By on May 4, 2012

Although Canucks have been enjoying the BMW X1 xDrive28i for over a year now, the launch of the X1 in the United States will see both the four-cylinder model, and a 3.0L twin-turbo I6 version, dubbed the xDrive35i. And it’s fast.

The xDrive35i will dash to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds. The sDrive28i (RWD only) will do it in 6.2, while the xDrive28i takes additional tenth of a second. Fuel economy is 24 city/33 highway for the RWD model, 22/30 for the AWD version, and 18/27 for the xDrive35i. No manual will be offered, just BMW’s 8-speed automatic transmission. Looks like BMW’s baby crossover isn’t so lame after all.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

30 Comments on “BMW X1 xDrive35i: 0-60 In 5.3 Seconds...”


  • avatar
    mr_muttonchops

    This thing barely passes as a wagon (barely) so it’s okay in my book. Also given that this is the X1, does that mean it’s based off the 1-series? Haven’t quite figured out BMW’s crossover nomenclature yet.

    • 0 avatar
      graham

      The X1 is a based on the 3-Series xDrive Touring (wagon), although trying to make sense of any of BMW’s nomenclature lately is almost impossible. And as an owner of a E91 3-Series Touring, this thing doesn’t quality as a “wagon” in my book, but for a small crossover it seems pretty decent for what it is (whatever that may be!).

  • avatar
    Ubermensch

    0-60 in 5.3 sec and 3 HPFPs in 30k miles. :) Should be a common site at the local malls and BMW service bays in the near future.

  • avatar
    rochskier

    There is just way too much happening with the schizoid front end of this vehicle. I’m also having a tough time buying those mpg numbers.

    • 0 avatar
      NexWest

      The whole front of this vehicle is a mess. Just put your hand up to the photo, block the entire mess, and it starts looking better.

    • 0 avatar
      ad2677

      @rochskier: mpg numbers are real, I get 24mpg in mixed driving city/hwy (rated 20/30 AWD version). If I drive it like I stole it the number dips a bit, otherwise 25/26 is possible as well.

  • avatar
    carguy

    It seems these days that no matter what entry level BMW model you choose, be it the X1, X3 or 3 series, the end price of a decent configured model seems to be nearly $50K. The only thing that varies is the entry level price of the poverty spec entry level models which no one is selling.

  • avatar
    John

    Tell me this is a joke – that thing in the picture makes the Pontiac Aztec look like a thing of beauty! Oh-my-God.

  • avatar
    MeaCulpa

    The point of a high performance car with a high COG always eluded me. I bet this thing has lowered suspension too, build a fine station wagon/sedan-> take that car and make it higher, more expensive and handle worse(aka build a cross over)-> lower the cross over to make it handle better. Makes all the sense in bizzaro world.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      You normally do get a bit more ground clearance in crossovers than in a wagon. And often a longer travel suspension and more wheelwell clearance, which, at least in the case of BMW, is not necessarily a bad thing. Much of this is pretty much lost by the postage stamp sidewall tires fitted to them. Simply selling the wagon with bigger wheelwells and higher sidewalls would probably make more sense, from a purely functional pov at least.

    • 0 avatar
      Toucan

      > The point of a high performance car with
      > a high COG always eluded me.

      It is a perfect combination! Perfect! I declare perfection achieved,

      It is exactly what people want. They want looks, high performance and appeal with the high COG at exactly the same time. That’s the only real reason behind the old SUV boom in the States, the new CUV boom in Europe and the newest cheap CUV boom in India. People are the same everywhere.

      High COG renders high H-point (hip point) which makes people feel safer and makes them in fact safer in a side crash. Cause the hitting bumper hits lower. Crash tests result second than.

      That is the sole reason why cars like X1 and anything alike exist. Any other perceived SUV/CUV virtues:
      - tow rating (no one is towing with these cars)
      - off road ability (no one is going off road in these)
      - roomy interior (not any roomier than in a comparable estate)
      are irrelevant.

      The best vehicle from people’s desires perspective is the BMW X6: sporty and aggressive looks, high performance, prestige and appeal, solid, bunker feel but not too large and bulky at the same time AND RIDING HIGH.

      • 0 avatar
        PenguinBoy

        “High COG renders high H-point (hip point) which…” also makes it easier to get in and out of. With an aging population this is becoming a big deal.

        Also, people like minivans, but they don’t like being seen in them…

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        Well you got me there.
        The practical point of a SUV is quite an interesting thing, It will protect you from side impact and fair better in a head on collision, but only if you’re hitting another car, so the safety advantage with this kind of “car” are achieved by making sure that the other car gets f***d up.
        The X6 always seemed like the ultimate car in an it-is-what-it-isn’t kinda way.

  • avatar

    I saw these all over Germany last summer. The typical x1 had the 2.0 liter diesel motor, so 40 mpg was also a reality. No diesel for you…our gas motors would be viewed as hugely indulgent in the land of $10/gal gas Germany. Tossing Euro notes out the window is how a friend described it…..

    The x3 was proof you had the money, found the right dealership, and in the words of Maxwell Smart “missed it by THIS much”.

    The x1 is the car the RDX fantasizes being.

  • avatar
    The Doctor

    Quickest emetic I’ve ever seen too.

  • avatar
    Nostrathomas

    We’ve finally come full circle, this thing looks like the Chinese knock-off of itself.

    I’ve seen a few of them around town, and it’s not a pretty sight in person either.

  • avatar
    PenguinBoy

    “The xDrive35i will dash to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds… No manual will be offered, just BMW’s 8-speed automatic transmission. Looks like BMW’s baby crossover isn’t so lame after all.”
    I disagree. A 5.3 sec 0-60 looks pretty impressive, until you realize that it is roughly the same as a V6 Chrysler 200 – everything is fast these days. This vehicle is an abomination. Remember when BMW used to be “The Ultimate Driving Machine” and featured tasteful, understated yet functional designs? Those older BMWs might not have been as fast, but they were nicely balanced – kind of like the FT86 that everyone’s raving about. I would much rather have a 3 series touring with 6MT, even if it wasn’t as fast. If all that matters to someone is the ability to run 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, they would be better off with a Chrysler 200: 1/2 the price, and likely won’t need a fuel pump every six months…

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Point well taken and your snark well placed, as we know the primary reason for buying this is not the speed. It’s the roundel on the hood. For most buyers of this, and sadly more and more BMWs, the driving factor is the snob appeal of the brand. As BMW drifts further and further from being the Ultimate Driving Machine – the lack of a manual as a good example, and becomes more of the Ultimate Mall Machine, it’s sales have increased. So we have to expect more of this in the future. It is easy to chase numbers; Detroit did it for years. But numbers and feel are much different animals. As long as softening the car makes the sales numbers go up, the trend will continue. Makes me wonder why status seekers latched onto BMWs during the Reagan Era…They were still cars of enthusiasts in the late 70s.

      BTY, look at the mileage difference between rear and all wheel drive. I just don’t get purchasing the AWD model in areas with a 8 inch per year average snowfall. I guess it is that marketing thing leading the sheep to slaughter again.

      • 0 avatar
        PenguinBoy

        EDIT: Posted in the wrong spot, meant as a reply to @Toucan below.

        “A V6 Chrysler 200 looks pretty impressive, until you realize that it is roughly the 6.9 sec 0-60 car.”
        TTAC got 5.5 seconds here: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/review-2012-chrysler-200-touring-take-two/

        “It has an 8 speed auto because it is BETTER than the manual.”
        Agreed that a modern slushbox offers better performance in many cases – but it isn’t just about better numbers, it’s about the direct mechanical feel you get with a MT. See the BRZ / FT86 article below this one for an example of this, many commentators prefer the twins to the faster Mustang.

        In any case, a MT should at least be offered for those who want one.

      • 0 avatar
        PenguinBoy

        @golden2husky:
        …”the primary reason for buying this is not the speed. It’s the roundel on the hood. For most buyers of this, and sadly more and more BMWs, the driving factor is the snob appeal of the brand.”

        This reminds me of Paul Niedermeyer’s excellent articles on the downfall of Cadillac. Abandoning your brand promise and chasing sales volumes works really well, until it doesn’t. Eye popping profits in the short term, brand destruction in the end – not a problem until it’s a problem, and then it’s a *big* problem.

        I much preferred BMW before they were so caught up in being an “aspirational brand with bluetooth connectivity”…

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        @Penguinboy

        Cadillac’s suicide isn’t any kind of parallel, it’s a prayer for karma from a God who likes to drive.

        A luxury car that isn’t a sports car is a very long way from a Cimarron.

    • 0 avatar
      Toucan

      > I disagree. A 5.3 sec 0-60 looks pretty impressive, until you
      > realize that it is roughly the same as a V6 Chrysler 200 –

      I disagree. A V6 Chrysler 200 looks pretty impressive, until you realize that it is roughly the 6.9 sec 0-60 car.

      insideline.com/chrysler/200/2011/2011-chrysler-200-limited-sedan-full-test.html

      youtube.com/watch?v=Q2AbKOVRR2c

      > If all that matters to someone is the ability to run 0-60 in 5.3
      > seconds, they would be better off with a Chrysler 200

      They just wouldn’t.

      > As BMW drifts further and further from being the Ultimate
      > Driving Machine – the lack of a manual as a good example

      Yawn. This point is SO BOOOORING. Go tell the Aventador driver he hasn’t got the drivers car because of the automatic. Repeat the same to nearly every 2010+ supercar driver.

      It has an 8 speed auto because it is BETTER than the manual. And it comes with paddles so that you can still change the gear when YOU want, only the change process is faster and more dependable so that you can keep both your hands on the wheel and focus on the corner that you’re approaching. It yelds BETTER control over the car.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        I won’t argue that the paddles may provide faster shifts, or even the possibility of better control, though that is highly dependent on just what kind of auto box you are talking about. However, from the point of driver involvement, enjoyment, and skill, a traditional manual is peerless. You either get this, or you don’t. Again, chasing better numbers does not always deliver a better driver’s car.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    I’m not a fan of BMW styling as of late, but this four door mini-wagon doesn’t come off too bad in the looks department versus other manufacturers. Think Ford and Mazda, here. YMMV

    I’d be more than satisfied to do 0 – 60 mph, in 6.2 seconds. I see no mention of price for the 4 banger with rear wheel drive.

  • avatar
    kurtamaxxguy

    What killed BMW X3 for me is lack of foot room. The Euros love stuffing huge center consoles into their vehicles, wasting space and crowding you in. Fingers X’ed the X1 will prove more foot friendly.

  • avatar
    obruni

    so it is based on the 3-series architecture, and costs $6000 less than a 3-series wagon?

    while it seems pointless, it is a good deal for consumers wanting an entry level BMW I guess. but much like how the 5-Series GT stole sales from the 7-Series, this complicates BMW’s product placement strategy.

    this also could steal sales from the Countryman Turbo.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    so a 1 series hatch or a 3 series wagon would be quicker, with the same or better fuel economy, while handling better and/or riding nicer. crossover fail.

  • avatar
    ad2677

    Deep down this thing is still a BMW (especially one with M Sport package, like mine). Mine is X-Drive28i AWD 2.0 turbo and I’ve been getting about 24 mpg in mixed driving, I barely have 800 miles on it so it should get better with time. MT in this thing would be pointless as most people have to deal with traffic in their daily grind, I drove MT cars in the past and simply got tired, having one for fun like weekend racing events and such would be fine, but otherwise not likely. I can tell you all that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some of you are calling X1 ugly I guess; I find it very interesting and actually like its looks. The M Sport package makes this thing a hoot to drive, there is no turbo lag and all the torque is there at 1250 RPM and this thing hauls a** (trust me). I buy BMW’s because of the way they drive and feel (my 5th one mind you, so you could say I’m an afficionado and a big fan). Tried other cars but something seems to be missing, hard to explain but I know it’s there. It feels very substantial and expensive way more than it’s price tag would suggest. They last a long time and keep their looks much better than many current cars (my last 5 series was 6 years old and it looked better than my friend’s one year old car in every respect, nothing was worn down and broken apart, you could see the quality) so please don’t bash BMW just because you either can’t afford one or are simply a hater and have nothing better to do. Rather get one and enjoy the ride.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India