Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.

[white_goodman]

braddo said:

I think you're way off the mark on the subject of how stuff used to be priced. Go back to the 80s and a 325i was a very expensive car. A M5 was a seriously expensive car. Basically, you have always had to be pretty loaded to afford a M5. And they have never been cheap to run.

You're right, I can't really remember pricing back then but was an M5 really as expensive as a Ferrari 348 for example? It was certainly as quick as one! I had an E30 325i, it only did about 23mpg. What would an E28/E34 M5 do? About 21mpg? Not that much different really and is it really that much more compicated in terms of running costs?

[coppice]

Robert Elise said:

Today with P1s, 458s & 918s (and their highly competent but 'lesser' siblings) we're spoilt for choice.

Well the people with between £200k and £1m might be. On the planet I inhabit I am very happy with my Seven- and that broke the bank. As I have said before, the only places follies like P1s can show what they can do compared to the run of the mill cars we proles drive is on track ; and on a track the sainted P1 would be utterly annihilated by any small saver single seater which you can buy for peanuts compared to the reassuringly expensive P1.

[ORD]

coppice said:

Well the people with between £200k and £1m might be. On the planet I inhabit I am very happy with my Seven- and that broke the bank. As I have said before, the only places follies like P1s can show what they can do compared to the run of the mill cars we proles drive is on track ; and on a track the sainted P1 would be utterly annihilated by any small saver single seater which you can buy for peanuts compared to the reassuringly expensive P1.

I kinda agree with this. I don't really see the point in hypercars. Even supercars are barely usable, and I would count the 991 Turbo S as a supercar for these purposes.

A hypercar will never get into its stride on a public road (in this country) and will be a 1700kg lump on the track.

[0836whimper]

griffgrog said:

Geting back on track, the car that is revered that I never gelled with was my M3 CSL. I liked the idea, but it never really lived up to my expectations.

Mine was totally standard, but it was still incredibly noisy and at the same time, not that quick. The trick bits on the car made it feel very special, but the power deliver and the handling never felt like BMW's GT3 as many have made parallels with.

I guess I should have tracked it and I now regret I didn't, but in the couple of years I had it I always felt that it hadn't delivered on the promise.

Yes, you should have had a track outing, or at least taken it to some European mountain roads. Straight line thrust is not exceptional, but on track the standard car is quick and they are very quick with Cups and AP's.

[Robert Elise]

coppice said:

Robert Elise said:

Today with P1s, 458s & 918s (and their highly competent but 'lesser' siblings) we're spoilt for choice.

Well the people with between £200k and £1m might be. On the planet I inhabit I am very happy with my Seven- and that broke the bank. As I have said before, the only places follies like P1s can show what they can do compared to the run of the mill cars we proles drive is on track ; and on a track the sainted P1 would be utterly annihilated by any small saver single seater which you can buy for peanuts compared to the reassuringly expensive P1.

Whowza!! do quote me TOTALLY out of context!
Ironic as i had proposed a 7 as the ideal car earlier.

[Devil2575]

white_goodman said:

braddo said:

I think you're way off the mark on the subject of how stuff used to be priced. Go back to the 80s and a 325i was a very expensive car. A M5 was a seriously expensive car. Basically, you have always had to be pretty loaded to afford a M5. And they have never been cheap to run.

You're right, I can't really remember pricing back then but was an M5 really as expensive as a Ferrari 348 for example? It was certainly as quick as one! I had an E30 325i, it only did about 23mpg. What would an E28/E34 M5 do? About 21mpg? Not that much different really and is it really that much more compicated in terms of running costs?

The engine in the M5 is a lot more complicated and more expensive to service. The M5 also has quite a few M specific parts which carry a premium due in no small part to BMW being able to charge more for them, but also due to lower production numbers. In general getting an M car serviced within the BMW network has always carried a significant premium over a standard car.

[Lowtimer]

white_goodman said:

You're right, I can't really remember pricing back then but was an M5 really as expensive as a Ferrari 348 for example? It was certainly as quick as one! I had an E30 325i, it only did about 23mpg. What would an E28/E34 M5 do? About 21mpg? Not that much different really and is it really that much more compicated in terms of running costs?

When the M5 was launched it was Ferrari money. Catchpole relates it as follows in Evo:
"Although the first M5 had a faintly ludicrous 282bhp at a time when a Ferrari 328 could only muster 270, the BMW also cost £31,295 at a time when the Ferrari could be yours for £34,750"

That's in 1985. £31K basic list, no options, in 1985.

[Quickmoose]

Robert Elise said:

A comparative road test wasn't even possible.

Didn't CAR have one and a 959 at the same time?

[Devil2575]

Lowtimer said:

That's in 1985. £31K basic list, no options, in 1985.

Which is equivalent to £90k now

[Robert Elise]

Quickmoose said:

Robert Elise said:

A comparative road test wasn't even possible.

Didn't CAR have one and a 959 at the same time?

good call! did it mention panel gaps?

[RobM77]

Lowtimer said:

When the M5 was launched it was Ferrari money. Catchpole relates it as follows in Evo:
"Although the first M5 had a faintly ludicrous 282bhp at a time when a Ferrari 328 could only muster 270, the BMW also cost £31,295 at a time when the Ferrari could be yours for £34,750"

That's in 1985. £31K basic list, no options, in 1985.

To save people looking it up:

£31,295 in 1985 is equivalent to £89,965 in today's money.
£34,750 in 1985 is equivalent to £99,897 in today's money.

[Quickmoose]

Robert Elise said:

Quickmoose said:

Robert Elise said:

A comparative road test wasn't even possible.

Didn't CAR have one and a 959 at the same time?

good call! did it mention panel gaps?

Not that I recal..it was more about the mass of green sealant inside and the smell of it.... Plus of course the earth shattering performance.

[theboss]

RobM77 said:

Lowtimer said:

When the M5 was launched it was Ferrari money. Catchpole relates it as follows in Evo:
"Although the first M5 had a faintly ludicrous 282bhp at a time when a Ferrari 328 could only muster 270, the BMW also cost £31,295 at a time when the Ferrari could be yours for £34,750"

That's in 1985. £31K basic list, no options, in 1985.

To save people looking it up:

£31,295 in 1985 is equivalent to £89,965 in today's money.
£34,750 in 1985 is equivalent to £99,897 in today's money.

So the notion of early M5s being 'more affordable' is pure fantasy when you consider that the F10 can be had for a little over £60k.

Very interesting.

I've never driven an E28 and was barely in primary school when they were in production, but I wonder if it felt exceedingly light and nimble in its day, or whether it was considered a frankly ridiculous 1400-odd kilograms of 'pure lard'.

[RobM77]

theboss said:

RobM77 said:

Lowtimer said:

When the M5 was launched it was Ferrari money. Catchpole relates it as follows in Evo:
"Although the first M5 had a faintly ludicrous 282bhp at a time when a Ferrari 328 could only muster 270, the BMW also cost £31,295 at a time when the Ferrari could be yours for £34,750"

That's in 1985. £31K basic list, no options, in 1985.

To save people looking it up:

£31,295 in 1985 is equivalent to £89,965 in today's money.
£34,750 in 1985 is equivalent to £99,897 in today's money.

So the notion of early M5s being 'more affordable' is pure fantasy when you consider that the F10 can be had for a little over £60k.

Very interesting.

I've never driven an E28 and was barely in primary school when they were in production, but I wonder if it felt exceedingly light and nimble in its day, or whether it was considered a frankly ridiculous 1400-odd kilograms of 'pure lard'.

I must confess I've never heard anyone claiming that the early M5s were affordable. What interests me is the following:

Original M5 in today's money: £90k. Today's M5: £74k

Ferrari 328 in today's money: £100k. Today's 458: £170k.

So the BMW is more affordable, but the Ferrari is quite a lot more expensive. I think both market sectors are comparable - all the mid engined Ferraris have occupied a similar spot in the market (308, 328, 348, 355, 360, 430 & 458). Is this because sports cars aren't really selling any more and they're made in comparably smaller numbers than saloons (by comparably I mean adjusted to the population and as a percentage of all car sales).

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 17th April 11:04

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

I must confess I've never heard anyone claiming that the early M5s were affordable. What interests me is the following:

Original M5 in today's money: £90k. Today's M5: £74k

Ferrari 328 in today's money: £100k. Today's 458: £170k.

So the BMW is more affordable, but the Ferrari is quite a lot more. I think both market sectors are comparable - all the mid engined Ferraris have occupied a similar spot in the market (308, 328, 348, 355, 360, 430 & 458). Is this because sports cars aren't really selling any more and they're made in comparably smaller numbers than saloons (by comparably I mean adjusted to the population and as a percentage of all car sales).

I would have thought that it is pretty much all economies of scale and scope. Modular design tech and other advances make it quite easy for BMW to roll out saloons very cheaply and then just add the expensive engine, suspension & brakes, etc (and even these are less special than they once were).

The ultimate in cheap performance is just to crank up the turbo on an average engine - see performance hatches!

[theboss]

RobM77 said:

I must confess I've never heard anyone claiming that the early M5s were affordable. What interests me is the following:

Rob - 1985 prices were only brought up and adjusted for inflation because it was implied somewhere in the last 10 pages or so, that these cars are becoming ever less attainable than they once were.

Your observation on the M5 vs Ferrari prices diverging is very interesting!

[RobM77]

theboss said:

RobM77 said:

I must confess I've never heard anyone claiming that the early M5s were affordable. What interests me is the following:

Rob - 1985 prices were only brought up and adjusted for inflation because it was implied somewhere in the last 10 pages or so, that these cars are becoming ever less attainable than they once were.

Your observation on the M5 vs Ferrari prices diverging is very interesting!

Ah, sorry, I missed that.

Regarding the M5 vs mid engined 'entry level' Ferrari, I would agree with ORD above for the M5, that mass production cars are now becoming cheaper and more affordable due to more streamlined production methods. The Porsche 911 is a great example of this, and the famous 993 and 996 comparison. Couple that economy of production with an M5 pricing structure originally based around a hand built car in the motorsport factory (of which 15 were completed prior to the summer break in '86 before they moved to another more regular factory) and that's the drop in price in real terms.

For the Ferrari I would guess that either it's the massive slump in sports car sales that's lowered the numbers built and thus upped the unit cost, or Ferrari have moved their entry level model upmarket. It'd be interesting to look into that further if someone had the time! It's hard to make comparisons though as we have large markets now for expensive cars that barely existed in the 80s (China for example). I think we could be fairly safe in saying that the quality of Ferraris has improved, so perhaps that's it? The 'megafactories' episode on the 599 from a few years ago was mind boggling!

[Devil2575]

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

I must confess I've never heard anyone claiming that the early M5s were affordable. What interests me is the following:

Original M5 in today's money: £90k. Today's M5: £74k

Ferrari 328 in today's money: £100k. Today's 458: £170k.

So the BMW is more affordable, but the Ferrari is quite a lot more. I think both market sectors are comparable - all the mid engined Ferraris have occupied a similar spot in the market (308, 328, 348, 355, 360, 430 & 458). Is this because sports cars aren't really selling any more and they're made in comparably smaller numbers than saloons (by comparably I mean adjusted to the population and as a percentage of all car sales).

I would have thought that it is pretty much all economies of scale and scope. Modular design tech and other advances make it quite easy for BMW to roll out saloons very cheaply and then just add the expensive engine, suspension & brakes, etc (and even these are less special than they once were).

The ultimate in cheap performance is just to crank up the turbo on an average engine - see performance hatches!

The M5 used to be handbuilt which is possible why they were so expensive.

It's also worth noting that all BMWs used to be more expensive than they are now, adjusted for inflation of course.

Back in 1996 my old E36 328i cost £26k, which is almost 45k in todays money and it didn't have a lot of options boxes ticked. I doubt you'd pay £45k for the equivalent car now.

[RobM77]

Devil2575 said:

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

I must confess I've never heard anyone claiming that the early M5s were affordable. What interests me is the following:

Original M5 in today's money: £90k. Today's M5: £74k

Ferrari 328 in today's money: £100k. Today's 458: £170k.

So the BMW is more affordable, but the Ferrari is quite a lot more. I think both market sectors are comparable - all the mid engined Ferraris have occupied a similar spot in the market (308, 328, 348, 355, 360, 430 & 458). Is this because sports cars aren't really selling any more and they're made in comparably smaller numbers than saloons (by comparably I mean adjusted to the population and as a percentage of all car sales).

I would have thought that it is pretty much all economies of scale and scope. Modular design tech and other advances make it quite easy for BMW to roll out saloons very cheaply and then just add the expensive engine, suspension & brakes, etc (and even these are less special than they once were).

The ultimate in cheap performance is just to crank up the turbo on an average engine - see performance hatches!

The M5 used to be handbuilt which is possible why they were so expensive.

It's also worth noting that all BMWs used to be more expensive than they are now, adjusted for inflation of course.

Back in 1996 my old E36 328i cost £26k, which is almost 45k in todays money and it didn't have a lot of options boxes ticked. I doubt you'd pay £45k for the equivalent car now.

I had the original invoice for my '98 328i Sport Coupé and noticed the same. The reason for that may be reduced quality, but having owned quite a few BMWs I don't think that's the case, or at least not to any significant degree. What I think has happened is that profit margins have got smaller and production costs have dropped, possibly both being driven by an increase in volume (the ratio of BMWs to Fords and Vauxhalls is surely now much greater than it was?). If you look at the price of a 3 series compared to front wheel drive competitors which are a bit cheaper to make, platform share to a greater degree in volume terms, arguably use cheaper components and have less R&D (thus the bhp/mpg ratio difference), BMWs actually look quite cheap. I don't have time to look up list prices now, but if I remember correctly, a 320i isn't that much more than a 2.0i Mondeo, and is certainly comparable to an Audi A4 etc. Mercedes, in contrast, are more expensive than BMW whilst arguably being of similar quality and of course having the same FE/RWD layout. One thing that sticks in my mind was when the MINI was released it was reported that BMW actually lost money on the first few before the pricing was adjusted! I would argue that a similar trend has happened across most cars - quality has gone up and pricing come down, although obviously to varying degrees for both factors, I think BMW have seen quality remain roughly similar but prices drop quite markedly. I'd guess that Ferrari are probably the exception to the rule.

[Leins]

white_goodman said:

braddo said:

I think you're way off the mark on the subject of how stuff used to be priced. Go back to the 80s and a 325i was a very expensive car. A M5 was a seriously expensive car. Basically, you have always had to be pretty loaded to afford a M5. And they have never been cheap to run.

You're right, I can't really remember pricing back then but was an M5 really as expensive as a Ferrari 348 for example? It was certainly as quick as one! I had an E30 325i, it only did about 23mpg. What would an E28/E34 M5 do? About 21mpg? Not that much different really and is it really that much more compicated in terms of running costs?

E34 3.8 returns about 17MPG. It is a whole different world of complication from the E30 though. I love M20s, just sweet engines, but the S38 in the E34 is a beast of a thing

I've said it before, but the closest way I can describe these old M5s is that they are luxo-barges that have never been informed they're not allowed to be sports cars! When driven in anger they just come alive

Edited by Leins on Friday 17th April 12:08