RE: BMW 435i M Sport: PH Fleet

[PHMatt]

I think my top spec 2001 330 ci convertible was around 42k brand new.

So 48k for this, which is a lot more car, doesn't seem that bad when you factor in 12 years of inflation.

[pagani1]

BMW getting lardy and pricey to make way for the 2 series no doubt, but the germans have given in to the Eurocrats and landed us with turbo cars again just like diddly F1 where you DO NOT do doughnuts without paying a fine that could be used to buy a new road car. Beemers have lost the superior design looks and the tautness of old IMHO. The prices don't get me started as I said in another topic, Jaguar are the new heroes with supercharged engines and Stuttgart and Munich are not first choice in my list anymore. The nicest thing I can say about your car is fab colour but otherwise it's as your journeys are...boring.

[rj1986]

Dan Trent said:

rj1986 said:

Sod the BMW, got any pics of the SLR Edition over there?

Better than that - we've got a whole story on it!

Dan

Ace! Missed that one!

[berlintaxi]

cvega said:

definately on the "must try out and perhaps buy" list.

wait.. £230 for a hoover?!

I was more shocked by the £48,000 wanted for the car.

[jimbop1]

kambites said:

50k for an averagely specced compact exec? Makes you realise how much the pound has lost over the last few years.

Maybe something to do with the engine? I wouldn't describe a 300hp, in line 6 cylinder car an averagely specked compact exec. A 318d maybe.

[PHMatt]

Nor would I call it averagely spec'd

[kambites]

jimbop1 said:

kambites said:

50k for an averagely specced compact exec? Makes you realise how much the pound has lost over the last few years.

Maybe something to do with the engine? I wouldn't describe a 300hp, in line 6 cylinder car an averagely specked compact exec. A 318d maybe.

It's still a mainstream mass-produced engine. I doubt that engine costs more than a couple of grand more to produce than the two litre diesel in the bottom of the range cars and the rest of the car is identical, as far as I know.

I'm not saying it's over-priced; it seems to be in line with the competition. It's just a lot of money.

[ATM]

Dan Trent said:

ATM said:

I have a new F30. How do I do this with mine?

It's in the Menu setting on iDrive - IIRC you go to Vehicle and Settings (sorry, without having it in front of me I forget the exact terminology/menu sequence) and once within you can set up Eco Pro, Sport and Sport Plus accordingly. Basically if you go into Sport and select Drivetrain it'll only engage the engine/gearbox map when you press Sport. You'll get the engine and gearbox highlighted in red on the diagram of the car. If you select Drivetrain and Chassis the suspension highlights in red too and that means when you hit Sport you get the dampers in the hard setting too.

Basically in the M135i I had it set up so it graduated from Comfort (everything normal) to Sport (Sport drivetrain/gearbox) and to Sport Plus (Sport drivetrain/gearbox, Sport dampers, DSC mid-setting).

But obviously you can mix and match to a certain extent.

Hope that makes some sort of sense!

Cheers,

Dan

OK I'll have a play thanks.

I didn't even realise it was adjustable.

I only just found the Automatic Beam Headlight Anti-dazzle thing....

[kambites]

PHMatt said:

Nor would I call it averagely spec'd

You think the average 4-series will have less than six grand's worth of extras? I suppose you might be right, but I'm not convinced. Certainly those that I know who have ordered them are pushing that sort of figure.

[cerb4.5lee]

Chatting to the dealer about this model today while my E92 M3 was in for a service & he was saying they are very impressive to drive & handle very well, I will have to get a test drive organised, love the colour that your example is in.

[findtomdotcom]

£50k? That does not bode well for the M4. If it gets too near to £70k I'm sure most will buy a 911 over a BMW.

Still, nice colour, I'm looking forward to a M4 test drive....

[kambites]

findtomdotcom said:

£50k? That does not bode well for the M4. If it gets too near to £70k I'm sure most will buy a 911 over a BMW.

Still, nice colour, I'm looking forward to a M4 test drive....

The bottom end of the 911 range is around £80k and they aren't exactly loaded with spec. I'd imagine the average "bottom end" 911 buyer spends six figures or damned close to it.

[Grandfondo]

kambites said:

findtomdotcom said:

£50k? That does not bode well for the M4. If it gets too near to £70k I'm sure most will buy a 911 over a BMW.

Still, nice colour, I'm looking forward to a M4 test drive....

The bottom end of the 911 range is around £80k and they aren't exactly loaded with spec. I'd imagine the average "bottom end" 911 buyer spends six figures or damned close to it.

£100k for a bottom end 991, no wonder they are discounting then to sell any!

[E65Ross]

kambites said:

jimbop1 said:

kambites said:

50k for an averagely specced compact exec? Makes you realise how much the pound has lost over the last few years.

Maybe something to do with the engine? I wouldn't describe a 300hp, in line 6 cylinder car an averagely specked compact exec. A 318d maybe.

It's still a mainstream mass-produced engine. I doubt that engine costs more than a couple of grand more to produce than the two litre diesel in the bottom of the range cars and the rest of the car is identical, as far as I know.

I'm not saying it's over-priced; it seems to be in line with the competition. It's just a lot of money.

Cost much more to produce perhaps not, but if you include development costs etc I suspect it is because it's fewer volume means higher machine set up costs and so on per unit.

Also, with the engine comes different brakes, suspension might be different et

[kambites]

E65Ross said:

Also, with the engine comes different brakes, suspension might be different et

Does it? I've often wondered that.

I've driven quite a lot of BMWs, and with the exception of actual different specification (ie M-Sport vs SE on the older cars) I've never noticed any difference in suspension or braking performance (except on the actual M models, obviously).

[E65Ross]

kambites said:

E65Ross said:

Also, with the engine comes different brakes, suspension might be different et

Does it? I've often wondered that.

I've driven quite a lot of BMWs, and with the exception of actual different specification (ie M-Sport vs SE on the older cars) I've never noticed any difference in suspension or braking performance (except on the actual M models, obviously).

yep, because of different engine masses up front suspension is different. the brakes certainly are, all you need to do is look on somewhere like ECP for brake discs for various models to see the disc sizes are different.

[Lowtimer]

kambites said:

It's still a mainstream mass-produced engine. I doubt that engine costs more than a couple of grand more to produce than the two litre diesel in the bottom of the range cars and the rest of the car is identical, as far as I know.

I'm not saying it's over-priced; it seems to be in line with the competition. It's just a lot of money.

It's significantly cheaper in real terms than a smaller, slower, less well equipped, thirstier E30 M3.

In April 1987, the four-cylinder E30 M3 had practically none of the equipment that this car has. It did 0-60 in 7.1 and had a top speed of 139 mph. It was smaller than a new 220D coupe and had about the same performance. The base price was £22,750. In today's money that's slightly more than £53,000.

[E65Ross]

Lowtimer said:

kambites said:

It's still a mainstream mass-produced engine. I doubt that engine costs more than a couple of grand more to produce than the two litre diesel in the bottom of the range cars and the rest of the car is identical, as far as I know.

I'm not saying it's over-priced; it seems to be in line with the competition. It's just a lot of money.

It's significantly cheaper in real terms than a smaller, slower, less well equipped, thirstier E30 M3.

In April 1987, the four-cylinder E30 M3 had practically none of the equipment that this car has. It did 0-60 in 7.1 and had a top speed of 139 mph. It was smaller than a new 220D coupe and had about the same performance. The base price was £22,750. In today's money that's slightly more than £53,000.

Whilst I agree with what you're saying, it's rather irrelevant. The only valid point is the cost, which isn't far off what the E92 M3 was selling for, showing car prices aren't really going up.

[Grandfondo]

E65Ross said:

Lowtimer said:

kambites said:

It's still a mainstream mass-produced engine. I doubt that engine costs more than a couple of grand more to produce than the two litre diesel in the bottom of the range cars and the rest of the car is identical, as far as I know.

I'm not saying it's over-priced; it seems to be in line with the competition. It's just a lot of money.

It's significantly cheaper in real terms than a smaller, slower, less well equipped, thirstier E30 M3.

In April 1987, the four-cylinder E30 M3 had practically none of the equipment that this car has. It did 0-60 in 7.1 and had a top speed of 139 mph. It was smaller than a new 220D coupe and had about the same performance. The base price was £22,750. In today's money that's slightly more than £53,000.

Whilst I agree with what you're saying, it's rather irrelevant. The only valid point is the cost, which isn't far off what the E92 M3 was selling for, showing car prices aren't really going up.

With the different financing options cars are far more attainable now then they have ever been!

[Sampaio]

I find it interesting and very well-played that BMW is giving its smaller cars a more focused M treatment (135i/235i) and letting the rest of the range fill the "fast and comfortable" segment of the market, and all with the new M Performance brand.

Am I the only one who's more excited about the future M2 than the M4 though?