BMW X5 and X6 Forum 2014-Current
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-04-2017, 09:19 PM   #1
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

X5 value proposition wasn't there this time.

Our 8 year run of X5 ownership has come to an end, and it's a little sad. We bought both our e70 and F15 new. The e70 was repurchased by BMW for the vanos failure issue, and some of you probably noticed how long our 2015 M-sport X5 sat waiting for a buyer. We just don't have time for either of those exit scenarios at this stage in our life. Despite that, we considered another X5, but the timing is just off with the new body style coming. We even had an awesome deal lined up on a 2017 40e, but we ultimately jumped ship for a 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser. So much of the car buying decision is personal that I won't even begin to go through the factors that swayed us, but suffice it to say the LC feels like slipping under a warm blanket. I've had a lifelong love affair with 4x4 Toyotas, so it was probably only a matter of time 'til I migrated back this way. I suppose I should have always optioned my X5's with adaptive suspension if I wanted a smooth ride, but there's just so much more to it than that. Changing vehicles is tedious where we live; two dealers in town and everything else is 2hrs away. I considered just keeping the X5 and upgrading the warranty, but a short extension was $6k. I was able to upgrade my warranty on the LC to Platinum bumper to bumper coverage for 10yr/100k miles for $2600. LC is pricey, ($87,500 MSRP in our config) and yet the value proposition was there due to assured longevity and easily 5-10 years of owned outright bulletproof reliability. LC very well may be the last "heirloom vehicle," something your kids will fight over when you're dead like a "Saddleback Leather" bag or something. As I say good bye for now I guess I just want you all to know it wasn't for an Acura or a Volvo, but for an icon, a true off road legend, and to go a totally different direction for a while. X5 is an urban warrior we enjoyed very much, but we live in a very rural, very rough area, and it was time for some insulation. I'm keeping my F80 M3.

Last edited by chiplee; 11-04-2017 at 11:53 PM..
Appreciate 6
retx117.00
deutsch1003741.00
pokerface428.00
iconoclast7257.50
      11-04-2017, 10:26 PM   #2
retx
First Lieutenant
United_States
117
Rep
324
Posts

Drives: '18 F15 40e
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NYC

iTrader: (0)

Good luck with your new ride. Enjoy, no matter what you're driving.
Appreciate 1
chiplee306.50
      11-05-2017, 12:15 AM   #3
F15GorDe
Well versed in the care and feeding of BMWs
F15GorDe's Avatar
United_States
261
Rep
733
Posts

Drives: F15d, F10
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

I understand your reasons, appreciate your contributions here. You'll be missed. Good luck.
__________________
B&O, parking assistant, executive package, 3rd row seats and the manual rear shades are the ONLY items we didn't order. Having everything else makes our F15d a NICE ride.
Appreciate 1
chiplee306.50
      11-05-2017, 12:37 AM   #4
P1
Lieutenant General
P1's Avatar
11542
Rep
11,128
Posts

Drives: 2004 3/4 ton Duramax
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United States

iTrader: (1)

Fully understand. I think the Land Cruiser is a very smart decision. Enjoy and post up some photos when you have a moment.
Appreciate 2
chiplee306.50
deutsch1003741.00
      11-05-2017, 07:28 AM   #5
mnx5er
Captain
538
Rep
805
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW X5 3.5i
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Minneapolis, MN

iTrader: (0)

Enjoy your new ride and post some pics. I haven’t seen a Land Cruiser for a long time. I think the next X5 is critical for BMW to get right. Competition is getting crazy.
Appreciate 2
chiplee306.50
F15GorDe261.00
      11-05-2017, 09:05 AM   #6
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Thanks, all. Reviewers tend to say there is no direct competitor for the Land Cruiser, it's surprising it's even still in the U.S. market, and that it's somewhat of a confusing combination of luxury and off road capability. Toyota sells less than 3000 units a year here. For people who need/want it though, the thing makes perfect sense. Current and future configs attached. Definitely not as attractive as the X5, but that's mostly because it doesn't ship with proper suspension and tires for its intended purpose. I'll fix that as soon as I can.



Appreciate 4
P111541.50
F15GorDe261.00
deutsch1003741.00
      11-05-2017, 10:41 AM   #7
Phil Devtec
Private First Class
United_States
60
Rep
169
Posts

Drives: '22 X5 40i
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: South Jersey

iTrader: (0)

LC looks great. Always loved Toyota 4X4's (i.e. T4R and LC). Enjoy! For me, my X5 is my first non-4X4 vehicle. I hope I'll love it like you all do (and have).
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 06:31 PM   #8
P1
Lieutenant General
P1's Avatar
11542
Rep
11,128
Posts

Drives: 2004 3/4 ton Duramax
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United States

iTrader: (1)

Does it take 93 and only get MPG in the low to mid teens? That a big no-no for me when I was looking at the LX.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 06:44 PM   #9
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by P1et View Post
Does it take 93 and only get MPG in the low to mid teens? That a big no-no for me when I was looking at the LX.
No it uses 87. LX570 requires 91, btw, not 93. This, too was part of our calculus. I just installed solar and would have loved a 50+MPGe rating, but we're Airstream shopping and there's nothing worth owning under 7600lbs GVWR in those coaches. The true "multi-use" nature of the LC made sense on many levels. Any fuel cost savings the X5 offered were eaten up by 4 hour round trip service appointments and frequent staggered tire changes.

Back to the point, it's a bit of a mystery that the LX570 uses high test, since they both use the 3UR-FE engine and have virtually identical torque and horsepower outputs.

For the LC200, the engine specifications are:
Required octane: 87
HP: 381 @ 5600
TQ: 401 @ 3600

For the LX570, however, the specifications are:
Required octane: 91
HP: 383 @ 5600
TQ: 403 @ 3600

Per the manual:


An LX570 owner wrote Toyota to inquire about it and got this sort of milk toast response. Looks like 91 will give you an extra "2HP."

"Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

We appreciate the opportunity to address your inquiry.

While we understand that the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Lexus LX 570 are similar vehicles that share some mechanical components, each Toyota vehicle is designed to its own set of specifications. Vehicles that share engines may be tuned to different standards depending on their specific engineering goals and intended use. Additionally, differences in engine bay and transmission design may necessitate changes to the layout of the intake and exhaust systems in similar models, resulting in differences such as those you have brought to our attention.

Perhaps speaking more directly to your concern regarding Octane Ratings, Toyota's published horsepower figures are based on the recommended fuel for the vehicle. You may be interested in comparing specifications for the 2011 Lexus ES 350, which requires 87 octane fuel, and the 2010 model, which required 91. As our recommendation changed, the 2011 model's output was lowered to 268 hp @ 6,200 rpm from 272 hp @ 6,200 rpm. Details for both model years can be viewed at ES | Detailed Specifications and Lexus Certified Pre-Owned – Model Library – ES 2010.

As the engine is the same in both model years, this change may be due to fuel map adjustments necessary to allow the use of 87 octane fuel, or simply due to the fact that 91 octane fuel has more energy per gallon than 87. We apologize that we do not have technical information on the specific differences between vehicles that share the same engine block.

As to your question regarding research octane numbers, this is the most commonly used unit of measure for rating fuel in markets outside of North America. You might consider the relationship between research octane ratings and "normal" octane ratings to be analogous to that of gallons and Imperial gallons when discussing volume.

Toyota can only recommend that you use the type of fuel that is specified for your Toyota or Lexus in the year that the vehicle was built. Use of 87 octane in the Lexus LX 570 may cause engine knocking, which may over time cause damage to the vehicle. Damage caused from the use of non specified fuels may not be covered under warranty."
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 07:14 PM   #10
P1
Lieutenant General
P1's Avatar
11542
Rep
11,128
Posts

Drives: 2004 3/4 ton Duramax
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United States

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiplee View Post
No it uses 87. LX570 requires 91, btw, not 93. This, too was part of our calculus. I just installed solar and would have loved a 50+MPGe rating, but we're Airstream shopping and there's nothing worth owning under 7600lbs GVWR in those coaches. The true "multi-use" nature of the LC made sense on many levels. Any fuel cost savings the X5 offered were eaten up by 4 hour round trip service appointments and frequent staggered tire changes.

Back to the point, it's a bit of a mystery that the LX570 uses high test, since they both use the 3UR-FE engine and have virtually identical torque and horsepower outputs.

For the LC200, the engine specifications are:
Required octane: 87
HP: 381 @ 5600
TQ: 401 @ 3600

For the LX570, however, the specifications are:
Required octane: 91
HP: 383 @ 5600
TQ: 403 @ 3600

Per the manual:


An LX570 owner wrote Toyota to inquire about it and got this sort of milk toast response. Looks like 91 will give you an extra "2HP."

"Thank you for contacting Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

We appreciate the opportunity to address your inquiry.

While we understand that the Toyota Land Cruiser and the Lexus LX 570 are similar vehicles that share some mechanical components, each Toyota vehicle is designed to its own set of specifications. Vehicles that share engines may be tuned to different standards depending on their specific engineering goals and intended use. Additionally, differences in engine bay and transmission design may necessitate changes to the layout of the intake and exhaust systems in similar models, resulting in differences such as those you have brought to our attention.

Perhaps speaking more directly to your concern regarding Octane Ratings, Toyota's published horsepower figures are based on the recommended fuel for the vehicle. You may be interested in comparing specifications for the 2011 Lexus ES 350, which requires 87 octane fuel, and the 2010 model, which required 91. As our recommendation changed, the 2011 model's output was lowered to 268 hp @ 6,200 rpm from 272 hp @ 6,200 rpm. Details for both model years can be viewed at ES | Detailed Specifications and Lexus Certified Pre-Owned – Model Library – ES 2010.

As the engine is the same in both model years, this change may be due to fuel map adjustments necessary to allow the use of 87 octane fuel, or simply due to the fact that 91 octane fuel has more energy per gallon than 87. We apologize that we do not have technical information on the specific differences between vehicles that share the same engine block.

As to your question regarding research octane numbers, this is the most commonly used unit of measure for rating fuel in markets outside of North America. You might consider the relationship between research octane ratings and "normal" octane ratings to be analogous to that of gallons and Imperial gallons when discussing volume.

Toyota can only recommend that you use the type of fuel that is specified for your Toyota or Lexus in the year that the vehicle was built. Use of 87 octane in the Lexus LX 570 may cause engine knocking, which may over time cause damage to the vehicle. Damage caused from the use of non specified fuels may not be covered under warranty."
That's very interesting. It's a difference in yearly fuel spend whether you fill up all day long on 87 vs. 93. I can only choose between 87, 89 and 93 here. I don't have 91 anywhere, unless I'm in a rural area.
Appreciate 1
chiplee306.50
      11-05-2017, 08:53 PM   #11
Sedoy
Captain
676
Rep
996
Posts

Drives: F10
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiplee View Post
...simply due to the fact that 91 octane fuel has more energy per gallon than 87.
Better check your facts. The octane rating for gasoline has nothing to do with the amount of energy per gallon.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 08:58 PM   #12
P1
Lieutenant General
P1's Avatar
11542
Rep
11,128
Posts

Drives: 2004 3/4 ton Duramax
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: United States

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedoy View Post
Better check your facts. The octane rating for gasoline has nothing to do with the amount of energy per gallon.
This is not the OP stating this; it was Toyota.
Appreciate 1
chiplee306.50
      11-05-2017, 10:10 PM   #13
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedoy View Post
Better check your facts. The octane rating for gasoline has nothing to do with the amount of energy per gallon.
Toyota probably does need to check their facts though, lol.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 10:16 PM   #14
Sedoy
Captain
676
Rep
996
Posts

Drives: F10
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England

iTrader: (0)

I'm aware that the OP is, law of physics applies to Toyota's as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P1et View Post
This is not the OP stating this; it was Toyota.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 10:25 PM   #15
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedoy View Post
I'm aware that the OP is, law of physics applies to Toyota's as well.
Appreciate 0
      11-05-2017, 10:59 PM   #16
Sedoy
Captain
676
Rep
996
Posts

Drives: F10
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England

iTrader: (0)

never mind


Quote:
Originally Posted by chiplee View Post
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2017, 09:20 AM   #17
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedoy View Post
never mind
Oh ok, so no need to get my facts straight anymore? lol.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2017, 11:47 AM   #18
Sedoy
Captain
676
Rep
996
Posts

Drives: F10
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England

iTrader: (0)

Still do, as I said earlier, the octane rating for gasoline has nothing to do with the amount of energy per gallon. All gasoline grades contain almost the same amount of energy. Actually the energy content of premium gasoline is slightly less than that of regular due to its additional additives to withstand detonation ("knock").

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiplee View Post
Oh ok, so no need to get my facts straight anymore? lol.

Last edited by Sedoy; 11-06-2017 at 11:53 AM..
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2017, 01:22 PM   #19
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedoy View Post
Still do, as I said earlier, the octane rating for gasoline has nothing to do with the amount of energy per gallon. All gasoline grades contain almost the same amount of energy. Actually the energy content of premium gasoline is slightly less than that of regular due to its additional additives to withstand detonation ("knock").
Can't tell if troll or serious. Toyota made the comment. I called it "milk toast." Higher octane fuel doesn't "contain more energy", but it "allows" an engine to make more power by allowing more aggressive timing and higher cylinder pressures before spark knock or detonation occurs. It seems the LX570 squeaks out an extra 2hp because the ECU is happier on 91 octane. I think it would just as happily detune itself 2hp when it sensed knock from running 87 octane and there would never be an issue.
Appreciate 0
      11-06-2017, 06:31 PM   #20
DuSh
Colonel
DuSh's Avatar
2113
Rep
2,388
Posts

Drives: F15 X5 50i
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiplee View Post
Can't tell if troll or serious. Toyota made the comment. I called it "milk toast." Higher octane fuel doesn't "contain more energy", but it "allows" an engine to make more power by allowing more aggressive timing and higher cylinder pressures before spark knock or detonation occurs. It seems the LX570 squeaks out an extra 2hp because the ECU is happier on 91 octane. I think it would just as happily detune itself 2hp when it sensed knock from running 87 octane and there would never be an issue.
Confusion comes from "Toyota" wording wrong statement. I mean it's physically wrong. Most probably the person who wrote that standard "milk toast" response was a bit confused. Toyota itself does not equal to 1 employee person who got facts wrong. So Toyota doesn't need to check anything lol, neither does OP, but the anonymous Toyota employee needs to read up a bit about physics In any case he/she probably wasn't an engineer, but more like PR worker or marketing clerk or something - so it's understandable - they just copy past things they have no idea about

LC is a solid choice OP. Not the first time I see a car that is a major blockbuster, even a legend in the rest of the world - sell so poorly in US. Oh well, at least we have some other good things going on
Appreciate 0
      11-07-2017, 09:07 AM   #21
Sedoy
Captain
676
Rep
996
Posts

Drives: F10
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England

iTrader: (0)

You are correct, I meant that Toyota has no idea what they are talking about. Both engines are the same and both can adjust to regular or premium fuel. I think in reality the difference should be more than 2 hp if comparing regular vs. premium. It's very strange that they decided to separate those only by 2 hp.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chiplee View Post
Can't tell if troll or serious. Toyota made the comment. I called it "milk toast." Higher octane fuel doesn't "contain more energy", but it "allows" an engine to make more power by allowing more aggressive timing and higher cylinder pressures before spark knock or detonation occurs. It seems the LX570 squeaks out an extra 2hp because the ECU is happier on 91 octane. I think it would just as happily detune itself 2hp when it sensed knock from running 87 octane and there would never be an issue.
Appreciate 0
      11-07-2017, 11:11 AM   #22
chiplee
Captain
chiplee's Avatar
307
Rep
971
Posts

Drives: 2015 M3
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuSh View Post

LC is a solid choice OP.
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedoy View Post
I think in reality the difference should be more than 2 hp if comparing regular vs. premium. It's very strange that they decided to separate those only by 2 hp.
Concur, You can add a TRD blower to these engines for an added 170hp, and run 91 octane. I think the disparity between the stock engines is silly.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.




xbimmers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST