E46 M3 Buying advice

[Deutscher]

paoloh said:

1. Laguna seca blue is not metallic!!

2. The current M3 has been out since 2001 and the guide does differentiate between ones with comms and met paint and those without!

1. I didn't say it was, and if you can live with LSB you will certainly get a bargain!

2. Yes, we all know the current car has been out since 2001! Let me elaborate on my point:

- older cars will vary massively in condition and mileage and buyers will be much more interested in top condition and sensible mileage than toys;

- newer cars are likely to be in similar condition with similar mileage - hence toys count.

The guide makes no distinction between these older and newer categories, making the false assumption lack of sat nav etc has an equal effect.

[virgil]

I have to agree with the sentiment here - i'd much rather buy a mint 2002 without nav than a rough one with it. BUT there does seem to be a trend on autotrader for a 2k step between those with NAV and those without...unless I am being a bit thick.

[Deutscher]

virgil said:

I have to agree with the sentiment here - i'd much rather buy a mint 2002 without nav than a rough one with it. BUT there does seem to be a trend on autotrader for a 2k step between those with NAV and those without...unless I am being a bit thick.

As I posted earlier, I don't think that's true of older cars, but let's assume it is:

Buy yourself one without sat nav, spend £200 on a Tom Tom (which is a better unit) and save yourself the money!

[paoloh]

Deutscher said:

virgil said:

I have to agree with the sentiment here - i'd much rather buy a mint 2002 without nav than a rough one with it. BUT there does seem to be a trend on autotrader for a 2k step between those with NAV and those without...unless I am being a bit thick.

As I posted earlier, I don't think that's true of older cars, but let's assume it is:

Buy yourself one without sat nav, spend £200 on a Tom Tom (which is a better unit) and save yourself the money!

Don't think that's quite the same do you??

[virgil]

Deutscher said:

virgil said:

I have to agree with the sentiment here - i'd much rather buy a mint 2002 without nav than a rough one with it. BUT there does seem to be a trend on autotrader for a 2k step between those with NAV and those without...unless I am being a bit thick.

As I posted earlier, I don't think that's true of older cars, but let's assume it is:

Buy yourself one without sat nav, spend £200 on a Tom Tom (which is a better unit) and save yourself the money!

I've always wondered how manufacturers could justify 1000's for a sat nav that hellfords sell for 100's...

Are they actually that bad? You here lots of stories, but never had a built in one so nothing to compare to...

[Deutscher]

I have experience of both the E46 factory fit sat nav and a Tom Tom.

The Tom Tom is easier to use and better in most other ways too. The only drawback is you can't leave it in place or chavscum will come along and smah your window and nick it.

I also wonder how BMW (and others) can charge 10 times the going rate!!

[paoloh]

Deutscher said:

I have experience of both the E46 factory fit sat nav and a Tom Tom.

The Tom Tom is easier to use and better in most other ways too. The only drawback is you can't leave it in place or chavscum will come along and smah your window and nick it.

I also wonder how BMW (and others) can charge 10 times the going rate!!

I'm in know way backing BMW up buy why do we pay £130 for Nike trainers when Dunlop greenflash do the same job???

Hope that makes sense and you see the point I am trying to make?

[taffyracer]

But Nike trainers are a hell of alot better than greenflash, the BMW satnav is not in a different league to the Tom Tom now is it, I still insist on it though but only because I buy used but i'd never pay full whack for it!