BMWs brilliance is it by design or is it due to method?

[genphreak]

Yea Rob, I agree. Thing is society doesn't want old cars, the marketers do a good job of ensuring that. So ultimately we don't expect to keep them foreever, nor do we expect to be able to source cheap parts to maintain them (ie the brands are somehow not damaged when they charge 600% markups instead of 40% a lot for the parts). This is plain silly. The sooner the culture changes and one buys a car for life, or a large part of it, the better. There is no reason why my next upgrade shouldn't be a hybrid drive mechanism, why turbos should be made mandatory in all gasolene engines (ie ones that increase efficiency), unless someone is trying to prevent it from happening, like BioFuels are being taxed before they can get a foot-hold. I don't think we all need to be driving water-powered Trevants but disposing of cars after 7 years (and not maintaining them in the process, just look at Japan) is a waste. People just don't understand the fact and sadly it just puts mechanics out of work and makes more waste to choke us. It's a machine and like you say they all need to be maintained and if maintained properly can last forever. Why must we allow manufacturers to prevent this from happening so that they can sell us a new one we don't need- and in doing so rape our environment in the process? It's time that we started worrying less about what new products we are to buy. Perhaps if plastics went up in value due to the the oil that is used to make them (at least as much as fuel is for the punters at the pump) we will have a hope. Who knows...

[rob101]

Yea Rob, I agree. Thing is society doesn't want old cars, the marketers do a good job of ensuring that.

yes i have noticed this myself, i think alot of people are very technology centric. they want all the latest and greatest gizmos, its like some materialistic misconception. Technology is nothing without good design and manufacture. execution and development are far more important than people realise.
I can think of a good example, with regards to americans taking over german companies. there was a german company called Demag who mainly make overhead (gantry) cranes but also mobile cranes. Now Demag got bought out by the US company Terex and trades under the name Terex Demag. They have all the latest technology on par with their direct competitor Liebherr in their mobile cranes. However having more of a multinationalistic approach ever since the american company took over they have outsourced all their parts from different companies. which is not unusual however there are serious compatibility issues with their computers. to the point that in singapore and also in jobs here i have heard that their mobile truck cranes will not operate during the day on a 30 degree C day as the gearbox oil temp sensors f-up and the crane won't even start. apparently the computers in the truck body and the superstructure where build by different companies and have interface problems.
so basically these cranes are sophicated inanimate objects most of the time.
as opposed to Liebherr who are a huge german company that has all their computer systems designed in house, they only outsource their gearboxes and some engines (majority are liebherr engines as well). they have sporatic problems (which is relatively normal especially in the first 500 hrs of operation in the break in) but nothing like that.
so i ask you
would you buy the demag that doesn't work 20% of the time for the technology? hell no, thats the difference between a **** crane and a good one even though both of them have the same level of technology.
i think tech hasn't advanced that far with a holden, hyundai or ford vs. a mid 90s bmw but i can tell you which is a better executed and developed car and thus the one i'd buy.

[nuclearfusion]

I'm sometimes asked why I like owning BMWs: aren't they fussy and finicky, difficult and expensive to take care of, etc. etc.

I always answer that in fact they tend to be very reliable, and aren't particularly difficult or expensive to take care of, but that they are designed for a different mentality to the one many consumers have towards their vehicles. "It's a mechanical system," I say, "built to be used, inspected and maintained - not a dishwasher made to be used until broken, then fixed or in many cases discarded!"

I think it's an issue of attitude. I don't imagine the typical European consumer considers a BMW to be a vehicle that requires any undue amount of care or attention. (of course strict reinspection rules help this too - cars tend to be kept in good shape.) Let's face it, these vehicles thrive on correct maintenance. When treated properly (all maintenance tasks performed on schedule, fluids, belts and tuneup components changed on schedule, inspections on schedule, etc.) their quality shines.

For the average North American consumer this requires a level of commitment and/or awareness (perhaps even a level of "relationship") that is unusual. However, for those who have this kind of awareness, a BMW is a tremendously rewarding vehicle to own and enjoy.

Enjoy (!)

Fusion

p.s. - the myth of expensive BMW service and parts is just a myth, or at very worst not necessary to be true. Servicing a BMW is a dream compared to most other lower-grade vehicles. Parts and fasteners are quality, service and maintenance was part of the original design concept from day 1, components go together and come apart like they were designed to, etc. As for the expensive parts myth - for example premium German-manufactured Balo rotors for our cars are $42 each. Pontiac Vibe rotors cost more than that.

[Zeuk in Oz]

The sooner the culture changes and one buys a car for life, or a large part of it, the better. There is no reason why my next upgrade shouldn't be a hybrid drive mechanism, why turbos should be made mandatory in all gasolene engines (ie ones that increase efficiency), unless someone is trying to prevent it from happening, like BioFuels are being taxed before they can get a foot-hold. I don't think we all need to be driving water-powered Trevants but disposing of cars after 7 years (and not maintaining them in the process, just look at Japan) is a waste.

True as far as it goes, Nick, but this argument ignores the massive quantum leap in car safety that has occurred over the past 20 years.

Wonderful to drive as our cars surely are, they don't have ESP, brake assist, side airbags, window airbags, active head restraints, self tightening seat belts and so on.

These safety features are not just gimmicks, they save lives.

I am not sure that the next 20 years will match the past 20 as far as these issues are concerned.

Only time will tell.

[rob101]

Wonderful to drive as our cars surely are, they don't have ESP, brake assist, side airbags, window airbags, active head restraints, self tightening seat belts and so on.

thats true
but i don't believe that these are standard fitments on the majority of japanese or australians cars atm
only Euros have the majority of those as standard. hell, holden only just announced that ESP will be standard for the first time on the next evolution of the commodore in the last 2 weeks.
besides i've heard people say things like oh a excel or echo is much safer than an e34
get bent, wow it has airbags big deal so does mine and it has ABS and most importantly it weighs 400 kg more and has a more rigid chassis! problem is when it comes to safety people think that oh its got this feature or that.
so what? i mean i am not against ESP or ABS or what have you
but i can tell you the only car ever to get 0 on the eurocap testing HAD AN AIRBAG. its very difficult to compare old and new car's safety unfortunately but there is a site run by monash that has some very interesting statistics of the australian crash data here
you are 0.23% more likely to be seriously injured in a e34 than a VY commodore if you are in an accident most interesting enough you are 0.1 % less likely to be seriously injured in an e28 than a VY
so
new cars are waaaaaay safer, sorry reality has different ideas.

[Paul in NZ]

i might be a bit cynical here but i think some of the hype by the manufacturers about airbags etc are to SELL more cars.We live in a consumer society we must always buy the newer better bigger....I am not saying that airbags et al dont assist in safety.We can still buy parts for our cars.a mate here has a 99 falcon ute,some parts are aready listed as not available.

[Zeuk in Oz]

thats true
but i don't believe that these are standard fitments on the majority of japanese or australians cars atm
only Euros have the majority of those as standard. hell, holden only just announced that ESP will be standard for the first time on the next evolution of the commodore in the last 2 weeks.
besides i've heard people say things like oh a excel or echo is much safer than an e34
get bent, wow it has airbags big deal so does mine and it has ABS and most importantly it weighs 400 kg more and has a more rigid chassis! problem is when it comes to safety people think that oh its got this feature or that.
so what? i mean i am not against ESP or ABS or what have you
but i can tell you the only car ever to get 0 on the eurocap testing HAD AN AIRBAG. its very difficult to compare old and new car's safety unfortunately but there is a site run by monash that has some very interesting statistics of the australian crash data here
you are 0.23% more likely to be seriously injured in a e34 than a VY commodore if you are in an accident most interesting enough you are 0.1 % less likely to be seriously injured in an e28 than a VY
so
new cars are waaaaaay safer, sorry reality has different ideas.

I must say that I have difficulty with some of your arguments Rob.

I agree that without a well engineered chasis with proper crumple zones and safety cages, no airbags are worth much. However I find it hard to argue that a new 1500 kg BMW with all the latest safety gear is not safer than an 18 year old 1500 kg BMW with only ABS. I am not comparing a $hit box Hyundai with a BMW.

The site that has given me much assistance is www.folksam.se (by the way there is an English button for those of you who don't read Swedish) which is the site of a Swedish insurance company that does assess real world crashes, not just hypotheticals.

They have found that ESP reduces accidents by 35% in dry conditions, 55% in snow and ice and by a whopping 65% in the wet.

They unequivocally recommend that anyone buying a car should buy a car equipped with ESP. That is a pretty big call !

They have also shown with their collation of real accidents that, generally speaking, the larger the car and the newer the car, the safer you are.

They seem to indicate this critical mass figure of 1300 kg that I am fond of quoting, saying that you shouldn't buy a car that weighs less.

Obviously there may be exceptions out there, but I must admit that I feel that any safety feature that prevents a collision or accident is worth its weight in gold. I even include good tyres in that !

My gut feeling is that we have reached a plateau with respect to safety issues in cars now, and that the next 20 years will see enormous advances in the efficiency of new power plants, whatever they will be.

Paul in NZ, I don't necessarily disagree that there is advertising hype associated with some new features, however particularly in Oz, safety is given much less priority by the average punter looking at buying a car than style, colour, interior features and now fuel economy.

I will now vacate this soapbox.

[rob101]

well i know what you mean what i am trying to say, is that
buy a new car for sub 40k which isn't european
you won't get ESP standard, and that statistics have show that newer cars aren't significantly safer than the bmws of old in a crash. if i wanted more safety i'd buy an e39 or e46.
they are very much safer in the road crash statistics on our roads than cars built ever since. so my point was that if safety is a big issue chances are you'd be buying a slightly newer (late 90s early 00s) european car anyway. unfortunately safety has come along way but local manufacturers and asian manufacturers have been playing catch up for the last 10 years when compared with european manufacturers.
and the link in my last post that is based on real road crashes in this country, its not hypothetical.

[Alexlind123]

thats true
but i don't believe that these are standard fitments on the majority of japanese or australians cars atm
only Euros have the majority of those as standard. hell, holden only just announced that ESP will be standard for the first time on the next evolution of the commodore in the last 2 weeks.
besides i've heard people say things like oh a excel or echo is much safer than an e34
get bent, wow it has airbags big deal so does mine and it has ABS and most importantly it weighs 400 kg more and has a more rigid chassis! problem is when it comes to safety people think that oh its got this feature or that.
so what? i mean i am not against ESP or ABS or what have you
but i can tell you the only car ever to get 0 on the eurocap testing HAD AN AIRBAG. its very difficult to compare old and new car's safety unfortunately but there is a site run by monash that has some very interesting statistics of the australian crash data here
you are 0.23% more likely to be seriously injured in a e34 than a VY commodore if you are in an accident most interesting enough you are 0.1 % less likely to be seriously injured in an e28 than a VY
so
new cars are waaaaaay safer, sorry reality has different ideas.

If im reading that study correctly, one is 1.92% more likely to be seriously injured in a 96-02 Mercedes S-class than our e34s.

[rob101]

If im reading that study correctly, one is 1.92% more likely to be seriously injured in a 96-02 Mercedes S-class than our e34s.

ummm i think you might be reading the aggressivity part
which is how likely the occupants of the other car is likely to get hurt,
not the occupants of the car itself