Car and Driver Comparison of X5, Q7 and XC90

[MichiganMike]

I did a quick search but did not find this posted in this forum.

The March 2016 issue of Car & Driver has a comparison of the BMW X5 xDrive 35i versus the new Audi Q7, Volvo XC90 and the Range Rover Sport HSE. I was surprised to see the BMW X5 ranked at the bottom of this C&D comparison.

The X5 was rated lowest in the Chassis category and tied for third with the Range Rover in the Vehicle category. It was second in the power train category behind the Audi Q5 which also topped the overall comparison. The Volvo XC90 was second overall.

The BMW X5 was characterized as "dull design, dull dynamics and tight third row".

[artem123]

Bull crap). I test drove XC90 and its 4 cylinder engine declared to out-power X5, while in a real world it engine awfully noisy and grossly underpowered. All bells and whistles in the car did not matter for me as car did not feel solid at all.

[roadkillrob]

car and driver is the one magazine I have never subscribed to, never like them much.

[MichiganMike]

Some test data follows from the C&D article that supports their rankings.

In the C&D comparison, the X5 had the longest braking distance from 70 to 0 mph at 178 feet. The Audi Q7 was the shortest at 166 feet and the Volvo second at 167 feet.

The X5 had the slowest slalom speed at 34.3 mph, while the Audi was first at 36.9 mph. The Volvo managed 35 mph.

The X5 was third in the skidpad at 0.79 g ahead of only the Range Rover at 0.78 g. The Q7 measured 0.85 g and the Volvo 0.84 g.

This is not the performance I expected from the BMW. Perhaps the BMW would have done better with tires other than the Pirelli Scorpion Verde AS Run-flats 255/50R 19 tires. The Audi was equipped with Goodyear Eagle Sport AS Run-flats 285/45R 20 tires. The Volvo had Pirelli Scorpion Verde AS (non-RF) in a 275/40R 21 size.

[Kzang]

Originally Posted by MichiganMike

Some test data follows from the C&D article that supports their rankings.

In the C&D comparison, the X5 had the longest braking distance from 70 to 0 mph at 178 feet. The Audi Q7 was the shortest at 166 feet and the Volvo second at 167 feet.

The X5 had the slowest slalom speed at 34.3 mph, while the Audi was first at 36.9 mph. The Volvo managed 35 mph.

The X5 was third in the skidpad at 0.79 g ahead of only the Range Rover at 0.78 g. The Q7 measured 0.85 g and the Volvo 0.84 g.

This is not the performance I expected from the BMW. Perhaps the BMW would have done better with tires other than the Pirelli Scorpion Verde AS Run-flats 255/50R 19 tires. The Audi was equipped with Goodyear Eagle Sport AS Run-flats 285/45R 20 tires. The Volvo had Pirelli Scorpion Verde AS (non-RF) in a 275/40R 21 size.

Based on this info, looks like C&D did the comparison correctly. :
Don't hate on a magazine for being unbiased.

[crackerjack15]

Originally Posted by artem123

Bull crap). I test drove XC90 and its 4 cylinder engine declared to out-power X5, while in a real world it engine awfully noisy and grossly underpowered. All bells and whistles in the car did not matter for me as car did not feel solid at all.

+1

[Alan l.]

What I like to know is what options did the X5 have and was it a apples to apples comparison. Seems like the other two cars has bigger more aggressive wheel/tire setups which makes me think they had some suspension options chosen. I'm sure a X5 with 19s and base suspension will handle drastically different from one with 20" adaptive M suspension or with the dynamic handling package.

Regardless the new Q7 is hideous. Looks like a lifted up minivan

[Ninjaoz]

anyone has the link to the article? if not, perhaps scan and upload it here?

[kip1]

Bmw is going to have to advertise more, dont bite that hand that feeds you.

[MichiganMike]

Originally Posted by Ninjaoz

anyone has the link to the article? if not, perhaps scan and upload it here?

This comparison should be available on the Car and Driver web page shortly. It was not available when I checked.

http://www.caranddriver.com

The print version of C&D articles is typically available to magazine subscribers a few weeks before the web page is updated.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by Alan l.

What I like to know is what options did the X5 have and was it a apples to apples comparison. Seems like the other two cars has bigger more aggressive wheel/tire setups which makes me think they had some suspension options chosen. I'm sure a X5 with 19s and base suspension will handle drastically different from one with 20" adaptive M suspension or with the dynamic handling package.

Regardless the new Q7 is hideous. Looks like a lifted up minivan

This what I've been saying for a long time- steel springs and 255-series tires highlight the F15's chassis weakness.

Adaptive should be standard on 35i and DHP standard on the 50i.

I hope BMW is throughly embarrassed by this.

[MichiganMike]

Originally Posted by Alan l.

What I like to know is what options did the X5 have and was it a apples to apples comparison. Seems like the other two cars has bigger more aggressive wheel/tire setups which makes me think they had some suspension options chosen. I'm sure a X5 with 19s and base suspension will handle drastically different from one with 20" adaptive M suspension or with the dynamic handling package.

C&D targeted vehicles in the comparison with an MSRP of around $70,000. The X5 tested came in at $68,750 (including $11,000+ in options), the Q7 at $72,875 ($17,000+ in options), the XC90 was $67,055 ($10,000+ in options) and the Range Rover was $87,281 ($21,000+ in options). So there is certainly reason to argue this was not a fair comparison, particularly when the Range Rover (which finished 3rd) listed for almost $15K more than any other car tested.

The Q7 was in the Prestige Trim and included adaptive air suspension.
The XC90 was the T6 model with Inscription Trim level.
The X5 options were not described in detail, but it did not include the M Sport package or suspension or tire upgrades. These excluded X5 options might have made the X5 MSRP more comparable to that of the Q7 and closed the gap in the comparison.

In CD's final results tabulated:
Q7 received 231 points (101 for Vehicle + 52 for Powertrain + 57 for Chassis + 21 for Fun to Drive)
XC90 received 222 points (102 for Vehicle + 45 for Powertrain + 56 for Chassis + 19 for Fun to Drive)
Range Rover received 193 points (80 for Vehicle + 45 for Powertrain + 50 for Chassis + 18 for Fun to Drive)
X5 received 190 points (80 for Vehicle + 49 for Powertrain + 46 for Chassis + 15 for Fun to Drive)

In both "Fun to Drive" and "Chassis" (includes Performance, Steering Feel, Brake Feel, Handling and Ride subcategories) categories the BMW finished last in the C&D comparison. These are categories where I would expect a BMW to be more competitive. Your experience may vary as some of these are subjective or may depend on the options selected.

[Kzang]

I wonder what the result would have been if there was no dollar value requirement or limit and BMW gave C&D a DHP or Adapative M suspension X5 with 20" / 21" wheels.

[Alan l.]

Even though the X5 had Msport it doesn't mean it had any suspension upgrades like Adaptive M or DHP. At that price doubt it had DHP and most people don't even know to order the Adapative M suspension so there is a good chance this X5 had the base suspension with 19" wheels.

All good though. The X5 came out in 2014 and the competition it is pitted against is fresh out of the factory. It better beat the X5 imo. Competition makes better cars for everyone and the next generation X5 will be that much better.

With that said none of those cars looks as good as the X5 to me.

Audi = minivan
Volvo = actually like this one except for the back
RR = Nice but nothing special to me. Also get ready to be on first name bases with your local dealer mechanic lol

Alan

[X5Jouster]

every vehicle should be shipped with m sport suspension and DHP....

[Ricsuaq]

Personally, I like the XC90, but the Q7 has my attention. With not even 10k miles on my X5d, I'm considering a stop at the Audi dealership to test drive and then who knows from there. I think it looks great from every angle (although the side screams Touareg), and every review I've read or seen about how it drives has me more than curious.

[Alan l.]

I guess if MY X5 as pitted against those cars it would have done quite well. I implemented my "fixes" for C&D rants about the X5

Originally Posted by MichiganMike

In the C&D comparison, the X5 had the longest braking distance from 70 to 0 mph at 178 feet. The Audi Q7 was the shortest at 166 feet and the Volvo second at 167 feet. Added M Performance Brakes

The X5 had the slowest slalom speed at 34.3 mph, while the Audi was first at 36.9 mph. The Volvo managed 35 mph. Adaptive M Suspension + 22" Non RFT tires

The X5 was third in the skidpad at 0.79 g ahead of only the Range Rover at 0.78 g. The Q7 measured 0.85 g and the Volvo 0.84 g. Adaptive M Suspension + 22" Non RFT tires

As for coming in second place for power train having the MPPK would likely change that outcome as well.

[jlstyle]

I love new XC90, I mean whole new volvo line up looks darn good.
I just don't know what happened to their rear end design.
Perhaps Volvo was so into safety and purposely made the back look awful so people don't lose their focus?

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by Kzang

I wonder what the result would have been if there was no dollar value requirement or limit and BMW gave C&D a DHP or Adapative M suspension X5 with 20" / 21" wheels.

Wouldn't it be better if BMW offered one or both standard and was still able to compete on price?

The X5 got whooped here.

It's not that the X5 can't be competent, the X5M wins most comparisons, it's that it isn't in 'lease special' suspension/drive-train guise. And that's a shame.

[iconoclast]

Originally Posted by artem123

Bull crap). I test drove XC90 and its 4 cylinder engine declared to out-power X5, while in a real world it engine awfully noisy and grossly underpowered.

the output is greater than the 35i. the t8 outpowers all the vehicles in the write-up but the issue is not with the output but more so all the problems and issues the xc90 is having. hardware and software problems all over the problems and there is no communication between hq and dealers. dealers are lost and hq is sending regional reps to figure out problems. other drivers are pushing for trade-assist but volvo is offering buy-outs.

Originally Posted by roadkillrob

car and driver is the one magazine I have never subscribed to, never like them much.

historically speaking c&d had a bmw bias... to have them write-up something completely different is odd to say the least.

Originally Posted by MichiganMike

In the C&D comparison, the X5 had the longest braking distance from 70 to 0 mph at 178 feet. The Audi Q7 was the shortest at 166 feet and the Volvo second at 167 feet.

The X5 had the slowest slalom speed at 34.3 mph, while the Audi was first at 36.9 mph. The Volvo managed 35 mph.

sadly the x5 has disproportionate brakes. the size of the vehicle requires something more substantial. even the 50i has very small brakes. the xc90 has very small brakes as well but is considerably lighter than it's competition.

i think if the vehicle was equipped with all the m bits the slalom speed would be much different.

[aas5]

The real test will be when Motortrend does a similar comparo. I have seen cases where these two mags completely disagree. A recent X5/6M comparo to MB GLE AMG comes to mind

[cretanu]

I am really surprised about this test result...I drive a M50d and I am impressed every day about the power feeling I get while driving this car...

Before taking the purchase decision I have driven a Porsche Cayenne 4.8l diesel and a RR from friends in a test drive...before I had an E70 4.0d and I never had the same car twice...but after I tested the M50d at the dealer while waiting for the service I had no doubt about the decision...

The Porsche was really small and old fashioned inside...the suspension and the seats were too hard...I felt that the car was sporty but not comfortable...

The RR was really dissapointing as while cornering at reasonable speed the car entered in a hudge balance...not to say about the screen inside which was outdated...

I didn't test drive the audi Q7, but I've seen it at the dealer...if I would need a tractor to go on the plains maybe I would consider the design...

The Volvo xc90 is nice looking and very modern inside...but significantly underpowered...

I feel that those comparisons are also driven by some sponsorships given to the respective magazine...because if you take the sales figures of last months (since xc90 and q7 are in the picture), you will see that the F15 rulz!!!