Last post on Dec 06, 2013 at 7:58 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
BMW 3 Series, Infiniti G37, Acura TL, Lexus IS 350, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, Cadillac CTS, Volvo S60, Audi A4, Acura TSX, Car Comparisons, Sedan
Jun 20, 2005 (8:19 pm)
It's almost amazing. It seems recent posts support what I tried to post earlier. (eg. #3608, why people buy BMW)
Finally there's no hesitation to question a BMW's value. It almost seemed people are afraid to question BMW's, since it's been foolishly jamed into minds...BMW's are "high performance, high quality...". Mostly by magazines(press), friends(who like the label), and the high price to own.
But as these posts say, it's mostly opinion, and actually, BMW's probably aren't worth the high price for similar performance.
One thing I still don't see many people admitting, is BMW, Benzes, and Audi's low reliability and high cost of maintanance. I feel this is in the direction of pride. No one likes to admit cost paid, vs more cost spent to maintain.
And it is fact, BMW's do break down more then average,
consumeraffairs.com/news03/jdpower.html little old (2003)
benz clsdiff class
and it does cost more once it's in shop (vs Asian, US brands). Of course it depends who drives, but when the car is in the shop, pull out the wallet.
#3729 of 16984 Dwelling on the negative...
Jun 20, 2005 (9:10 pm)
One of the biggest problems that I have with folks who like to take issue with owning a BMW is that they like to dwell on the negative by slamming BMW because they are “unreliable and expensive to maintain”. That line of bilge has been repeated so often that to some at least, it has become fact. Sorry, but I have never seen any evidence, scientific, anecdotal or otherwise to support such a claim. The simple truth is that cars, ALL cars, are far more reliable now then they have been at anytime in history, and BMWs are some of the most reliable.
Ahhh, buy the naysayers will say, "Oh yeah! Well just look at the statistics referenced in the above post. You'll see that Toyota has 196/PP100 vs. BMWs 262/PP100 rating."
Uh-huh, well personally both numbers look pretty damn good to me, and furthermore, comparing the full North American BMW line (all fairly complex performance/luxury cars) to the full line of Toyotas (starting with no/low option strppo econo-boxes with far fewer components to fail) seems to be a bit disingenuous if you ask me. To my way of thinking at least, a much more fair comparison would be Lexus vs. BMW, and while I haven't seen those numbers in a while, if memory serves, the gap was much narrower. Even still, the report shows that for every four problems reported by a Toyota owner, a BMW owner will report roughly five. So much for being “unreliable”. I did find it interesting to note that BMW and a few other European manufacturers were singled out in the following quote: “Porsche, Jaguar, Saab and BMW perform well above the industry average in dependability…” as being quite reliable.
Another knock that I continually read about BMWs is that they cost a lot of money to maintain. That too is pure fabrication. The only out of pocket expense a late model BMW owner should experience for the first 50,000 miles is tires. Period, full stop, the end. Everything else is covered under the full maintenance program. Once a car has enough miles and/or years to no longer be covered under the maintenance program, they seem pretty reasonable to maintain, especially given their very long service intervals called for in the Owner's Manual. Basically, change the oil every year or 15,000 miles, change the brake fluid every two years and the coolant every three or four years (IIRC). As for the scheduled "Services", those occur every 30,000 miles, and while the cost can range from $600 to over $1,000, when you consider the number of miles that cost gets amortized over, it just ain't that much money.
Said another way, my bet is that if you were to do an "Apples to Apples" comparison of a new E90 3-Series vs. a new second generation Lexus IS, my bet is that the BMW will cost less money for general maintenance and repair than the Lexus for at least the first 100,000 miles. How much less? Probably not too much, but less is still less.
Me personally, I'm waiting to drive the IS and the E90 back to back, and I'll go with the one I like the best. Their relative reliability and the cost of maintenance is, in my mind at least, not a defining issue.
#3730 of 16984 Re: Dwelling on the negative... [shipo]
Jun 21, 2005 (3:03 am)
When you fork out 1000's more, one thing you would expect is more reliability. The IS is the best of the lot in that respect. Every one has their own story to tell, I have not really seen BMW being run down here, in fact it is the other way around, there is wholesale plagiarizing of hyperbole to describe the BMWs as compared to the competition. It is as if use of flowery language and the name is enough to make their cup run over. Reminds of an old chestnut: Guy buys a BMW and drives it OTD, car stops 2 miles later. Owner calls dealer, car is inspected, there is no engine. Owner asks, how did it drive 2 miles? Oh, that would be the reputation, says the dealer, usually gets it so far. Have a nice day folks.
#3731 of 16984 Re: Dwelling on the negative... [geekay]
Jun 21, 2005 (4:27 am)
"When you fork out 1000's more, one thing you would expect is more reliability. The IS is the best of the lot in that respect."
Uh-huh, so, where are the scientific numbers to back your claim up. Just because I might say, "Car 'X' is the most reliable or the least expensive to drive and maintain" doesn't make it so. The same thing with what you've written; saying it doesn't make it so.
Jun 21, 2005 (6:44 am)
One thing I still don't see many people admitting, is BMW, Benzes, and Audi's low reliability and high cost of maintanance. I feel this is in the direction of pride. No one likes to admit cost paid, vs more cost spent to maintain...and it does cost more once it's in shop (vs Asian, US brands). .
Ah but because of the all inclusive 4 yr/50k warranty, maintaining a bmw comes down to new tires once a year. If you're gonna keep the car for more than 3-4 years then maintenance costs become an issue with any car.
Then again, if one buys a G/TL, you gotta get oil changes, tune-ups and so forth.
So for the millionth time - because you're beating a dead horse - total cost to maintain of my 330i - $2000 over two years. All spent on tires.
#3733 of 16984 Re: curious [draknad]
Jun 21, 2005 (8:40 am)
One thing I still don't see many people admitting, is BMW, Benzes, and Audi's low reliability and high cost of maintenance.
I bought a BMW 318ti in August of 1995 and drove it daily for 9-1/2 years putting 112,000 miles on the odometer. In that time I had one (1) mechanical failure -- the ignition switch went out and need to be replaced. I think it cost me something like $275.00, I forget.
I'm sorry, but it would be disingenuous for me to confess to reliability problems I haven't had. I'm not saying that BMW's are problem free (no car is), it's just that reliability ratings can be misleading. Just because it says that the average maintenance cost of a BMW is X amount of dollars, doesn't mean that everyone who buys one is going to wind up spending that amount. I'm sure there is someone out that bought one just like mine that has sworn off BMW forever after the gazillionth trip to the repair shop, but I'm not that guy. Quit accusing us lying just because we won't reinforce your preconceived notions of German car reliability.
Besides, if you look at the numbers closely, it appears that the odds of buying a unreliable new car in the US is pretty slim no matter what make you buy.
#3734 of 16984 Re: curious [draknad]
Jun 21, 2005 (9:10 am)
Actually people are afraid to question the value of a Japanese car. Friend has been a long time Acura nut, but has been frothing at the mouth due to issues. My BMW was in any shop 5 times in 3 years. That's the way it should be, and I daresay out of my BMW owning friends, it is.
And when they are out of warranty, Japanese vehicles cost as much to repair/maintain as German.
Can you say $3K for a transmission?
#3735 of 16984 $3k for a tranny is cheap
Jun 21, 2005 (9:23 am)
Really cheap. My buddy's 540 had a tranny issue. over $5k later it was replace/fixed. Ouch. From what i've heard most automatics when they go bad costs that kinda dough now. And people wonder why I run from automatics...
#3736 of 16984 Re: Forget the Value/Price factor [shipo]
Jun 21, 2005 (10:18 am)
Nother myth people don't understand. (BTW: this is another discussion statement)
FWD vs RWD
SCCA Touring Car pts standings
TOP 6: FWD lead points
7/10 FWD lead point standings.
So you think RWD performs better then FWD?
FWD cars regularly outperform RWD. And we're talking prof racing.
#3737 of 16984 Re: Forget the Value/Price factor [draknad]
Jun 21, 2005 (10:56 am)
I've tried that argument a number of times. Its like trying to argue against a religion. At some point, you wind up talking in circles and convincing nobody of anything.