mercedes ML was Steyer built and was just as shabbily finished as > the US built ones. I thought all MLs were 'merkin?
Huw - 21 Apr 2005 22:22 GMT >> My Mercedes ML was Steyer built and was just as shabbily finished as >> the US built ones. > > I thought all MLs were 'merkin? They are now, the production line being refitted to assemble the X3. Up until around 18 months ago the majority of diesel engine ML's were assembled by Magna Steyr. They also assemble diesel Daimler-Chrysler/Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel models.
Huw
Steve Firth - 20 Apr 2005 23:55 GMT > As for the X3, let me explain where I'm coming from. The largest cost of > owning a new(ish) car these days is depreciation, so I wish to minimise this > as far as possible whilst still driving a car that I'm going to enjoy > driving and owning (BMW, high driving position, X drive 4x4, not a far east > copy, quality build). Yes, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that the X3 is crap. It's positioned with regard to 4x4s as the Alfa Sportwagon is to estates.
As others have said buying a new car isn't going to save you money, no matter what brand you buy it's goign to cost you a thick wedge to buy a brand new car. Most of the depreciation is in the first year, that will see you lost about a third of the value of the car in year 1. If people wake up to how shite the X3 is, that could increase to as much as 50%.
You haven't actually said too clearly why you want a 4x4. There are good reasons for preferrign one over other vehicles - living in the country, hauling largish loads, living north of the border (Scottish, not M25) or above 1,000 feet would all push someone in the direction of choosing a 4x4 over other vehicles. In most of these stakes the X3 and particularly the underpowered 2.0 diesel (do you really want to pay 91p/litre for your fuel?) is going to be a pointy, jagged, razor edge shape in a sensitive, hole lined with pain receptors.
The Nissan is an excellent vehicle, nice compromise between on and off road and with a very practical interior. Big, boxy, fold all the seats down and the surface is wipe-clean. If you want 4x4 for some illusion of security (and the advantages are mostly illusory unless one really want to get into slippy stuff) then a Subaru Forester is a damn good choice, as is a Legacy.
If it's simply driving position, buy a minibus or something.
Personally, if a normal saloon is a possibility and you don't really need the 4x4 option you would do better with something like a BMW 5-series or a Volvo. But never new, and avoid "demonstrators" as well.
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
SteveG <\ - 06 Apr 2005 19:27 GMT Brian,
As it happens I had a test drive in an X3 (the 3.0i SE) last week and not being a big fan of BMW I thought it lived down to expectations very well. Up front I'll declare my love of the Discovery (I've owned 3 although I'm still to be convinced about the look of the new one) but as my local BMW dealership offered me the chance I took it.
I drove the X3 all day on my own covering about 300 miles on motorway, major A roads and some minor roads too. I also visited a client that operates out of a farm building so got to "soft road" it a bit. Here are my impressions:
Likes: The seating position and the ease of reaching all the controls Engine performance Slickness of the gearbox
Dislikes: Road noise (especially at motorway speeds) Ride (okay on the motorway but too hard elsewhere particularly on the farm track where it's lack of articulation was surprisingly noticeable) Build quality and materials used (lots of plastic squeaks)
I doubt I'd ever buy one. IMO the current Volvo offerings are much better vehicles, particularly the XC90.
HTH
Regards
Steve G
> I've been in South Africa for over 2 years so I'm slightly out of touch with > things back in the UK. When we return in June 05 we need a family car and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I you've never driven this car, or don't like it just because it's a soft > roader, then keep it to yourself please. JD - 09 Apr 2005 17:32 GMT > I've been in South Africa for over 2 years so I'm slightly out of touch with > things back in the UK. When we return in June 05 we need a family car and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I you've never driven this car, or don't like it just because it's a soft > roader, then keep it to yourself please. Certainly reject the ML had one for 6 months and having to take sea sickness pills every time I drove in it did my head in! Must admit havent tried the BMW's but have you thought about volkswagons Touareg test drove one recently and was very impressed pity I couldnt convince the wife to have on :( she still prefers her freelander arrrrr
|
|
|