2001 BMW X5 Review & Road Test at Automotive.com

»Locate a Dealer»Find a Used Car»Get Financing

Most Popular: Hybrid Cars|Lexus IS350|Dodge Charger

HOME

2001 BMW X5 4.4i

Below is a review of the 2001 BMW X5 written by the automotive experts at Automobile Magazine. A full evaluation of the driving experience, price, equipment, and specs are here in a structured, easy-to-navigate format from journalists with a wealth of experience.

QUICK PRICE QUOTE

DEALER LOCATOR

User Rating

N/A

Rating:

Value Rating

N/A

LEARN WHY

IntelliChoice Value Rating

The chart above shows the purchase price versus ownership cost for each car from a specific vehicle class. The cars with better than average ownership cost/purchase price correlations are the best values, and these best value cars are represented by the dots below the curve. (i.e. the cars that have a lower ownership cost compared to its purchase price.) Those cars, which are worse than average or poor values, appear above the curve.

One way to view the graph is to draw a vertical line through any purchase price. You may see several dots that fall on this line - each of which is a car with a similar purchase price. However, notice the difference in ownership costs of each car represented by the vertical position of the dot. Two cars with the same purchase price can have thousands of dollars difference in ownership costs. This is what separates "good value" cars from "poor value" cars.

What is a good car value?

A "good car value" is one whose cost to own and operate is less than expected. The lower the cost to own and operate a car compared to what is expected, the better the value of that car.

But how do we know a car's "expected cost"?

For each car in the class, IntelliChoice plots the car's purchase price against the total five-year cost to own and operate it as determined by IntelliChoice research. Each dot on the above chart represents a specific car. Generally, we find that as the purchase price of the car increases, the cost to own and operate that car increases. This is why the dots on the graph tend to rise upward and to the right. This phenomenon also makes intuitive sense - as the purchase price rises, financing costs tend to rise, as do insurance, depreciation, taxes, and most other car ownership costs.

This is an important concept. It's normal for car ownership costs to rise as purchase price rises. Therefore, we can't just establish one "average" ownership cost number for each class, since cars in the class have different purchase prices. (This is why the "Relative" shown on each chart is different for cars in the same car class.)

Using statistical techniques, IntelliChoice "connects the dots" to form a curve that defines, for this car class, the relationship between the car's purchase price and car's ownership costs. This curve is our "expected cost" curve. The curve defines, for any car in the class, the five-year ownership cost that we would expect to see at each possible purchase price. If every car in the class were an average value, then all the dots would fall exactly on the curve. However, it's rare that any dot is exactly on the curve. Some dots are a little higher or lower, and some are a lot higher or lower. The dots that are a little lower are better than average car values, while the dots that are a lot lower are excellent car values (A dot that is a lot lower than the curve has ownership costs much lower than expected for a car of its purchase price). Conversely, a dot a little higher than the curve is a poorer than average car value, while a dot that is much higher than the curve is a poor car value.

Value is a relative term, not an absolute term. It is performing better than the logical expectation.

So is a Mercedes-Benz E320 expensive to own and operate? Certainly in an absolute sense. Most other cars cost less. But, when its cost to own and operate is plotted against cars with comparable invoice prices, the E320 costs less. So the E320 is not expensive to own and operate - it is a good car value. The Mercedes does not have low ownership costs, but it has low ownership costs for its invoice price.

Change Submodel

CHANGE VEHICLE

Review From Automobile Magazine

2001 BMW X5 4.4i

By Monte Doran / Photography by Tim Andrew / Article provided by: Automobile Magazine

At Automobile Magazine, we have been very public in displaying our affection for BMW cars, showering them with awards and our own precious money. In the office, BMW keys are highly coveted, provided we don't have to haul our kids, our dogs, and our sinks. For that purpose, sport-utes are the vehicles of choice. Yet we viewed BMW's foray into the sport-utility market with equal parts anticipation and trepidation. On the one hand, a sport-utility that promised to drive like a BMW approached our idea of automotive perfection. On the other hand, it was disheartening to watch another hallowed carmaker follow Lincoln, Cadillac, and Mercedes-Benz into the sport-ute hills, prospecting for profits. After a year and 37,000 miles in an X5 4.4i, we found that it does indeed drive like a BMW. But we have yet to decide if BMW should be in the sport-ute business or even if the X5 is a sport-ute at all.

Some worried about the X5's relevance to BMW. Senior editor Joe Lorio ranted: "Must every carmaker build a sport-ute? It's as ridiculous as if every manufacturer were to field a full-size pickup, or an econobox, or an armor-plated luxury sedan. I think the X5 represents the wrong direction for BMW."

For others, the X5 posed more of a semantic dilemma than a philosophical one: Can we call the X5 a sport-ute even though it lacks most of an SUV's defining characteristics? It has a unitized chassis, not a ladder frame. It has a sophisticated independent suspension, not a live rear axle with leaf springs. It also lacks a low range in its transfer case, which some SUVs wear as a badge of honor.

Most damning in our eyes, the X5 doesn't accommodate much cargo, with a meager 23.8 cubic feet of space behind the rear seats. This is far less than that of other bona fide SUVs, such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee (39.0 cu ft), the Land Rover Discovery (40.5 cu ft), and the Mitsubishi Montero (42.1 cu ft). Indeed, the X5 holds even less than BMW's own 5-series wagon (32.1 cu ft). As a result, driving the X5 often required leaving a sink, a dog, or a kid at home.

Thus began the name game. Online editor Greg Anderson called the X5 a "tall 5-series wagon with worse gas mileage." Founder and editor emeritus David E. Davis, Jr., felt it was more of an "all-wheel-drive mini-minivan" than an SUV. Executive editor Mark Gillies abandoned automotive terminology altogether, branding the X5 "an odd fish but a really good one." Most staffers agreed that whatever the X5 is, it's a good one.

The chassis and suspension inspired much praise. After a 1200-mile weekend, contributor Ronald Ahrens wrote: "There's no shake, the car remains composed over railroad tracks, and road-surface irregularities are nothing but trifles. Ride quality is simply astounding." Senior editor Eddie Alterman lauded its superb damping and over-the-road comportment. Managing editor Amy Skogstrom praised the taut suspension, preferring it to the "lumbering ride" of traditional SUVs. The sole dissenting voice came from design editor Robert Cumberford, who called the ride "jiggly" and the X5 "a terrible waste of a marvelous engine."

So even a cranky man with a penchant for French automobiles could find no fault withthe powertrain. The same 4.4-liter V-8 and five-speed manu-matic transmission motivate BMW's 540i, 740i, and X5 4.4i. Somehow, the powertrain feels perfectly matched to each application, even though only the final-drive ratio is changed. In the X5, the short 3.54 ratio helped get our 4980-pound test vehicle from 0 to 60 mph in a brisk 7.1 seconds, with effortless acceleration and almost seamless shifts.

...>>next page