Consumer Reports says BMW X5 3.0 TIPSY!

R

Rollie Pollie

Guest

• Aug 14, 2003

• #1

According to Consumer Reports current edition:

The 2003 BMW X5 3.0 did well in most handling tests, but had one problem.
It experienced a moderate tip-up twice on an emergency handling course.

BMW, DON'T SUE CR AS SUZUKI DID. YOU WILL LOSE.

Consumer Reports tested your vehicle under ideal conditions: minimum load.
Load this beast to maximum gross vehicle weight (including roof rack load)
and minimum fuel and it will roll over with a just a flick of the steering
wheel.

Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the advice of
your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A, you would
not be in this predicament you are in now. You can't sell these cars! If
you do, some are going to roll and the product liability lawyers are going
to have a field day, citing C.R. for starters. Then they'll bring in the
big guns who know vehicle dynamics, vector geometry, and the like and skin
you alive.

We all know by now that the configuration of an SUV which has some margin
of anti-rolling safety looks just like a HumVee. HumVees doesn't have
electronic stability control for the simple reason they don't need it. Any
vehicle that does is in trouble for no on-board computer is going to repeal
the laws of physics.

 

S

Silver

Guest

• Aug 14, 2003

• #2

mmmm. I smell TOSH.

> Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the advice of
> your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A,

Lets analysis this point....

One of the best car manufacturers in the world make a car that is 'tipsy'!!
Do you not think that they [BMW] would have learnt after the 'elk' test on
the A series and made sure.

Where did this bunkum come from? All four wheel drives (used loosely in the
X5's case admittedly!) roll and have body roll and do not "roll over with a
just a flick of the steering wheel." (ha)... not!

Did you buy an x5 and wish you brought a real off roader?....or do you wish
you could afford to buy one and decided to slate it off in public in a vain
(and sad) attempt to reduce its residuals?????

Lets have constructive criticism not just flaming

Silver

 

C

Charlie

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #3

I attended an event sponsored by BMW in the summer of 2001 (in MA). I forget
the name of the event but they had every model BMW made and you could test
drive them all.

The even had a demonstration comparing high speed (around 50-60mph, I
believe) avoidance maneuvers using the Mercedes suv, a of Lexus suv, and a
BMW X5.

The non BMW suvs had HUGE stabilizer bars hanging off the sides (kind of
like wheelie bars but on the side).

They would have each vehicle drive a designated speed (50 or 60, can't
remember exactly) and at points marked on the track, they would turn hard
right, and then back to center. The Lexus leaned like it would fall over.
The Mercedes actually leaned onto only 2 wheels and would have flipped if
not for the bars.

Then the BMW X5 repeated the same exercise with NO stabilizer bar. It hardly
leaned in comparison. The reason is that the engine has been set very low to
create a low center of gravity.

As part of this event, you could sign up for an autocross session using
X5's, so I did. We put those X5's through a lot of torture and they did not
lose their composure. At the time, the X5 only had a 4.7? engine so I don't
know how much different the 3.0 is but I was very impressed the X5 having
seen it in "person".

I don't put too much credence in CR's evaluation of cars. I'd be more
concerned if a more reliable car authority made those statements.

Just my 2 cents!

Charlie



"Rollie Pollie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> According to Consumer Reports current edition:
>
> The 2003 BMW X5 3.0 did well in most handling tests, but had one problem.
> It experienced a moderate tip-up twice on an emergency handling course.
>
> BMW, DON'T SUE CR AS SUZUKI DID. YOU WILL LOSE.
>
> Consumer Reports tested your vehicle under ideal conditions: minimum load.
> Load this beast to maximum gross vehicle weight (including roof rack load)
> and minimum fuel and it will roll over with a just a flick of the steering
> wheel.
>
> Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the advice of
> your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A, you would
> not be in this predicament you are in now. You can't sell these cars! If
> you do, some are going to roll and the product liability lawyers are going
> to have a field day, citing C.R. for starters. Then they'll bring in the
> big guns who know vehicle dynamics, vector geometry, and the like and skin
> you alive.
>
> We all know by now that the configuration of an SUV which has some margin
> of anti-rolling safety looks just like a HumVee. HumVees doesn't have
> electronic stability control for the simple reason they don't need it.
Any
> vehicle that does is in trouble for no on-board computer is going to
repeal
> the laws of physics.
>
>
>

 

D

Dan J.S.

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #4

"Rollie Pollie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> According to Consumer Reports current edition:
>
> The 2003 BMW X5 3.0 did well in most handling tests, but had one problem.
> It experienced a moderate tip-up twice on an emergency handling course.
>
> BMW, DON'T SUE CR AS SUZUKI DID. YOU WILL LOSE.
>
> Consumer Reports tested your vehicle under ideal conditions: minimum load.
> Load this beast to maximum gross vehicle weight (including roof rack load)
> and minimum fuel and it will roll over with a just a flick of the steering
> wheel.
>
> Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the advice of
> your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A, you would
> not be in this predicament you are in now. You can't sell these cars! If
> you do, some are going to roll and the product liability lawyers are going
> to have a field day, citing C.R. for starters. Then they'll bring in the
> big guns who know vehicle dynamics, vector geometry, and the like and skin
> you alive.
>
> We all know by now that the configuration of an SUV which has some margin
> of anti-rolling safety looks just like a HumVee. HumVees doesn't have
> electronic stability control for the simple reason they don't need it.
Any
> vehicle that does is in trouble for no on-board computer is going to
repeal
> the laws of physics.


I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer reports.

 

G

GRL

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #5

Let's see, Consumer Reports wrote that the BMW 5-Series is their favorite
sedan of all time with a great engine, good economy, great handling, and a
smooth ride. You say that no one with a brain trusts CR. So you're saying
the 5-Series must suck because CR liked it and no one with a brain trusts
them, right? Boy are you going to get flamed. Pretty ballsy to say that in
this news group.


Or...it could just be that the BMW SUV X5 did go up on two wheels in their
avoidance test, while the other models tested did not under the same
conditions...and you are simply full of it and can't stand the truth.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Dan J.S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rollie Pollie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > According to Consumer Reports current edition:
> >
> > The 2003 BMW X5 3.0 did well in most handling tests, but had one
problem.
> > It experienced a moderate tip-up twice on an emergency handling course.
> >
> > BMW, DON'T SUE CR AS SUZUKI DID. YOU WILL LOSE.
> >
> > Consumer Reports tested your vehicle under ideal conditions: minimum
load.
> > Load this beast to maximum gross vehicle weight (including roof rack
load)
> > and minimum fuel and it will roll over with a just a flick of the
steering
> > wheel.
> >
> > Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the advice of
> > your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A, you
would
> > not be in this predicament you are in now. You can't sell these cars!
If
> > you do, some are going to roll and the product liability lawyers are
going
> > to have a field day, citing C.R. for starters. Then they'll bring in
the
> > big guns who know vehicle dynamics, vector geometry, and the like and
skin
> > you alive.
> >
> > We all know by now that the configuration of an SUV which has some
margin
> > of anti-rolling safety looks just like a HumVee. HumVees doesn't have
> > electronic stability control for the simple reason they don't need it.
> Any
> > vehicle that does is in trouble for no on-board computer is going to
> repeal
> > the laws of physics.
>
>
> I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer
reports.
>
>

 

M

mandycan

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #6

It'll be interesting to watch the BMW apoligists try to deal with this
one. Too many of them feel that BMW can do no wrong. Clearly, they
make great passenger cars. Arguably the world's best passenger cars.
I'm proud and grateful to own and drive one.

But, the fact is, for all their virtues, there is a not not to like
about them. But the BMW apologists consider it heresy to utter the
remotest criticism of their sacred machines. Face it, folks, it's a
car and a car company. They do a helluvalot of things right; but they
also do a helluvalot of them wrong. It's just possible the X5 falls
much more strongly into the latter category. What is a
performance-based passenger-car company doing making a small truck
anyway?

I've never driven one, but I did follow one on a two lane coastal
highway one day. The guy driving refused to let me by despite my
repeated flashing of headlights everytime we passed one of those
"slower traffic use turnouts" signs. Every little straightaway he'd
give it all it had to try to put distance between us. I'd just hang
back hoping for enought break to get by the fool because every time
the road changed to a bit of a challenge, he'd have to slow to a near
crawl. Ok, the fool probably couldn't drive for ****, but the car was
obviously not up to CA Hwy 1 either.

I'd never own an SUV, BMW's or anyone else's. I like to drive too much
for that. But, I have no doubt there are much better handling SUVs
than the X5 and CR is spot on with this one.

Oh yeah, did I mention that I was driving the V6 Accord that day?



mandycan
(can you?)

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:04:50 -0500, "Dan J.S." <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Rollie Pollie" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
>news:[email protected]...
>> According to Consumer Reports current edition:
>>
>> The 2003 BMW X5 3.0 did well in most handling tests, but had one
problem.
>> It experienced a moderate tip-up twice on an emergency handling
course.
>>
>> BMW, DON'T SUE CR AS SUZUKI DID. YOU WILL LOSE.
>>
>> Consumer Reports tested your vehicle under ideal conditions:
minimum load.
>> Load this beast to maximum gross vehicle weight (including roof
rack load)
>> and minimum fuel and it will roll over with a just a flick of the
steering
>> wheel.
>>
>> Consumer Reports knows better now. BMW, if you had taken the
advice of
>> your engineers that this car is as tipsy as a 1933 Ford Model A,
you would
>> not be in this predicament you are in now. You can't sell these
cars! If
>> you do, some are going to roll and the product liability lawyers
are going
>> to have a field day, citing C.R. for starters. Then they'll bring
in the
>> big guns who know vehicle dynamics, vector geometry, and the like
and skin
>> you alive.
>>
>> We all know by now that the configuration of an SUV which has some
margin
>> of anti-rolling safety looks just like a HumVee. HumVees doesn't
have
>> electronic stability control for the simple reason they don't need
it.
>Any
>> vehicle that does is in trouble for no on-board computer is going
to
>repeal
>> the laws of physics.
>
>
>I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer
reports.
>

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #7

In article <rkV_a.146509$Ho3.17078@sccrnsc03>, cc_driver911
@*NOSPAM*hotmail.com says...
>
> I attended an event sponsored by BMW in the summer of 2001 (in MA). I forget
> the name of the event but they had every model BMW made and you could test
> drive them all.
>
> The even had a demonstration comparing high speed (around 50-60mph, I
> believe) avoidance maneuvers using the Mercedes suv, a of Lexus suv, and a
> BMW X5.
>
> The non BMW suvs had HUGE stabilizer bars hanging off the sides (kind of
> like wheelie bars but on the side).
>
> They would have each vehicle drive a designated speed (50 or 60, can't
> remember exactly) and at points marked on the track, they would turn hard
> right, and then back to center. The Lexus leaned like it would fall over.
> The Mercedes actually leaned onto only 2 wheels and would have flipped if
> not for the bars.
>
> Then the BMW X5 repeated the same exercise with NO stabilizer bar. It hardly
> leaned in comparison. The reason is that the engine has been set very low to
> create a low center of gravity.
>
> As part of this event, you could sign up for an autocross session using
> X5's, so I did. We put those X5's through a lot of torture and they did not
> lose their composure. At the time, the X5 only had a 4.7? engine so I don't
> know how much different the 3.0 is but I was very impressed the X5 having
> seen it in "person".
>
> I don't put too much credence in CR's evaluation of cars. I'd be more
> concerned if a more reliable car authority made those statements.
>
> Just my 2 cents!
>
> Charlie
>
>

Consumer reports used those same outriggers to cause excessive body roll
in their SUV tests. Either their "engineers" don't realize that putting
150-300 pounds outboard of the center of gravity changes the handling
characteristics of a vehicle or they really thought the world was stupid
enough to swallow this. You would have a hard time getting any of those
useless yuppie utes on two wheels without outriggers given that they all
come with computers to neuter your driving and prevent that.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

F

fbloogyudsr

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #8

"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote
> Consumer reports used those same outriggers to cause excessive body roll
> in their SUV tests. Either their "engineers" don't realize that putting
> 150-300 pounds outboard of the center of gravity changes the handling
> characteristics of a vehicle or they really thought the world was stupid
> enough to swallow this. You would have a hard time getting any of those
> useless yuppie utes on two wheels without outriggers given that they all
> come with computers to neuter your driving and prevent that.

The clip of the X5 that I saw did not have out riggers. They also showed
a Mitsubishi SUV that DID have the outriggers.

The X5 came close to tipping - was on two wheels for a while - during
an avoidance maneuver. Of course, those CU drivers think that drivers
let go of the steering wheel while avoiding things (or they did in the past;
not sure if that's the case here) so it's hard to consider this "normal".

They were testing DSC systems to see if they would prevent roll-overs,
btw, not SUV's per se.

Floyd

 

D

Dan J.S.

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #9

"GRL" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's see, Consumer Reports wrote that the BMW 5-Series is their favorite
> sedan of all time with a great engine, good economy, great handling, and a
> smooth ride. You say that no one with a brain trusts CR. So you're saying
> the 5-Series must suck because CR liked it and no one with a brain trusts
> them, right? Boy are you going to get flamed. Pretty ballsy to say that in
> this news group.
>
CR recommended Bayliner boats (which are really bad), they made other really
bad recommendations as well. I will not even go into the details where CR
screwed up. I do not own a BMW - I would not based on some of the mechanical
reliability issues that I see with them (especially 2002 and up models,
earlier models are rock solid in my book), and also the IDrive system which
is a total disaster. However, I still think CR is really lousy. Based on
their subscription rates dropping, I am not the only one that feels this
way.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #10

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Consumer reports used those same outriggers to cause excessive body roll
> > in their SUV tests. Either their "engineers" don't realize that putting
> > 150-300 pounds outboard of the center of gravity changes the handling
> > characteristics of a vehicle or they really thought the world was stupid
> > enough to swallow this. You would have a hard time getting any of those
> > useless yuppie utes on two wheels without outriggers given that they all
> > come with computers to neuter your driving and prevent that.
>
> The clip of the X5 that I saw did not have out riggers. They also showed
> a Mitsubishi SUV that DID have the outriggers.
>

I was speaking about CRs famous suzuki test.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

D

Dave Plowman

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #11

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan J.S. <[email protected]> wrote:
> I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer
> reports.

I really do think only those with dubious motives distrusts them. Perhaps
they work in advertising, and desperately need us to believe them.

Perhaps you're too young to know why these organisations exist. Makers
sure as hell aren't going to tell you when they screw up a design, and
government's ear is always closer to big business in any capitalist
country.

Any off road vehicle needs ground clearance. Therefore a higher centre of
gravity. Any vehicle made to *look* like an off roader - even although
it's got crap off road performance - will also have a higher centre of
gravity than ideal. So *will* fall over where a car wouldn't. It's as
simple as that.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW 12
RIP Acorn

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #12

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Consumer reports used those same outriggers to cause excessive body roll
> in their SUV tests. Either their "engineers" don't realize that putting
> 150-300 pounds outboard of the center of gravity changes the handling
> characteristics of a vehicle or they really thought the world was stupid
> enough to swallow this. You would have a hard time getting any of those
> useless yuppie utes on two wheels without outriggers given that they all
> come with computers to neuter your driving and prevent that.

From the pictures I have seen, I would wager that the outriggers lower the center
of gravity and make the car less tipsy, even if they don't contact the ground. It
is true that they extend out past the edge of the cars, but they are symmetrical
about the long axis of the car, so they should not change the side to side center
of gravity location. And since it appears the bulk of the structure is relatively
low down, they should actually lower the vertical position of the center of
gravity (a good thing if you are trying to prevent roll). I am sure they change
the moment of interia about the long axis, which should make the vehicle roll at a
lower rate. I'll have to think about whether this improves the situation or makes
the vehicle more likely to tip. I think it improves the situation. The additional
weight should also cause the vehicle to sit slightly lower on the suspension which
should also make it less tipsy. All, in all, I think the outriggers would make the
vehicle less tipsy instead of more tipsy.

Regards,

Ed White

 

C

C. E. White

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #13

"Dan J.S." wrote:

> I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer reports.

Who should we trust to tell us the truth? The vehicle manufacturer? Enthusiast
magazines that are trying to not **** off there chief source of revenue? The
government? The internet?

CR is not perfect and I often disagree with their opinions. However, I don't
think they are any more likely to be dishonest than the other sources of
information. I am certainly more inclined to trust their test results than those
of enthusiast magazines.

Regards,

Ed White

 

J

John Stone

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #14

in article [email protected], C. E. White at
[email protected] wrote on 8/15/03 2:56 PM:

>

> CR is not perfect and I often disagree with their opinions. However, I don't
> think they are any more likely to be dishonest than the other sources of
> information. I am certainly more inclined to trust their test results than
> those
> of enthusiast magazines.
>
CR, like all publications, needs to be taken with a "grain of salt". It's
reviews of cars do have merit, but I find some of their safety testing to be
a bit questionable. Certainly you can find many instances where one car will
do better than another in a specific test, yet when taken as a whole, the
one that failed the test is a far better overall vehicle. I also find it
curious that the X5, which is in its fifth year, has been reviewed countless
times. Yet no one else has ever made a negative comment about its'
stability. And don't say it's because magazines are so pro BMW, because the
X5 has been roundly criticized in these same magazines over other issues.
That said, I would never own an X5 because it doesn't function well either
as a sporty vehicle or an SUV.

 

M

marlinspike

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #15

"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Who should we trust to tell us the truth? The vehicle manufacturer?
Enthusiast
> magazines that are trying to not **** off there chief source of revenue?
The
> government? The internet?

Absolutely nobody. Trust nobody other than yourself and even then be
skeptical.
Richard-yes I am serious

 

S

Silver

Guest

• Aug 15, 2003

• #16

> lower rate. I'll have to think about whether this improves the situation
or makes
> the vehicle more likely to tip. I think it improves the situation. The
additional
> weight should also cause the vehicle to sit slightly lower on the
suspension which
> should also make it less tipsy. All, in all, I think the outriggers would
make the
> vehicle less tipsy instead of more tipsy.
>

I think we are all missing the point.

BMW's even X5's are not "tipsy"...de facto...

Any information [even from CR reports] is/are subjective. Make your own
mind up, you are allowed to. You don't need to be told what to think......

Manufactures make vehicles to make money. So, the higher off the ground the
more 'liable' it is to roll over. End of link/discussion/post.

Silver
(who will not own a pretend 4x4 vehicle....ever.... and is wondering why he
is bothering to answer/respond to this post)

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #17

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dan J.S. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer
> > reports.
>
> I really do think only those with dubious motives distrusts them. Perhaps
> they work in advertising, and desperately need us to believe them.
>
> Perhaps you're too young to know why these organisations exist. Makers
> sure as hell aren't going to tell you when they screw up a design, and
> government's ear is always closer to big business in any capitalist
> country.

Perhaps you are too naive to know why these organizations exist. To
sell magazines, and now, online subscriptions.


--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #18

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > Consumer reports used those same outriggers to cause excessive body roll
> > in their SUV tests. Either their "engineers" don't realize that putting
> > 150-300 pounds outboard of the center of gravity changes the handling
> > characteristics of a vehicle or they really thought the world was stupid
> > enough to swallow this. You would have a hard time getting any of those
> > useless yuppie utes on two wheels without outriggers given that they all
> > come with computers to neuter your driving and prevent that.
>
> From the pictures I have seen, I would wager that the outriggers lower the center
> of gravity and make the car less tipsy, even if they don't contact the ground. It
> is true that they extend out past the edge of the cars, but they are symmetrical
> about the long axis of the car, so they should not change the side to side center
> of gravity location. And since it appears the bulk of the structure is relatively
> low down, they should actually lower the vertical position of the center of
> gravity (a good thing if you are trying to prevent roll). I am sure they change
> the moment of interia about the long axis, which should make the vehicle roll at a
> lower rate. I'll have to think about whether this improves the situation or makes
> the vehicle more likely to tip. I think it improves the situation. The additional
> weight should also cause the vehicle to sit slightly lower on the suspension which
> should also make it less tipsy. All, in all, I think the outriggers would make the
> vehicle less tipsy instead of more tipsy.

Think about a small plane, which is more likely to tip over on the
runway, one with wings, or one without? The problem is not a higher
center of gravity, it is the inertia acting on it.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #19

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> "Dan J.S." wrote:
>
> > I really do not think that anyone with a brain cell trusts consumer reports.
>
> Who should we trust to tell us the truth? The vehicle manufacturer? Enthusiast
> magazines that are trying to not **** off there chief source of revenue? The
> government? The internet?
>
> CR is not perfect and I often disagree with their opinions. However, I don't
> think they are any more likely to be dishonest than the other sources of
> information. I am certainly more inclined to trust their test results than those
> of enthusiast magazines.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
>
>

I don't think being the lesser of 3 evils makes them saints. Here's a
thought, if you are interested in a BMX X5, test drive one.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

D

daytripper

Guest

• Aug 16, 2003

• #20

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:39:25 +0000 (UTC), "Silver"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>> lower rate. I'll have to think about whether this improves the situation
>or makes
>> the vehicle more likely to tip. I think it improves the situation. The
>additional
>> weight should also cause the vehicle to sit slightly lower on the
>suspension which
>> should also make it less tipsy. All, in all, I think the outriggers would
>make the
>> vehicle less tipsy instead of more tipsy.
>>
>
>I think we are all missing the point.
>
>BMW's even X5's are not "tipsy"...de facto...
>
>Any information [even from CR reports] is/are subjective. Make your own
>mind up, you are allowed to. You don't need to be told what to think......
>
>Manufactures make vehicles to make money. So, the higher off the ground the
>more 'liable' it is to roll over. End of link/discussion/post.
>
>Silver
>(who will not own a pretend 4x4 vehicle....ever.... and is wondering why he
>is bothering to answer/respond to this post)
>

Given the content, so are we...