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.
I see you don't know the real reason for those. That's because people may want a luxury car of that size yet people may not be able to afford them. It's just a cheaper way to get people to buy in and still have the content which appealed to them in the first place. How do you think the 7 series starts at around 75k and it still has most of the features that you can get in higher end trims. I didn't look at the links because I don't care. The Mercedes is built with the sole purpose of being a more fuel efficient option which you pay more for. It's too different than the XF and 528i which are both just a cheaper model to make it easier to buy into the range.
Also because a lot of people don't give a crap about how much power it makes and would rather save 10% on the purchase price and get better fuel economy than have an extra 60/40 hp/tq in the 535i. That doesn't mean its an economical car.
After riding sport bikes, not many cars really get me excited in being fast. Even on my older 600, almost any car is just flat out slow in absolute terms let alone what it feels like in a steel cage versus on two wheels. I'd get the 528i, although I'd prefer the straight six they used to make to the turbo four.
I see you don't know the real reason for those. That's because people may want a luxury car of that size yet people may not be able to afford them. It's just a cheaper way to get people to buy in and still have the content which appealed to them in the first place. How do you think the 7 series starts at around 75k and it still has most of the features that you can get in higher end trims. I didn't look at the links because I don't care. The Mercedes is built with the sole purpose of being a more fuel efficient option which you pay more for. It's too different than the XF and 528i which are both just a cheaper model to make it easier to buy into the range.
A 4 cyl 528i is just as expensive as the 6 cyl 528i it replaces. The 4 banger just happens to be a bit more efficient and a bit quicker.
A 4 cyl 528i is just as expensive as the 6 cyl 528i it replaces. The 4 banger just happens to be a bit more efficient and a bit quicker.
Try again.
Nope it's about couple grand cheaper (accounting for inflation) then brand the it's direct equivalent of the E60. It slowly dropped further in price as it went on in its life. The new model will get cheaper by the time it ends its cycle. Also the current 528i is actually between the 525 and 530 when the E60 came out. How about you try again. You're comparing a car that came in the middle of its life to a fresh vehicle that was here at the start. Hardly fair when all things are considered.
Nope it's about couple grand cheaper (accounting for inflation) then brand the it's direct equivalent of the E60. It slowly dropped further in price as it went on in its life. The new model will get cheaper by the time it ends its cycle. Also the current 528i is actually between the 525 and 530 when the E60 came out. How about you try again. You're comparing a car that came in the middle of its life to a fresh vehicle that was here at the start. Hardly fair when all things are considered.
I don't know exactly why you're saying as it's gibberish of non-standard English.
The 2012 528i is about $2,000 more expensive than the 2011 528i, with the only substantive change being dropping the straight six for the turbo four. It's not a bad trade-off. It offers better performance, gets slightly better fuel economy, pays for itself in fuel savings in about 10 years. Not bad, but I'd rather have the responsiveness and engine note of the six than the rattly four pot.
I don't know exactly why you're saying as it's gibberish of non-standard English.
The 2012 528i is about $2,000 more expensive than the 2011 528i, with the only substantive change being dropping the straight six for the turbo four. It's not a bad trade-off. It offers better performance, gets slightly better fuel economy, pays for itself in fuel savings in about 10 years. Not bad, but I'd rather have the responsiveness and engine note of the six than the rattly four pot.
What? If you can't comprehend my comment then that is a personal problem. I was comparing the prices of the beginning of the two cars. Of course, the going out 2011 is less then the brand new 2012. Were you expecting it to not be? That's nonsense and I didn't make any claims like that.
Why not just get the Fusion since the MKZ is just a Fusion anyway?
The one thing the Lincoln Fusion has that the Ford doesn't (aside from the nifty but kind of overpriced, imo, roof) is ventilated seats. Really nice feature, but $9,000 for ventilated seats over the Fusion Titanium? That's a lot of coin for some cold air to be blown up my ass. Since Ford refuses to put those features on the Ford Fusion in order to justify the the existence of Lincoln model which is nothing but rebadged Fords, I'd just go to any one of the other manufacturers that offers that feature on their family sedans for much less than $9,000. And by that I mean the Kia Optima since they're the only one that does
At least with the Jaguar you get a car that looks good, RWD sports sedan rather than a rebadged family sedan that you could just buy for a lot less, buttons that work instead of touch controls that don't. Worth it? Maybe the looks justify it and with BMW insisting on putting its Novocaine, err I mean electric, steering in everything it builds it might be the driver's choice in the segment now. Except for the existence of the ATS, anyway... but then you can't get that with ventilated seats either. Argh.
What? If you can't comprehend my comment then that is a personal problem. I was comparing the prices of the beginning of the two cars. Of course, the going out 2011 is less then the brand new 2012. Were you expecting it to not be? That's nonsense and I didn't make any claims like that.
Right. Personal problem I can't understand your gibberish or personal problem that you can't use proper English? Because "then brand the it's direct equivalent of the E60" just makes perfect sense
Even in constant dollars, the 2012 (turbo) is more expensive than the 2011. More expensive, not less. The F30 is less expensive than the E60, but that has nothing to do with the turbo engine which only increased the price in constant dollars are otherwise. The F30 is just a cheaper car than the E60 was. That's why the base price in nominal dollars of the 2011 was cheaper than the 2010.
It does amuse me that you're arguing with yourself, however, by simultaneously arguing that of course cars are always more expensive every year due to inflation and simultaneously arguing that "Nope it's about couple grand cheaper (accounting for inflation) then brand the it's direct equivalent of the E60."
What ever it is that means. Nobody was even talking about the E60 anyway, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up. Evergray was talking about how the turbo is more expensive than the straight six it replaced. It didn't replace it when they went to the F30. The F30 retained the straight six.
Right. Personal problem I can't understand your gibberish or personal problem that you can't use proper English? Because "then brand the it's direct equivalent of the E60" just makes perfect sense
Even in constant dollars, the 2012 (turbo) is more expensive than the 2011. More expensive, not less. The F30 is less expensive than the E60, but that has nothing to do with the turbo engine which only increased the price in constant dollars are otherwise. The F30 is just a cheaper car than the E60 was. That's why the base price in nominal dollars of the 2011 was cheaper than the 2010.
It does amuse me that you're arguing with yourself, however, by simultaneously arguing that of course cars are always more expensive every year due to inflation and simultaneously arguing that "Nope it's about couple grand cheaper (accounting for inflation) then brand the it's direct equivalent of the E60."
What ever it is that means. Nobody was even talking about the E60 anyway, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up. Evergray was talking about how the turbo is more expensive than the straight six it replaced. It didn't replace it when they went to the F30. The F30 retained the straight six.
Ah, cursor skip. I didn't notice. I'll tell you what. I'll fix that once you learn your BMW chassis codes. Did you read the thread? I didn't bring up the E60 first. The MSRP for the E60 decreased over time and the 2010 was cheaper also because they grow less appealing when you have a new one lurking right behind it. I mean why buy the one going out when they are demanding the same price when they first launched the car and the new one will be the same price when it arrives? That's a common practice.
I also never said cars are more expensive every year due to inflation just that the new 528i is cheaper then its E60 counterpart when it was first released. Before it sat between the E60 525i and 530i in price. The new 5 Series retained a straight six engine but it was a brand new straight six single turbo motor. The naturally aspirated version is dead. The motor cost doesn't matter and really only BMW knows and since the NA straight six is gone yet they can command a cheaper price for the turbo model in comparison to a similar E60 trim.
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.
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.
