This is another model example of meaningless emissions figures that the overlords consider to be a true representation of efficiency. Legal yes meaningful?
There is absolutely no information contained within this spun advert to the consumer vis: ' bunny'.
Maybe someone far clevererer than I could make sense of all those numbers. Any takers?
Heck maybe the rig is a good thing - how would anyone know?

I am sure it is fab, but I would like an 520e with a smaller (or derated) engine and lower cost. Don't BMW have a 1.5L petrol engine ?
Another question - which is better for PHEVs - gasoline or diesel - I ask this knowing that the fuel may be in the tank for a long time as very little will be used most weeks.

On the consumption and emissions figures - I agree, there are two models (e and x) and two measurement approaches (WLTP and NEFZ) and a range of figures for each configuration; so only 8 numbers.
+ as it is a PHEV, the ratings vary a whole lot depending on how many long trips you do.
Simple ...

@Arnold,
People who care about lower emission would try to drive on electricity as much as possible, and don't worry about the stated emission numbers. This brings up the second point: A PHEV would do better if it has as small an ICE as possible, while having a bigger battery to permit longer daily commute on all electricity. I feel that the 2.0 liter engine is too big, especially when mated with an 8-speed transmission. An 1-liter 3-cylinder engine would weigh half as much, and even a lot less when mated with a tiny CVT.

BMW X3xDrive 30e does not take optimal advantage of dual-power-plant redundancy capability of a PHEV, due to having 2-wheel drive with the e-motor mated to the 8-speed transmission, instead of having 4-wheel drive with the engine driving the front axle and e-motor on the rear axle. So, if the transmission is to fail, the vehicle would be stalled, though with just engine failure, it can be driven using the e-motor alone, and vice-versa.

BMW uses too big an engine which necessitates a too-big-and-heavy 8-speed transmission which adds a lot to weight and cost, thus significantly reducing the appeal of PHEV's, which should be leaned toward more electric than ICE. The engine should be downsized to a 1-liter 3-cylinder turbocharged, which is much lighter, AND the use of a small and very-light CVT transmission which is MUCH, MUCH lighter than a monstrous 8-speed transmission required to handle TWICE the engine torque, that of a 2-liter turbocharged engine instead of the torque of an 1-liter turbocharged engine.

Imagine a predominantly-electric PHEV having:
1) 120-hp 3-cylinder turbocharged 1-liter engine with a small CVT in the front axle,
2) 130-hp e-motor on the rear axle
3) 15-kWh battery pack below the front seat or rear seat for ~45-mi AER.
4) 5-6-gallon fuel tank behind the battery pack.
Total HP = 250 hp. Total Range: 300 miles. 0-60 mph acceleration = ~5 seconds, due to much-reduced weight than that of the BMW X3 PHEV, comparable in acceleration to that of the Tesla Model 3. Yet, it has 50% higher AER than the X3 PHEV.

Now, then, a PHEV-version of Model 3 would be very cost-effective in comparison to the high cost of the long-range Tesla Model 3 right now. Without the engine and CVT, we would need additionally 55 kWh of battery in a long-range Model 3 for adequate range, PLUS 120-hp e-motor for fast acceleration.
The engine and CVT cost around $5,000 while displacing around $15,000 in extra battery, e-motor, and inverter cost = net $aving of ~$10,000.

So, a Model 3 in PHEV trim as above would cost $10,000 less than the BEV version. $45,000 - $10,000 = $35,000 with comfortable profit margin. Thus, the promise of $35,000 Model 3 would have been kept. So, a Model 3 PHEV would cost $35,000 in comparison to an equivalent BEV version costing $45,000, yet will offer full redundancies in both power plants as well as and energy sources.

The dual-power-plant redundancy is very important as the vehicle ages and starting having problems with power train. A 10 yo BEV with a worn-out battery pack will head to the junk yard, while a PHEV will still be driven even with a worn-out battery pack.

Poor Roger Pham, still hallucinating that a BEV company should waste a billion $$ on an engine. But you're right that BMW should offer its PHEVs with a turbo 3-cylinder, like the sadly ignored i8 powertrain. The engine engineers at BMW literally have to die off before it can realize that performance and AWD now come from batteries, not bigger engines.

@skierpage,
Tesla is very important because only Tesla BEV's are selling, while the rest aren't. If Tesla is to make PHEV's, those would sell above and beyond what PHEV's are available now.
Tesla does not have to invest any money to develop an engine. Just form a joint venture with an independent engine company, like Yamaha Engine company, who has engines available already, thus minimize the development cost.
Making PHEV's will save Tesla $Billions in investment in battery production, and will allow profitability that Tesla is sorely lacking right now.