Topic: Test Drive: 2012 BMW X3 xDrive35i

[Cord]

I hate it how BMW charges $800 for metallic paint. 

Ya, WTF? Kia only charges $150!

[2JDM]

I hate it how BMW charges $800 for metallic paint. 

Ya, WTF? Kia only charges $150!

Well, paint should be included in the price for all vehicles.

[whaddaiknow]

I hate it how BMW charges $800 for metallic paint. 

Ya, WTF? Kia only charges $150!

Well, paint should be included in the price for all vehicles.

Well, the paint is, the metallic specks in it aren't

[Woodyism]

Nice CUV, way too pricey for my liking.  Prefer the cheap mans version Kia Sportage SX. Similar size power and times for alot less cash. It may not have the fancy nameplate, but that's just perceived value.

It seems interesting that the luxury nameplates are touted for having little niceties whereas the lower class brethren don't get similar satisfaction.

Cheers
Woody

[Ace]

Very tasty vehicle, but definatley out of my snack bracket.
My pet peeve again! Who the hell officially comes up with these fuel economy figures.
7.7L/100km is "poo poo el toro"!!  This bimmer couldn't those results going downhill with a tail wind.

[ovr50]

Very tasty vehicle, but definatley out of my snack bracket.
My pet peeve again! Who the hell officially comes up with these fuel economy figures.
7.7L/100km is "poo poo el toro"!!  This bimmer couldn't those results going downhill with a tail wind.

Another armchair comment made with nothing to back it up. In fact, I achieved these type of fuel economy on purely hiwiay sections on my recent trip to S.Cal and back. Overall, including 2 months of urban driving, I did 10.6l/100.

For those that would buy a much cheaper Mazda CX5 over this car, be my guest. If you think they are equal based on cargo room, etc; then I have a nice Chevy to sell you which is the same size as a Porsche - therefore they must be comparable. Why would anyone buy a Porsche...

[Ex-airbalancer]

Very tasty vehicle, but definatley out of my snack bracket.
My pet peeve again! Who the hell officially comes up with these fuel economy figures.
7.7L/100km is "poo poo el toro"!!  This bimmer couldn't those results going downhill with a tail wind.

Another armchair comment made with nothing to back it up. In fact, I achieved these type of fuel economy on purely hiwiay sections on my recent trip to S.Cal and back. Overall, including 2 months of urban driving, I did 10.6l/100.

For those that would buy a much cheaper Mazda CX5 over this car, be my guest. If you think they are equal based on cargo room, etc; then I have a nice Chevy to sell you which is the same size as a Porsche - therefore they must be comparable. Why would anyone buy a Porsche...

Because their son is a Porsche mechanic and needs the work 

[Ace]

Very tasty vehicle, but definatley out of my snack bracket.
My pet peeve again! Who the hell officially comes up with these fuel economy figures.
7.7L/100km is "poo poo el toro"!!  This bimmer couldn't those results going downhill with a tail wind.

Another armchair comment made with nothing to back it up. In fact, I achieved these type of fuel economy on purely hiwiay sections on my recent trip to S.Cal and back. Overall, including 2 months of urban driving, I did 10.6l/100.

For those that would buy a much cheaper Mazda CX5 over this car, be my guest. If you think they are equal based on cargo room, etc; then I have a nice Chevy to sell you which is the same size as a Porsche - therefore they must be comparable. Why would anyone buy a Porsche...

Hmmmm, Is it not mainly downhill from Kelowna to Vancouver ??

[nsmyhte]

Very tasty vehicle, but definatley out of my snack bracket.
My pet peeve again! Who the hell officially comes up with these fuel economy figures.
7.7L/100km is "poo poo el toro"!!  This bimmer couldn't those results going downhill with a tail wind.

Another armchair comment made with nothing to back it up. In fact, I achieved these type of fuel economy on purely hiwiay sections on my recent trip to S.Cal and back. Overall, including 2 months of urban driving, I did 10.6l/100.

For those that would buy a much cheaper Mazda CX5 over this car, be my guest. If you think they are equal based on cargo room, etc; then I have a nice Chevy to sell you which is the same size as a Porsche - therefore they must be comparable. Why would anyone buy a Porsche...

The Transport Canada fuel economy test is indeed pretty worthless.  The test drive is very unrealistic and in order to get the highway number, the car doesn't even go 100km/h.  They put the car to 96km/h at get a reading.  The US EPA test is a much better and realistic test.  So when I'm going 125km/h on the highway (a pretty normal speed in the GTA and especially on the 407), I don't get anywhere near the fuel economy rating from Trans Can.

[opg210]

For those that would buy a much cheaper Mazda CX5 over this car, be my guest. If you think they are equal based on cargo room, etc; then I have a nice Chevy to sell you which is the same size as a Porsche - therefore they must be comparable. Why would anyone buy a Porsche...

I think I brought up the topic, never said they were equal except similar in basic layout, size, and the fact that both are marketed as fun to drive vehicles. That's not my opinion of either, just the marketing. For the price difference they should be extremely different but my question was whether that was indeed the case.

Didn't mean to disparage your Beemer and your long history of ownership. "Why would anyone buy a Porsche..." Well, I think probably at least 1 in 4 buy them because they're great driving machines 

[ovr50]

For those that would buy a much cheaper Mazda CX5 over this car, be my guest. If you think they are equal based on cargo room, etc; then I have a nice Chevy to sell you which is the same size as a Porsche - therefore they must be comparable. Why would anyone buy a Porsche...

I think I brought up the topic, never said they were equal except similar in basic layout, size, and the fact that both are marketed as fun to drive vehicles. That's not my opinion of either, just the marketing. For the price difference they should be extremely different but my question was whether that was indeed the case.

Didn't mean to disparage your Beemer and your long history of ownership. "Why would anyone buy a Porsche..." Well, I think probably at least 1 in 4 buy them because they're great driving machines 

Re the Porsche comment - you miss my point entirely.

[tpl]

I just object to that $800 on principle although I paid it on mine.     Personally I would prefer to go back to plain, non-metallic, colours but with a modern clearcoat of course for durability.

[nlm]

Nice CUV, way too pricey for my liking.  Prefer the cheap mans version Kia Sportage SX. Similar size power and times for alot less cash. It may not have the fancy nameplate, but that's just perceived value.

It seems interesting that the luxury nameplates are touted for having little niceties whereas the lower class brethren don't get similar satisfaction.

I hear ya and IMO the Outlander with S-AWC is the closest to the BMW in performance and capability with a squint or two in straight line acceleration. But the lower castes don't have the panache of the upper echelons like BMW. An interesting dilemna is a used X3 vs a new Sportage or Outlander. The maintenance costs of the BMW would still steer me towards the newer vehicle but still, a part of me is willing to pay the extra $ for the panache.

I really like the X3 even though I didn't want to. Too bad I'm in a lower caste. 

[tpl]

I don't thing cars can have castes but people can.  Cars can have class as can people.   Caste implies that you ( or the car manufacturer) are stuck at that level until eternity.

[nlm]

I don't thing cars can have castes but people can.  Cars can have class as can people.   Caste implies that you ( or the car manufacturer) are stuck at that level until eternity.

Hmmm, I disagree. Cobalt/Cavalier. Dodge. I could go on but I don't see either of those examples moving out of their market perceptions in the short, medium or long term. Ok maybe eternity is a bit long but I think you get my drift.

[chrischasescars]

Base price: $46,900
Options: $14,500 (Executive Package $2,300, M Sport Package $2,900, Technology Package $2,200, Premium Package $4,000, BMW Apps Package $300, Satin Aluminum Roof Rails $150, Storage Compartment Package $350, Metallic Paint $800, Head-Up Display $1,500)
A/C tax: $100
Freight: $1,995
Price as tested: $63,495

Good lord those options are expensive!

The Germans love expensive options!

Fixed that for you, Mike.

[Fobroader]

I think over $60K for something this size of a Santa Fe is ridiculous, I dont care what engine its got. You can get a proper suv for that kind of money. Again, buy what you want, but something that costs that much better carry 7 people and tow 6k lbs + for me. Now if you wanted to spend $60K for a toy, sports car and such, awesome, a CUV.....uhhh, Ill take a Santa Fe and have $25k for quads and some vacations thanks 

[Ex-airbalancer]

I think over $60K for something this size of a Santa Fe is ridiculous, I dont care what engine its got. You can get a proper suv for that kind of money. Again, buy what you want, but something that costs that much better carry 7 people and tow 6k lbs + for me. Now if you wanted to spend $60K for a toy, sports car and such, awesome, a CUV.....uhhh, Ill take a Santa Fe and have $25k for quads and some vacations thanks 

I comes down to what you think is good value
my truck listed at $49gs, bad value, getting for $32gs good value
also it depends on disposable income, in a good year , a lot of things are value, in a. Bad year nothing is good value

 

[sailor723]

I think over $60K for something this size of a Santa Fe is ridiculous, I dont care what engine its got. You can get a proper suv for that kind of money. Again, buy what you want, but something that costs that much better carry 7 people and tow 6k lbs + for me. Now if you wanted to spend $60K for a toy, sports car and such, awesome, a CUV.....uhhh, Ill take a Santa Fe and have $25k for quads and some vacations thanks 

I comes down to what you think is good value
my truck listed at $49gs, bad value, getting for $32gs good value
also it depends on disposable income, in a good year , a lot of things are value, in a. Bad year nothing is good value

 

Amen!...It's all relative

[ovr50]

I think over $60K for something this size of a Santa Fe is ridiculous, I dont care what engine its got. You can get a proper suv for that kind of money. Again, buy what you want, but something that costs that much better carry 7 people and tow 6k lbs + for me. Now if you wanted to spend $60K for a toy, sports car and such, awesome, a CUV.....uhhh, Ill take a Santa Fe and have $25k for quads and some vacations thanks 

Whatever floats your boat - I think quads are about the dumbest thing one can spend money on.