BMW X5 v Range Rover Sport 2014 Comparison

While SUVs have long and successfully been sold as alternatives to orthodox luxury vehicles, selling them as convincing sports cars is definitely a more recent trend.

The fact is, with their higher centre of gravity and significant kerb weight, wagons like BMW’s X5 and the Range Rover Sport have some work to do to win us over.

And just to add to the challenge, we’ve chosen 3.0-litre turbo-diesel engines to power our two contenders in this comparison. Hmm; diesel, SUV, more than two tonnes. Doesn’t sound like the sportiest mix, does it?

But if there was a chance we’ll be won over then these two must be among the SUVs most capable of presenting a compelling case.

This is the third-generation X5, a vehicle BMW has dubbed as ‘sports activity vehicle’ (rather than ‘sports utility vehicle’) from the get-go. Pick the subtle difference? It’s always been based on a car-like monocoque chassis, and always been a light-duty all-wheel drive rather than a truly serious four-wheel drive off-roader.

Styling is evolutionary – if anything a bit boxier than before – but still appealing. We’ve gone into detail about BMW’s ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ new X5 range here.

Meanwhile, the Range Rover Sport is into its second iteration. It is the storied British off-road brand’s effort to roam in the same territory as the X5, without giving up its ability to wander far from the bitumen. So, the best Rangey on-road is as good as just about anything else from the stable off it – or that’s the theory at least.

There have been important and fundamental changes though; the Sport now rides on a full monocoque chassis and has had as much as 420kg cut from its weight, dependant on the model, primarily thanks to an increased use of aluminium. It has definitely rounded its exterior edges and adopted more of the styling cues from its Evoque little brother and it has become a very handsome beast indeed

Range Rover says the SDV6 models weigh from 2115kg, although this top-spec HSE with more gear would be a bit more than that.

We’ve dealt with the latest Range Rover Sport and its intricacies in detail here.

In the driving there is no doubt which works better on-bitumen. Our X5, aided by a $5600 M Sport Package that included 20-inch wheels and adaptive suspension and air springs at the rear is the most car-like SUV we have driven this side of Porsche Cayenne.

It manages to steer, handle and ride with great aplomb – run-flat tyres have come a long way! – and a degree of agility and certainty that is initially surprising and then enjoyable. With the quick-reacting fully variable permanent all-wheel drive and electronic stability control acting in support, it takes quite silly speeds to get the X5 to break grip. Recovery is just a throttle lift away.

That confident chassis combines with the turbocharged inline six-cylinder diesel engine that delivers strong performance via an orthodox eight-speed auto without any hint of lag and with less noise and vibration than many petrol engines.

The Sport certainly can’t match it. While its sequential V6 pumps out more power and torque, it is hesitant to accelerate from throttle tip-in and never feels as quick as the BMW in a straight line.

It also uses more fuel, finishing our test at 9.9L/100km versus the BMW’s 9.0L/100km. Both vehicles use idle stop-start systems (ISS) to help achieve those figures. The X5 also has an Eco Mode which we don’t recommend except when in true fuel-saving mode because it dulls the engine significantly.

Despite its initial hesitancy, the Sport’s is another smooth and vibe-free engine, and it also operates with a lickety-split ZF eight-speed auto that maximises its talents with unobtrusive smoothness.

The Sport is undoubtedly dynamic by SUV standards but it can’t match the tight, discipline of the X5. There’s noticeably more roll and body sway in corners, less steering communication and the limits of grip of the less aggressive tyres are reached sooner. Out of the two it feels more like a traditional off-roader. It is heavier and taller so that makes sense.

For city driving and the strop to the mountains or beach house the X5 really does make more sense.

But the Sport starts to get its own back when you hit the gravel – or worse. Then its all-round air suspension, extra travel and ride height – all adjustable via the Terrain Response system dial – come into their own. Go for the really rugged stuff and there’s low-range crawler gears to get you through.

It feels truly capable in gnarly conditions and wonderfully secure and stable on a long freeway run. And if you have something to tow then its 3500kg braked capacity outdoes the X5’s by 800kg.

You also ride high and handsome in the Sport, be it in the front or rear. Plush seats and big windows make for a comfortable viewing platform. That’s allied to a typically chunky Range Rover design theme, high quality materials and what appears at first experience to be an excellent level of fit and finish.

It certainly matches the BMW in the latter areas and exceeds it for style. No doubt the X5’s interior is an improvement on its predecessor, but it still gives a workmanlike rather than luxury impression.

Yet from the driver’s seat it is better than the Sport for a couple of fundamental ergonomic reasons; they being the balkiness of the Range Rover’s gearshifter, which consistently refused to go from Park or Reverse to Drive first time. Also, the gearshift paddles are mounted too close to the steering wheel, which makes it easy to accidentally change to manual mode while wheel twirling.

The BMW also manages to eke impressive rear-seat space. Both wagons can be had with third-row seats but they were not fitted to the test vehicles. It’s a $4600 option in the case of the Bimmer and up to $6000 with a climate pack in the Sport. In both cases the underfloor-mounted spare wheel is deleted if you tick that box.

The BMW’s boot is smaller, but it’s more versatile with under-floor storage and a side net. The hydraulic strut propping up the floor cover is a nice touch. While the Sport has a single-piece vertically lifting tailgate, the BMW’s rear splits, which means it can act as an impromptu seat.

Feature-for-feature, both vehicles have the comfort equipment you would expect, including leather trim, dual-zone climate control, connectivity including Bluetooth audio streaming and sat nav. They have remote keyless entry, push-button starts and electric park brakes.

The Sport has an eight-inch touchscreen, the BMW’s massive 10.25-inch colour screen is controlled via the once loathed – but now accepted – iDrive. Both have a slew of safety systems to help try and avoid incidents and protect you if the worst case scenario unfolds.

Needless to say there are thousands of dollars worth of individual options and packs to choose from if you wish to raise the asking price even further.

Speaking of which, there is something of a gulf between these two when you consider the BMW is $99,900 and the Range Rover $125,800 – before you add on-road costs of course.

For us, in a sporting contest, the X5 wins because it is the better car to drive, has better performance and is cheaper. The Sport, however, is a handsome and capable all-rounder that is worth considering if you are applying somewhat broader criteria to your choice.

What we liked:
>> Stylish inside and out
>> Capable on and off-road
>> Plenty of room inside

Not so much:
>> Tip-in throttle hesitancy
>> Ergonomic faults
>> It's dearer, and slower

Also see the BMW X5 M50d v Range Rover Sport Supercharged 2014 Comparison

Do you own this car or one similar? Review and rate it via carsales’ owner review hub

Register to comment on this article.