Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, the F10 had a lower price than the E60 when it first launched. It first launched with the same naturally aspirated that was in the outgoing 2010 E60 528i. The new F10 5-series retained a naturally aspirated straight six. It also retained the turbo straight six in the 535i which no one is discussing.
2010 - E60 528i with straight-six.
2011 - F10 528i with straight-six.
2012 - F10 528i with turbo-four.
The cheaper F10 (2011) had a lower price (MSRP) than the outgoing (2010) E60. It doesn't matter what your logic says, this is just fact. What they actually go for is an entirely different issue. While it's also true that it sat between the 525i and 530i, it's more relevant that it sat between the price of the outgoing 528i and 535i in the year immediately before. The F10 is a cheaper car than the model it replaced. The F10 with the naturally aspirated straight six is also a cheaper car than the F10 with the turbo four, which is really the only issue that's been raised by anyone other than yourself.
evergray was actually incorrect when he? said the turbo four cylinder 528i was just as expensive as the six it replaced. The turbo four is actually more expensive. The turbo four did not replace the E60 528i. It replaced the straight six in the F10 528i. And it is nearly $2,000 more expensive. Once again, no one is talking about the E60 except for you which is a confounding issue no one cares about. The issue is that the turbo four is more expensive than the straight six it replaced.
Is that worthwhile? Probably to some. It does offer better performance and marginally better fuel economy than the straight six in the F10 did, but it also costs quite a bit more, isn't as responsive, and sounds nowhere near as good. Worth it to some, I'm sure, but I'd prefer the old straight six. And aside from looks, I'd prefer the E60 without the Novocaine steering BMW insists on putting in everything it makes these days.
Next time before you start replying to me on multiple occasions to get my attention at least make it relevant to my argument. I ignored you after your first reply to me for a good reason. I don't care about your preferences either.
If any of you have been out of US, you must have noticed a lot of big body cars (7 series / S class / E class / Audi A8 / etc) with V6 and 4 bangers.
While big ol' America gets the V8s and V6s, Europeans / Asians get V8s / V6s and 4 cylinders - there cost of ownership (insurance / certain taxes) is also linked with emissions. the 4 cylinders excel in emissions while providing decent grunt (250 hp is not bad) for chugging along in city traffic.
Matter of fact they sell more 4 cyl BMWs / Audis in Asia/ Europe than the V8s.
The BMW 328 is a fab car for what it offers and the Jag is trying to follow in the same steps.
Disclaimer: I have never owned a 4 cyl and currently own 3 V8 - gas guzzlers. lol.
If any of you have been out of US, you must have noticed a lot of big body cars (7 series / S class / E class / Audi A8 / etc) with V6 and 4 bangers.
While big ol' America gets the V8s and V6s, Europeans / Asians get V8s / V6s and 4 cylinders - there cost of ownership (insurance / certain taxes) is also linked with emissions. the 4 cylinders excel in emissions while providing decent grunt (250 hp is not bad) for chugging along in city traffic.
Matter of fact they sell more 4 cyl BMWs / Audis in Asia/ Europe than the V8s.
The BMW 328 is a fab car for what it offers and the Jag is trying to follow in the same steps.
Disclaimer: I have never owned a 4 cyl and currently own 3 V8 - gas guzzlers. lol.
BINGO
Also after a few years on the road the small engine car has much bette resale value than the v6 or v8 version because of the fuel cost. In the UK the vast majority of old V8 cars are converted to run on much cheaper LPG (propane) or they have a date with the crusher. Nobody want to fuel a 5.0L engine at $9/gal.
Also after a few years on the road the small engine car has much bette resale value than the v6 or v8 version because of the fuel cost. In the UK the vast majority of old V8 cars are converted to run on much cheaper LPG (propane) or they have a date with the crusher. Nobody want to fuel a 5.0L engine at $9/gal.
Yeah, but here its less of an obvious choice. The turbo 4 is around 2000 more dollars "cheaper" than the outgoing six, which also got pretty good mileage. On fuel savings, it'd take about 10 years to break even, which kind of puts it in the territory of hybrids. There's other reasons to like it. In general, turbos are good at performance when you need it and fuel economy when you don't. And BMW makes a good one. Still given that it only gets 1 to 2 mpg more than the engine it replaced and costs so much more, I'd lean towards the six if I had my druthers.
He hasn't. He's comparing out going to in. I was comparing the beginning. What he was trying to debunk was totally off target. It's not lie when I kind of did the research myself unless price online sites are lying. Then you have to account for inflation which adjust the true price but maybe you aren't mentally adept to consider that.
Yes. We all agree the F10 is cheaper than the E60. We all also agree that the F10 turbo four is more expensive than the F10 N/A straight six it replaced. The value of spending close to two grand more (MSRP) for the turbo four is what's interesting and not so much than the F10 is a cheaper car than the E60. And it's not specific to BMW either. When Mercedes went to the turbo four in the C-class, it was also more expensive than the outgoing six was. Less than half as much more expensive than in the F10 BMW, but then it's not really a comparable engine (1.8 liter, significantly less performance and better fuel economy than the engine it replaced vs 2 liter with significantly more performance and marginally better fuel economy). No signs of them trying to put out an E250 (gas) here, although they are planning on an E250 diesel.
If your point is that the four cylinder cars are cheaper and the manufacturers are building them for people that can't afford the V6s they are replacing... well, that's a stupid point. They're more expensive. They're being for mileage, not because they're cheaper to produce.
Last edited by Malloric; 04-01-2013 at 03:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
