Re: Reality cheques

[Dave Eaton <dave.eaton@minedu.govt.nz>]

scott, your original point was that the 'm' cars didn't have a "boxfull of
special parts".  well, sorry, you're wrong, thats bollocks, and you know it.   
they do.  motor, brakes, gearbox, suspension, even alloys.  much more than the
rs2, which was based on the s2 motor, gearbox and running gear/suspension.

as you probably know, the 328i *followed* the m3 into production.  and used
some of the m3 bits (do i hear 'return on investment'from the bean counters?)
the 328i was good enough that people stopped buying the m3, and bmw had to come
out with the evo version.

so, now you change tack and say that the m3's parts prices are reasonable,
whereas audi's (rs2) are not. once again, you ignore the fact that, because the
bmw motor is exclusive, it is, by your own argument, expensive.  and of course,
the motor changed between the 3.0 and the 3.2 double vanos.  exclusivity =
expensive by your own argument.

do you have access to the rs2 parts prices?  no you don't.  you have the fiche.
 i've found that rs2 parts prices are no better or worse than i'd expect.  for
example, i paid $10.14 for an indicator light, (which incidentally is the same
part as the s2, and the same price).  sure, if i blow a cam, i pay porsche
prices.  so what?  in fact, wanna compare camshaft prices m3 vs rs2?  the rs2,
being only 2,200 in number, and the m3 being many thousands more?  i'm happy to
oblidge...

back to the normal programming...  

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 07:43:28 EST
>From: QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>

>In a message dated 98-04-04 04:27:05 EST, you write:
>
><< you reckon that bmw goes "m" 'without a boxful of special parts?' huh?
>last
> >time i checked, the m3 was very, very different from the bread and butter. 
> >like new motor, not available for anything other than the m3 and the z3.
>lets
>> not mention the brakes, or the diff, or the gearbox.  am i missing something
>> (and yes i'm aware that the usa didn't get the real motor)?  wanna talk
>about
>> the old m5 as well?  sorry, but you're well off-base.
>
>I happen to have the microfiche for both your RS2 and the 1995 M3.  Apples to
>oranges in argument and part numbers.  Lots of the 'bread and butta' parts are
>interchangeable from the M3 chassis to the 328.  Like, lights, turn signals,
>uprights.  I'm not sure you, of all folk, believe the RS2 to be made of
>something other than gold when you step up to the parts counter and hand a RS2
>suffix part number to the counter guy.   My experience with the A8 suffixes
>too.  Lots of posts from this very archives on mediocre prices on bmw parts.
>That mediocrity is one to be proud of, IMO.  M3 and Z3 share an awesome 6.
>The other cars don't need it, a nice v8 line exists for that.  Sharing is a
>cost too.  Can't share?  Price goes up for that exclusivity.  Your RS2 point
>of fact.  
> 
[snip]
> 
>> at least audi have kicked bmw with quality, both perceived and actual (jd
>> powers).  bmw must know it has a problem, we'll see if the e46 can rectify
>>it.
>
>I don't quote J.D Powers for much of anything.  I look at the top of their
>lists, and only give them credit for publishing numbers that make
>leasors/buyers pay for nothing and get cool cars to drive when serviced to
>keep the numbers up.  I remember filling out those internal customer CSI
>surveys on the customers behalf many a time when selling cars.  Understand
>where and how those numbers are derived and influenced before you quote them.
>Regardless, think on that statement for a minute.  Why, if that was so true to
>'value', does residual value on the Audi come in dead last in a lease
>(including the VDP?!?) and second only to the VDP on a buy?  Perceptions and
>actual of JDP, don't add VALUE.  Appears a lot of 'real' world and actual,
>specifically actuary, things dictate value.
> 

moving the posts again scott?  residual is influenced by market share, and
things such as jd powers.  much as we all might dispute the way the numbers are
gathered, there is *no* argument that the numbers are influencial, and widely
quoted, and used by leasing companies. here in nz, the m3 was $28k more new
($151k) than the s2 ($123k), and i can now purchase a '93 m3 for low 60's. 
same price as my '93 s2 is selling for, in point of fact.  residual???  i could
name the residual i wanted when leasing the rs2.  apples for apples, as you
say...

[snip]
>
>Look, I don't wave the BMW flag.  I just have driven some fine products of
>theirs and compared them to the latest audis.  Subjectively, and objectively
>audi has a long road ahead of them here in the states.  Not so BMW.  'Europe
>is different'.  Hmm, does that make US buyers optimistic about our choices?
>With which marque?


ok, wind the clock back 2 years? would you rather audi was back there?  at
least the marque is selling cars, making ground, and quality is still good. 
very easy to drop the ball here, and audi haven't yet.

and, lets see, what were the figures about audi's sales in the usa?  seems like
they're doing pretty well, from where i'm sitting...

now, little old nz, we get all of europe's cars, the m cars (with the real
motors), audi's 's' cars, the ur-quattros, the rs2, the evo iv's, the wrx
sti's.  and the uncluttered roads to enjoy them on.  you have to pay some, but
hey, eat your heart out.

dave
'95 rs2
'90 ur-q