Blasphemy!: Revered driver's cars that you just don't get.
Discussion
RobM77 said:
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.On the stuff made 20 years ago (E34 etc) the car was made from high quality parts, mostly made in Germany (Bosch etc) which is why 20 years later, an E34 still running on the road will still function after 200'000 miles. Miost of the electrics will still work - they do on mine and it's a 1989 car with close to 300'000 miles. Rust gets them eventually but BMW, like Mercedes too a long time to fully work out how to rustproof cars - witness like the E46.
The F10 is an okay quality car, but it's not a lot better than a Mondeo. t won't rust and it'll do 100'000 miles in 3 years, but so will an Insignia. Where you will find cost cutting is in stupid things like the horns that seem to fail on a regular basis, front balljoints knocked out after 30'000 and of course, timing chains.
Basically, the days when a BMW was vastly better made than a Vauxhall have long gone. They are built to be just good enough but no more.
I think a Vauxhall is a bit of an extreme comparison, but I'd say BMWs are better, but not vastly so, compared to Ford or VW, and on a par with Audi, Merc etc. I agree, the days when they'd be in a different league are gone (as with Mercedes). Their USP is rear drive drive though - I personally don't care how they're built, I'd buy them for the handling even if they were of Renault or Vauxhall quality. Incidentally, my '07 320d is on 120k miles now and showing no signs of wearing out yet. It's picked up a slight squeak from trim near the gearstick and I've had the dampers replaced out of choice (as I would with any car), but other than that it feels like it did when I got it at 50k.RobM77 said:
I think a Vauxhall is a bit of an extreme comparison, but I'd say BMWs are better, but not vastly so, compared to Ford or VW, and on a par with Audi, Merc etc. I agree, the days when they'd be in a different league are gone (as with Mercedes). Their USP is rear drive drive though - I personally don't care how they're built, I'd buy them for the handling even if they were of Renault or Vauxhall quality. Incidentally, my '07 320d is on 120k miles now and showing no signs of wearing out yet. It's picked up a slight squeak from trim near the gearstick and I've had the dampers replaced out of choice (as I would with any car), but other than that it feels like it did when I got it at 50k.BrownBottle said:
Not sure Porsche is a great example of quality either, the Caymen's I've sat in have felt cheap and nasty inside TBH plus they seem to have a bit of a rep for being unable to build an engine that doesn't go pop.
I run a BMW and a Porsche and the difference in quality of materials is night and day in favour of the Pork.Chocolate engines? Not for about a decade!
BrownBottle said:
I've always found standard Porsche interiors pretty basic, I used to enjoy mocking my friend relentlessly about the cassette holders in his 996 
Are the Porsche seats you're talking about standard or an optional extra?
Standard, I think. The interiors have always, until the 991 been basic, and all the better for that. Simple, unfussy, no bling but good quality and very well put together. The current generation interiors are horrid and Audi-like, but that is what sells and the journos like them!Are the Porsche seats you're talking about standard or an optional extra?
ORD said:
RobM77 said:
I think a Vauxhall is a bit of an extreme comparison, but I'd say BMWs are better, but not vastly so, compared to Ford or VW, and on a par with Audi, Merc etc. I agree, the days when they'd be in a different league are gone (as with Mercedes). Their USP is rear drive drive though - I personally don't care how they're built, I'd buy them for the handling even if they were of Renault or Vauxhall quality. Incidentally, my '07 320d is on 120k miles now and showing no signs of wearing out yet. It's picked up a slight squeak from trim near the gearstick and I've had the dampers replaced out of choice (as I would with any car), but other than that it feels like it did when I got it at 50k. I'd agree with that.
theboss said:
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!
I obviously opened a bit of a can of worms and sorry, it seems I was a bit inaccurate with regards to pricing. In fact, a new M5 (particularly at 60k seems a bit of a bargain), although still a lot of money to most people. I don't dislike super saloons or M5s. I would quite happily have a Quattroporte/Rapide/XFR/XFR-S/CLS AMG/Lotus Carlton but for some reason the new M5 doesn't appeal to me as much as the earlier cars. I doubt very much that it isn't brilliant though and I get that for the busy family man, it ticks all the boxes Your observation on the M5 vs Ferrari prices diverging is very interesting!
.This car really doesn't make sense to me though.
I know the engineering and the drive will be first-rate and practical and well-built too but just look at it! Conversely, if I had to have one, it would have to be the fastest (Turbo S). Why would you buy a "base" V6 or diesel, just so you can say you have a Porsche?
white_goodman said:
This car really doesn't make sense to me though.
I know the engineering and the drive will be first-rate and practical and well-built too but just look at it! Conversely, if I had to have one, it would have to be the fastest (Turbo S). Why would you buy a "base" V6 or diesel, just so you can say you have a Porsche?
Same reason people buy Cayenne's I guess. VW Toureg is basically the same carI know the engineering and the drive will be first-rate and practical and well-built too but just look at it! Conversely, if I had to have one, it would have to be the fastest (Turbo S). Why would you buy a "base" V6 or diesel, just so you can say you have a Porsche?
Mr2Mike said:
ORD said:
The ultimate in cheap performance is just to crank up the turbo on an average engine - see performance hatches!
How stupid car manufacturers must be for spending millions carefully engineering these engines when they could just "crank up the turbo" and be done with it.a) Some countries don't have as good a quality of fuel as others.
b) Reliability, turning the wick down a bit will obviously boost engine life.
c) Emissions, turning the boost up by 0.1 PSI might bump it into the next tax band for example.
d) Longevity of the drivetrain components.
In short there is always a tuning margin on the engines that can be exploited if you can guarantee a good fuel supply (V-Power, Ultimate etc.) and understand that your clutch might only last 60,000 miles rather than 80,000 miles for example.
The careful engineering comes in striking the balance between the simple relationship between reliability, economy and power. Which is why highly strung engines often require much more care and more frequent servicing than your average shopping hatch as they are pushing the power envelope at the expense of reliability and economy.
Or that’s my understanding anyway
Mr2Mike said:
How stupid car manufacturers must be for spending millions carefully engineering these engines when they could just "crank up the turbo" and be done with it.
That is exactly what they do. You may have to mess a bit with cooling, but otherwise it is just bigger turbo or crank up the pressure on the existing one. This is how most manufacturers now produce loads of variants of an engine with different bhp and torque figures (or, strangely, they just set the redline lower in the lower bhp versions). If you think a major manufacturer is going to bother producing a new engine for each variant in its line-up, you wouldn't make much money running Audi, VW, etc. Re the Panamera - I don't get it. Probably never will. It is a nice car, but I don't really know what the point is buying the best handling luxo-barge. The whole point of a luxo-barge is to be a luxo-barge.
The Cayenne is vastly different from a Toureg. It is a bizarre experience to have something so big handle so well. Still a waste of money...but impressive.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff