Bikes in the Back of CX5....
- Thread starter cohenfive
- Start date
As a former BMW owner, I'd be weary of buying a used BMW if this is a car you plan on keeping for a while. Definitely a nicer car, but maintenance is going to be WAY higher than the Mazda. And from what I've always heard/read, the X3 has always been on the problematic side. Not their most reliable model, historically. Just friendly input.
Are there no more new '15 CX-5s on dealer lots? I know there are a couple improvements on the '16s, but I don't think it's anything that significant.
Are there no more new '15 CX-5s on dealer lots? I know there are a couple improvements on the '16s, but I don't think it's anything that significant.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
As a current BMW 5 Series owner, I can't recommend any BMW's to anybody unless he has too much money to burn. Like socalcx-5 said, you don't buy a used BMW, even if it's a CPO, if this is a car you plan on keeping for a while. I imagine you're looking at a turbo 240hp 2.0L. You can google it and see all kind of problems and class-action lawsuits on BMW turbo engines. Not to mention possible oil burning issue I'd mentioned earlier.
I have owned a bmw since 1997, and they have all been very reliable...including the m3 and m5 which I've owned. The x3 has been pretty good on that front. The engine in the x3 we liked was the 3.0 straight 6, pretty reliable. Anyway, I really like the mazda, too bad I want a 16 with both packages...
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
If you've owned M3 and M5 and they're reliable, you're the lucky one. What year is the X3 you're interested? The in-line 6 from BMW is nice and supposed to be reliable. But the plastic water pump just doesn't cut it. Mine failed at 28,000 miles and it literally disintegrated! After BMW added turbo or twin-turbos to its in-line six's for better performance, it added even more issues and class-action lawsuits!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Turbo engines have inherent issues which are difficult to overcome such as the extremely high temperature (can be as high as 1,050C/1,922F). The expensive turbo charger spinning at higher than 150,000 rpm under extreme heat eventually will wear out sooner than the engine itself and need replacement. Until the engineers found an effective way to cool down the temperature which is almost impossible, this will always be an issue. There's no replacement for displacement. Turbo is used to boost the horsepower from small displacement engines. Small engines are preferred or used due to the lower tax in many countries and regulations for racing. The extra horsepower is not generated for free. The turbo sucks in more air and injects more fuel into combustion chamber to get more power. Hence the more horsepower you get from a turbo engine, the more fuel will be consumed. The real world MPG on the turbo engines will always be lower than the EPA estimates as the turbo engine can be controlled to its optimal fuel consumption with the EPA test cycle.
Recent BMW N54 turbo engine class action lawsuit is one of the examples for problematic turbo designs. N54 is still in production used on many recent BMW models such as 535i. N54 has won FIVE straight "International Engine of the Year" awards, and THREE straight "Ward's 10 Best Engines" awards since 2007. Yet the problems from turbo related devices eventually showed their true colors and failed at very high rate which prompted lawsuit and forced longer warranty offered by BMW.
If you enjoy turbo power with turbo whining and lag, and don't care about longevity, sure, you can get a turbo, Just don't expect over 100K miles of service life and get EPA rated fuel economy from it!
I've had my Volvo S80 (straight 6 with twin turbos) for 16 years and the first 12 years of it's life would exceed EPA ratings by a big margin (2 mpg) when driven like a normal person drives. It also loved to cruise the wide open roads of the American West at 90 mph (where it would still return 23 mpg). Now, in normal use, it returns 1-2 mpg below EPA estimates. But these are EPA estimates before they were adjusted to better reflect how cars were actually used and I suspect the years have taken their toll on the injectors, sensors, etc. The straight 6 engine seems bulletproof, still no significant oil burned between it's 7500 mile services.
I'll agree with you on longevity (had to replace the turbos once at 70,000 miles, but now it has 160,000 miles). But I can never hear anything I would call a "whine", at full honk I think I can hear the exhaust gasses rushing through the catalytic converter but it sounds more like a rush than a whine. And, as noted above, it gets great fuel economy when driven normally.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
The key to get better fuel economy on turbo engines is not to make turbo spinning so the fuel consumption is only rated almost like naturally aspirated small displacement engines. You drive the turbo like an old lady to save gas, which of course defeats the purpose of getting a turbo. When you request more power often, the turbo will suck more air and inject more fuel to generate power. The fuel consumption will be worse than the EPA estimates, doesn't matter if it's the old or new test cycle. I have a relative who just bought a 2014 535i with 302-hp 3.0L twin-turbo in-line 6 and he is a spirited driver (as you can imagine). His complaint of course has always been the fuel economy (not even close to the EPA estimates, 14.7 real-world overall mpg with premium gas vs. EPA 20 cty / 30 hwy MPG), not so much on performance and handling.
