I’ve never been a big fan of BMW’s first SUV, the X5. It incorporated most of the disadvantages of the typical SUV, with few of the benefits. Despite weighing as much as the typical midsize SUV, 4650 pounds even in base trim, the X5 offered considerably less cargo room—just 54 cubic feet. Compared to an X5 3.0, a 325Xi all-wheel-drive wagon offered similar performance and interior room, superior ride and handling, and a price about $8,000 lower. Basically, the X5 seemed created for people who liked the idea of an SUV and the idea of a BMW—why not have both?

It seems there are many such people. The X5 has sold well. For 2004, BMW has updated it, and added a younger sibling, the X3. With the X5 already so compact inside, how tight would an X3 be?

A glance at the specs suggests that the X3 is nearly as large as an X5 on the outside. Its 110-inch wheelbase is within an inch of the X5’s, while its 180-inch length, 73-inch width, and 66-inch height are within four, two, and one-and-a-half inches, respectively. The X5 does look substantially larger, but the tape measure doesn’t lie. What’s more, the X3 actually provides an inch-and-a-half MORE combined legroom inside. And more cargo volume as well.

How much more? Well, that’s unclear. The X3 figure is 71.0 cubic feet, but a number of sources now list the X5’s cargo volume as 69.0 cubic feet. The X5 was tweaked for 2004, but I do not believe any tweak could have boosted cargo volume by over 26 percent. More likely BMW altered their method of measurement—more than one is acceptable. My eyes suggest that the X3 can hold more than two additional cubes.

By just about any measure we have two similarly sized SUVs. How, then, does it make sense to offer both? I test drove an X3 to determine what, if anything, it brings new to the table and any reason it might still make sense to spend the extra cash for an X5.

BMW X3 Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a BMW X3 rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. You might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.

To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

I’ve always liked the styling of the X5, with its spot-on proportions and subtly flared fenders. Lexus thought enough of it to knock it off for the new RX, and the Chrysler Pacifica also bears more than a passing resemblance. Given that BMW tends to style all of its vehicles similarly, the X3 might be expected to be similarly stylish.

Well, it’s not. Its proportions are relatively awkward and its forms much less muscular. It looks more like a tall car than an SUV. A 3-series with a lift kit, perhaps. But not as good-looking. And, if an SUV lacks the styling of an SUV, why buy one? Isn’t style what SUVs are most about in the end for all but the few who really will take one off-road?

A particularly irksome styling detail is the kick-up in the beltline at the rear window. Traditionally BMWs have had a small kink at the very back of the window outline. It draws the eye up, generally a good thing, and has been copied by at least half the world’s automakers. Well, for the X3 BMW has for no obvious reason abandoned this trademark kink if favor of a much lengthier, more gradual kick-up extending the entire length of the rearmost side window. Not only does this kick-up not make sense within the overall styling of the vehicle, but nothing about it suggests BMW. It looks somehow Japanese.

This one detail aside, the X3’s styling possesses little of interest. In contrast to other recent BMW designs, for better or worse—worse in this case—the X3’s sheetmetal has no complex surface detail. Very blah.

Inside the X3 resembles a Korean knock-off of the X5. Actually, that’s a discredit to the Koreans, who often fit their vehicles with decent quality materials these days. The dash and door panels in the X3 are notably harder and less rich-looking than those in the X5. They’re perhaps on par with those in the average $25,000 vehicle (or a 1990s 3-Series, for that matter)—a potential problem since this one costs significantly more than that. It seems BMW decided that since they couldn’t make the X3 smaller than the X5, they’d have to make it cheaper.

Accommodations

You don’t sit quite as high up in the X3 as in the X5. Together with less upright A-pillars this provides a moderately more car-like driving position. The view forward is still expansive.

The front seat is reasonably comfortable, though lateral support in minimal. An X5 seat is more comfortable. Notably, the X3 feels narrower inside, and is—by about three inches. This is a significant difference, lending the X3’s interior a significantly more compact ambiance. Since the two vehicles do not differ much in exterior width, was this difference artificially created?

The X3 is similarly narrower in the rear seat, so it won’t fit three across quite as well. Its rear seat cushion is also mounted considerably lower, so it does not offer nearly as much thigh support as the X5's rear seat. It’s almost as if BMW went out of its way to make the X3 a less comfortable vehicle.

The X3’s cargo area looks substantially longer than the X5’s, a good thing. Especially with the rear seats folded it should carry a decent amount of stuff. It offers less floor space than the typical midsize wagon, but more height, for roughly equivalent cargo volume.

On the Road

I’d have preferred to test a manual, but the only one was parked in the showroom. (For the record, its shifter felt better than most, though one can only tell so much with the engine off.) I’d also have liked to sample a 2.5, as BMW charges a pretty penny for an extra half-liter of displacement, but those had not yet arrived. So I drove a 3.0 automatic.

Though similar in size to the X5, the X3 weighs a substantial 650 pounds less. I found the 3.0 acceptably quick even in the X5, and so it is here as well. But it’s not nearly as energetic as a 330. I imagine this was to be expected, as at 4000 pounds the X3 remains about 700 heavier than the 3. With the 2.5 automatic performance must be quite marginal for a vehicle wearing the BMW roundel.

The manual likely helps, but how many people will buy one? The salesperson says they sell fewer and fewer manual transmissions even in sedans. He’s never seen a new 5 with a manual. Quite sad, when even few BMWs are bought with a clutch.

I drove an X3 with the standard suspension. In this form its handling is decidedly less truck-like than the X5s, which though agile considering its weight makes this weight felt. Still, once again, you’ll never mistake it for a 3 despite similarly excellent steering feel. Lean in turns is greater and responses are slower. All in all, driving the X3 felt less special than just about any BMW I’ve ever driven. At least the X5 has a certain brutishness about it. The X3 feels more like an Acura version of the Honda CR-V than a BMW.

Like other BMWs the X3 acquires more character when pushed very hard. Then its responses feel quicker, and the precision of the steering and balance of the chassis are most appreciated. But how often can the typical driver push a vehicle that hard? If you do most of your driving on straight, flat roads, you’ll rarely have the opportunity to appreciate BMW’s efforts with this chassis.

I’ve read that the X3’s ride quality is very poor. But the magazines’ test vehicles were fitted with the optional sport suspension. With the standard suspension the ride is certainly less smooth than in a 3-Series, much less a 5-Series, but certainly far from punishing. An X5 certainly rides no better.

Overall, nothing about the X3’s performance led me to question my pro-car bias. Though this performance is certainly adequate in all respects, a BMW should be much more than adequate. And certainly more fun to drive Especially at the prices they charge…

Pricing

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The rest of this section dates from when the review was first written.

I’m beginning to wonder how much more expensive BMWs can get before people stop buying them. BMW likely wonders the same thing, and keeps experimenting. The X3 2.5 starts at just under $31,000, the 3.0 at just under $37,000. About $2,000 of this difference is due to the 3.0’s additional standard equipment.

These prices appear reasonable by one yardstick: other BMWs. In all-wheel-drive Xi form, a 325 wagon costs $1,750 more than the X3 2.5—much like a 5-Series costs more than an X5. (Blame Mercedes, which priced the ML considerably lower than an E-Class sedan.)

An X5 3.0 likely performs much like an X3 2.5, yet costs a nice even $10,000 more (with about $2,000 attributable to differences in standard equipment). Compare an X5 3.0 to an X3 3.0, though, and the price difference narrows to $4,000.

For reference, a 330i starts at $9,500 less than a 530i, and the gap between a 325 and 530 is a whopping $16,500. Perhaps reflecting the greater similarity of the two SUVs, they are priced closer together than the analogous sedans.

Assuming you want your X3 to get to sixty in the neighborhood of eight seconds, and you don’t care to shift for yourself, you want the 3.0 automatic. Add the $3,300 premium package (which includes leather, a nice big sunroof that’s $1,350 by itself, and a few other knick-knacks), the cold weather package (heated seats, ski sack, headlight washers), the premium sound system, xenon headlights, and metallic paint (gotta love how the Europeans charge for it), and the sticker rises to $44,270. (I did not note the exact equipment on the X3 I drove, but it included this and enough more, even without the sport package, to put the price around $47,000.) Edmunds suggests no discounting.

What else really compares to the X3? If you’re one of the few who wants an SUV with a stick, then the BMW’s your only choice in a luxury SUV. Even with the automatic X3, most luxury brand SUVs are more comparable to the X5. I suppose the Cadillac SRX, Infiniti FX, VW Touareg, and Lexus RX 330 come closest. Overall, the price of the X3 seems high for what it offers.

Last Words

While nearly every BMW might be said to be substantially overpriced, most do so much so well that this price premium is justifiable for many buyers. The X3, in contrast, does not. Only in the area of handling might it claim to stand out from the crowd, and even on this attribute the Infiniti and even the Cadillac are arguably equally good or even better. I’m no fan of the X5, but it at least looks and feels like a $50,000 vehicle.

What we’re left with with the X3 is the BMW brand. Sure, many people will buy one just because of the brand. But I’m not about to recommend the X3 for this reason. All in all, a disappointment as far as I’m concerned.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.

My reviews of related vehicles:
Cadillac SRX
Infiniti FX35
Lexus RX 330
VW Touareg


Recommended: No

Amount Paid (US$): 47,000
Model and Options: X5 3.0 automatic, premium and cold weather packages