# M Division sells out



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

BahnBaum said:


> Like Alex B. says, businesses are in business to do one thing, maximize shareholder value.


Yes, that is how Americans think. It is not how the world thinks. Not that most Americans care.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

philippek said:


> No one's forcing you to suffer through the indignity of owning an M product.:dunno: You're more than welcome to buy into someone else's heritage, history and passion.


I think you mean future M product. What new monstrosities BMW coughs up don't affect me, cause I'm not hung up on buying new.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Dawg90 said:


> I disagree, compare some of the best companies with some of the worst. There's a huge discrepancy in the way they do business - employee development, benefits, safety, environmental responsibility. All these things cost the bottom line, yet a lot of the best companies do them, often at the cost of shor & long-term profit.
> 
> Some companies conduct corporate espionage and illegal activity to boost profit, some don't. Companies are made up of people, they are not automatons.


In your opinion, is BMW among the good or the bad? And will their intention to build new M models make the things worse?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Dawg90 said:


> Yes, that is how Americans think. It is not how the world thinks. Not that most Americans care.


European and Asian companies don't think like that? Dawg, on which planet are you living?


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> I disagree, compare some of the best companies with some of the worst. There's a huge discrepancy in the way they do business - employee development, benefits, safety, environmental responsibility. All these things cost the bottom line, yet a lot of the best companies do them, often at the cost of shor & long-term profit.
> 
> Some companies conduct corporate espionage and illegal activity to boost profit, some don't. Companies are made up of people, they are not automatons.


Sorry Dawg (please don't take offense to this, none is intended and I can't think of any other way to put it) - methinks you need to sit in on a business class or 20.

The pursuit of shareholder value is universal (transcending all borders and cultures). It is the reason businesses exist, and absent that pursuit, there will be no business.

Said pursuit does not mean the entity foregoes values, corporate responsibility, etc. . . Indeed, the best companies (the ones who really "get it") realize that the best way to remain a going concern and provide value to their shareholders is to do all the things you list while paying attention to the needs/desires of the customer. That (paying attention to the needs/desires of the customer) is precisely what BMW seems to be doing in this case. And absent some data proving that there is no/little demand for the products BMW (and its ///M division) is putting out, I just don't see any basis for you to be criticizing them the way you are.

Product lines evolve. Undoubtedly, with each evolution comes some unhappy customers (laggards). You seem to be firmly in that camp, and I hope someday you learn/realize that a business that fails to meet the demands of its customers is doomed to failure. When that happens, ALL of the company's customers are let down, not just a few.

It's fine (maybe even natural) to be disappointed because BMW is building cars that don't necessarily meet your needs, but it is unfair to believe BMW is solely in the business of making Dawg happy.

-j


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> European and Asian companies don't think like that? Dawg, on which planet are you living?


Try reading United States of Europe. Or just about any book on Japan.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

Dawg90 said:


> I disagree, compare some of the best companies with some of the worst. There's a huge discrepancy in the way they do business - employee development, benefits, safety, environmental responsibility. All these things cost the bottom line, yet a lot of the best companies do them, often at the cost of shor & long-term profit.
> 
> Some companies conduct corporate espionage and illegal activity to boost profit, some don't. Companies are made up of people, they are not automatons.


Dawg,

Maximizing shareholder value is not the same as maximizing profits. Do you understand the distinction?

Alex


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> In your opinion, is BMW among the good or the bad? And will their intention to build new M models make the things worse?


The discussion has sort of gone way beyond BMW's M division. I think this decision is one small step toward becoming a car company like Toyota, without passion or heritage. If all the enthusiasts accept it without complaint, maybe it will happen.


----------



## Bart001 (Apr 9, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> Yes, that is how Americans think. It is not how the world thinks. Not that most Americans care.


But BMW is a German company. So it's only Americans...and one German company? And all of the Japanese manufacturers? And VW/Porshe/Audi, because they introduced the Cayenne.

I guess that leaves Ferrari. Where can I buy a 4-door Ferrari with traction control, ABS and heated seats?


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

jim said:


> realize that the best way to remain a going concern and provide value to their shareholders is to do all the things you list while paying attention to the needs/desires of the customer. That (paying attention to the needs/desires of the customer) is precisely what BMW seems to be doing in this case.
> 
> -j


BMW is trying to grow their business significantly, and they can't do that by addressing the needs of their existing customers, they need new ones. Who are they going after? Toyota and Mercedes' customers it seems. I guess we should welcome them on this board, many are probably here already.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Bart001 said:


> But BMW is a German company. So it's only Americans...and one German company? And all of the Japanese manufacturers? And VW/Porshe/Audi, because they introduced the Cayenne.
> 
> I guess that leaves Ferrari. Where can I buy a 4-door Ferrari with traction control, ABS and heated seats?


Bangle is American, and he seems to be running BMW these days. But seriously, if BMW follows Porsche's route and just uses the SUV to pay the bills while developing enthusiast cars, that's fine with me. I suspect they will do just that, but we should still call them on this sellout.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

Dawg90 said:


> I disagree, compare some of the best companies with some of the worst. There's a huge discrepancy in the way they do business - employee development, benefits, safety, environmental responsibility. All these things cost the bottom line, yet a lot of the best companies do them, often at the cost of shor & long-term profit.


What is the definition of "best companies" and what is the definition of "worst"?

Providing for employee development, benefits, safety environmental responsibility and the like do impact the bottom line, but if that's the only part of the picture that you're looking at, you're taking an even more short sighted approach than what you keep accusing Americans of. Those things pay the company back in intangibles (which Alex #2 likes to call "value") such as increased worker morale, capability, retention and productivity, not to mention improved public perception of the company as a corporate citizen. In turn that leads to the tangible reward of increased profits.


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> BMW is trying to grow their business significantly, and they can't do that by addressing the needs of their existing customers, they need new ones.


Yes and no. In the car business, companies try to put current customers in new cars, too. It's cheaper to keep a customer as opposed to finding a new one.



Dawg90 said:


> Who are they going after? Toyota and Mercedes' customers it seems. I guess we should welcome them on this board, many are probably here already.


I sincerely doubt BMW is targeting Toyota. Rather, I believe BMW is targeting new demographics in addition to the current demographics it targets.

That's business.

-j


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> Bangle is American, and he seems to be running BMW these days. But seriously, if BMW follows Porsche's route and just uses the SUV to pay the bills while developing enthusiast cars, that's fine with me. I suspect they will do just that, but we should still call them on this sellout.


By your definition, "selling out" is just everyday business.

-j


----------



## flashinthepan (Jul 25, 2003)

I am not a fan of "M" SUV's WTF ??? :thumbdwn:


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

Yeah, this is drifting OT, but the question that continually nags me is why won't an auto maker/importer allow a customer to buy a car that they already make? They don't need to import it as a normal part of their line, but when the company already makes it and a potential customer wants to buy it , what's the problem? As an exmple, lest you think this doesn't happen, I tried to buy a jaguar X-type Estate Wagon (their term for a "Touring" model) a few months ago. I was told that it's not available with a manual transmission. That vehicle is sold all over the world with a manual transmission, including just across the border in Canada. So why couldn't I order one here in the US? Whatever the reason, this policy cost Jaguar a sale.


----------



## Wallenrod (Nov 25, 2003)

Nothing wrong with that. If making and selling thousands of auto trannied M minivans to soccer moms in America will keep them in business and provide funds for development and production of (completely unprofitable) mid-engined M1 or something as exciting, I'm all for it. Especially if that means it will actually be afordable like most mainstream BMW products
If BMW wanted to do what say Lotus did and build exciting sport cars for the street, it would be over in no time. It would have been bought by a Toyota or another GM of this world and build ONLY M badged minivans and SUVs put together ad hoc from a GM or Toyota world parts bin.

Which of these scenarios would you rather see?


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

jim said:


> By your definition, "selling out" is just everyday business.
> 
> -j


it's kind of like Major League Baseball - how many players are willing to give up a few million bucks to stay with their team? Not many, cause they're all sellouts.


----------



## mkh (Mar 24, 2003)

Bob Clevenger said:


> Yeah, this is drifting OT, but the question that continually nags me is why won't an auto maker/importer allow a customer to buy a car that they already make? They don't need to import it as a normal part of their line, but when the company already makes it and a potential customer wants to buy it , what's the problem? As an exmple, lest you think this doesn't happen, I tried to buy a jaguar X-type Estate Wagon (their term for a "Touring" model) a few months ago. I was told that it's not available with a manual transmission. That vehicle is sold all over the world with a manual transmission, including just across the border in Canada. So why couldn't I order one here in the US? Whatever the reason, this policy cost Jaguar a sale.


The problem is federalization. Don't blame BMW or other manufacturers. Blame the government. In order to meet US regulations, do you know how much money they have to invest in order to sell a model here? That also answers the question from above posts asking why Honda didn't bring the Type-R here. Actually they did, the Integra, but failed. Just tell me how many of "us" here (and we are all enthusiats) own or used to own an Integra Type-R? You know how much money they had spent to bring it here? They learned their lesson, the hard way.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Wallenrod said:


> Nothing wrong with that. If making and selling thousands of auto trannied M minivans to soccer moms in America will keep them in business and provide funds for development and production of (completely unprofitable) mid-engined M1 or something as exciting, I'm all for it. Especially if that means it will actually be afordable like most mainstream BMW products
> If BMW wanted to do what say Lotus did and build exciting sport cars for the street, it would be over in no time. It would have been bought by a Toyota or another GM of this world and build ONLY M badged minivans and SUVs put together ad hoc from a GM or Toyota world parts bin.
> 
> Which of these scenarios would you rather see?


The first, you are right, but if people like me didn't complain - the 3 series would still have the Ultimate Parking steering that showed up in 2001.

I stopped buying Hondas cause they sold out their heritage, I'd hate to stop buying BMWs for the same reason.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

BMW lost that unique image of "the" sports sedan company when they built that stupid truck for soccer moms.  

MX5 is the natural progression. :thumbdwn: 

It is too bad that instead of fixing the one big deficiency of all M cars, namely, the sh*t for brakes, they are expending R&D $$ on stupid trucks that have no business going over 70. :thumbdwn: 

Porsche, much like BMW, in its quest to becoming bigger, has also sold out and lost that sports car company image.

It is now a company that churns out badge unworthy, engine blowing products with a nice rebadged VW truck to boot.


----------



## flashinthepan (Jul 25, 2003)

Personally, "M" has a racing-track meaning....wouldnt it make better sense to call off-road performance groups a different name ? :dunno: 

Oh well


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

mkh said:


> The problem is federalization. Don't blame BMW or other manufacturers. Blame the government. In order to meet US regulations, do you know how much money they have to invest in order to sell a model here? That also answers the question from above posts asking why Honda didn't bring the Type-R here. Actually they did, the Integra, but failed. Just tell me how many of "us" here (and we are all enthusiats) own or used to own an Integra Type-R? You know how much money they had spent to bring it here? They learned their lesson, the hard way.


That's part of it, but not all - Honda has shown a pattern of disowning enthusiasts (which they seem to be trying to backtrack on with the 2006 Civic). The founder of Honda would be appalled by the way today's Hondas drive.

I'm not sure what qualifies as a distant model though, that requires all the crash and emissions tests. Some cars get exempted too, like the Lotus Elise.


----------



## Stuka (Jul 17, 2002)

Pinecone said:


> a) Have any of you driven an X5 4.6is or 4.8is? They are true the M concept, even if they weren't M badged. Good handling, super brakes and LOTS of power. Actually fun to drive.
> 
> b) The M6 is being compared to the Ferrari 612 these days, pretty heady performance area. No it is not a pure lightweight race car/sports car, but a true serious GT car it eh best of traditions. And 8 minute Ring laps is nothing to sneer at, no matter the size or weight of the car.
> 
> But then again teh Funf mit Zwolf was under 8 minutes. That was the special X5 with the LMR V12 o=powerplant at over 600 HP.


X5 and M concept in the same sentence? :rofl:

The M6 still has sh*t for brakes compare to even a lowly poseur Boxster for crying out loud. A 90K car and they can't fit a proper 4 pot monobloque Brembos?'  :thumbdwn:

A truck is a truck is a truck. It might have a fast motor, but it is still a truck. Are you telling me that for the same driver, he will be faster in the truck than in an E46 M3 at Sears Point?

What then is the "spirit" of M?


----------



## MG67 (Aug 19, 2003)

Stuka said:


> BMW lost that unique image of "the" sports sedan company when they built that stupid truck for soccer moms.
> 
> MX5 is the natural progression. :thumbdwn:
> 
> ...


 Porsche 911 is a Flattened Beetle...


----------



## mkh (Mar 24, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> That's part of it, but not all - Honda has shown a pattern of disowning enthusiasts (which they seem to be trying to backtrack on with the 2006 Civic). The founder of Honda would be appalled by the way today's Hondas drive.


That I agree with you. I'm one of those who used to own nothing but Hondas, and I had walked away after owning my last Acura, the Integra Type-R. Actually, I don't think Honda really disowning enthusiasts in general. Just look at their home (or European) market, they have all sorts of engine variations and ideas. It is just that they don't bring them here to the US. I think they are trying very hard to suit the American taste. Look at the Accords, why the American Accords look so different from others around the world? Is it necessary to custom make one for the Americans? Knowing that the American market is so weird compared to the rest of the world, but at the same time, it is also a goldmine, they decided to make 99% Americans happy at an expense of giving up that 1% enthusiasts. Unfortunately, we are among those 1% and we do live in America. Tough luck!


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

mkh said:


> That I agree with you. I'm one of those who used to own nothing but Hondas, and I had walked away after owning my last Acura, the Integra Type-R. Actually, I don't think Honda really disowning enthusiasts in general. Just look at their home (or European) market, they have all sorts of engine variations and ideas. It is just that they don't bring them here to the US. I think they are trying very hard to suit the American taste. Look at the Accords, why the American Accords look so different from others around the world? Is it necessary to custom make one for the Americans? Knowing that the American market is so weird compared to the rest of the world, but at the same time, it is also a goldmine, they decided to make 99% Americans happy at an expense of giving up that 1% enthusiasts. Unfortunately, we are among those 1% and we do live in America. Tough luck!


Yes, good point, it's really just American enthusiasts that got the shaft from Honda. I'm sure Europe & Japan would have liked an S2000-based sedan though, as was rumored once. Or a rear-drive TL or RL.

I certainly don't think BMW is anywhere near what Honda has done, but I'd rather point out possible cracks in the dam, than wait for a geyser of water to appear and then bring it up.


----------



## Bart001 (Apr 9, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> BMW is trying to grow their business significantly, and they can't do that by addressing the needs of their existing customers, they need new ones. Who are they going after? Toyota and Mercedes' customers it seems. I guess we should welcome them on this board, many are probably here already.


Rumor has it that some former Honda drivers are on this board. Are they as welcome as the Toyota and Mercedes customers?


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

flashinthepan said:


> Personally, "M" has a racing-track meaning....wouldnt it make better sense to call off-road performance groups a different name ? :dunno:
> 
> Oh well


 :stupid:

I know BMW needs to make money. I understand *why* they would "M" an X-series, but I don't like it.

My problem is: doesn't "M" stand for "Motorsport"? So are we going to see these X5s tearing it up on... umm... some NASCAR Truck Series? :dunno: Is PTG going to buy a few and start stomping around with them?

I'm all for an "oomphed" X-series, and you can badge it all you want (I think the "s" designation works great), but to call it an "M"? That dilutes the M image, plain and simple.

....Though maybe they'll call it the MX5. :rofl:


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> it's kind of like Major League Baseball - how many players are willing to give up a few million bucks to stay with their team? Not many, cause they're all sellouts.


Like I said:



jim said:


> By your definition, "selling out" is just everyday business.


-j


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Never sold out: Cal Ripken. Mike Krzyzewski


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> Never sold out: Cal Ripken. Mike Krzyzewski


Sorry, Dawg - your definition of "selling out" is fatally flawed.

A business'/business person's (as sports stars are) primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. In the case of a sports star trading teams to further realize that goal (through better pay, opportunities for advancement, etc. . .), said individual is merely looking out for his/her (i.e. the shareholder) value and seeking advancement.

There is nothing wrong with that, it is business, not selling out.

Selling out is when a person puts aside all that is important to them (be it values, morals, family, laws, etc. . .) in the pursuit of profit above all else. Examples of sell outs are Ken Lay, Barry Bonds, Bernie Ebbers, etc. . ., etc. . .

You cannot fault a company or person for seeking to maximize shareholder value, as much as their action may bother you personally.

-j


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

Rowag said:


> My problem is: doesn't "M" stand for "Motorsport"? So are we going to see these X5s tearing it up on... umm... some NASCAR Truck Series? :dunno: Is PTG going to buy a few and start stomping around with them?


I am against a M X5 too but that V12 X5 prototype did lap the ring pretty darn quick, dont remeber the time but I think at least ~8min.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

jim said:


> Sorry, Dawg - your definition of "selling out" is fatally flawed.
> 
> A business'/business person's (as sports stars are) primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. In the case of a sports star trading teams to further realize that goal (through better pay, opportunities for advancement, etc. . .), said individual is merely looking out for his/her (i.e. the shareholder) value and seeking advancement.
> 
> ...


Do you think Enzo Ferrari, or Soichiro Honda got into the car business for money? There is great passion inside these companies, including BMW. It is those passionate individuals that make a company like BMW great, not the accounting department.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> Do you think Enzo Ferrari, or Soichiro Honda got into the car business for money? There is great passion inside these companies, including BMW. It is those passionate individuals that make a company like BMW great, not the accounting department.


Great creative minds cannot exist without great accounting minds. For every Enzo Ferrari or Soichiro Honda there are several Ferrucio Lamborghinis, Malcolm Bricklins and John DeLoreans.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Dawg90 said:


> Do you think Enzo Ferrari, or Soichiro Honda got into the car business for money? There is great passion inside these companies, including BMW. It is those passionate individuals that make a company like BMW great, not the accounting department.


I think you are discussing for discussion sake.

All these companies have been started by individuals with passion for automobiles, but as they neared the end of their lives, their companies were too big to control.

Without their marketing and accounting department, today they would be producing 30 cars every year (per hand), with a $750.000 price tag. We would be seeing them only in automotive magazines and drool them over.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> I think you are discussing for discussion sake.
> 
> All these companies have been started by individuals with passion for automobiles, but as they neared the end of their lives, their companies were too big to control.
> 
> Without their marketing and accounting department, today they would be producing 30 cars every year (per hand), with a $750.000 price tag. We would be seeing them only in automotive magazines and drool them over.


Maybe, but I'm surprised some of the 'enthusiasts' on here are so quick to support BMW's new SUV obsession. I guess you have decided you're going to be BMW fans no matter what they do, so you have no choice but to defend their every decision. Ugly designs, active steering, I-drive, M SUVs - it's all good as long as it has a propellor badge on the nose. :thumbup:

'Love the one you're with."


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> Do you think Enzo Ferrari, or Soichiro Honda got into the car business for money? There is great passion inside these companies, including BMW. It is those passionate individuals that make a company like BMW great, not the accounting department.


All businesses exist to create value. Absent that (as I said before), the company will cease to exist.

Creating value is a strategic executive function, not an accounting one.

-j


----------



## jim (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> Maybe, but I'm surprised some of the 'enthusiasts' on here are so quick to support BMW's new SUV obsession. I guess you have decided you're going to be BMW fans no matter what they do, so you have no choice but to defend their every decision. Ugly designs, active steering, I-drive, M SUVs - it's all good as long as it has a propellor badge on the nose. :thumbup:
> 
> 'Love the one you're with."


Nah, some of us are just objective enough to understand the reality of business  .

-j


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Dawg90 said:


> Maybe, but I'm surprised some of the 'enthusiasts' on here are so quick to support BMW's new SUV obsession. I guess you have decided you're going to be BMW fans no matter what they do, so you have no choice but to defend their every decision. Ugly designs, active steering, I-drive, M SUVs - it's all good as long as it has a propellor badge on the nose. :thumbup:
> 
> 'Love the one you're with."


Now you are sounding bitter and accusing some of us for owning a BMW. Not nice.

Am I going to buy their M-Suvs ? Nope. 
Active Steering? Optional.
I-Drive? Optional.
Ugly designs? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have already gave my critic in the past.

So, what makes you think that I am going to defend their every decision?

BTW, I'm done with this discussion.


----------



## Bart001 (Apr 9, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> Maybe, but I'm surprised some of the 'enthusiasts' on here are so quick to support BMW's new SUV obsession. I guess you have decided you're going to be BMW fans no matter what they do, so you have no choice but to defend their every decision. Ugly designs, active steering, I-drive, M SUVs - it's all good as long as it has a propellor badge on the nose. :thumbup:
> 
> 'Love the one you're with."


Actually, this poster is using the 'I drive an older BMW, so I'm superior to and purer than all of you who drive the new Bangle designs with iDrive and active steering' internet cliche. There are a variety of BMW-internet cliches, and that's one of them. It's similar to the ones used by non-BMW owners, but of course has to be slightly different in view of the fact that he does own *a* BMW, just not one of the ugly designs with iDrive....


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Bart001 said:


> Actually, this poster is using the 'I drive an older BMW, so I'm superior to and purer than all of you who drive the new Bangle designs with iDrive and active steering' internet cliche. There are a variety of BMW-internet cliches, and that's one of them. It's similar to the ones used by non-BMW owners, but of course has to be slightly different in view of the fact that he does own *a* BMW, just not one of the ugly designs with iDrive....


So how do you account for the BMW enthusiast who owns both old and new designs, can appreciate each for its merits, and yet has no illusions about the shortcomings of each? Or is there a cliche yet for that?

EDIT: Never mind, I just realized I'm a "sell out"


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Bart001 said:


> Actually, this poster is using the 'I drive an older BMW, so I'm superior to and purer than all of you who drive the new Bangle designs with iDrive and active steering' internet cliche. There are a variety of BMW-internet cliches, and that's one of them. It's similar to the ones used by non-BMW owners, but of course has to be slightly different in view of the fact that he does own *a* BMW, just not one of the ugly designs with iDrive....


It's a cliche for a reason you know.

Actually I don't mind the newer BMWs, I'm just mystified at people who are so blinded by the badge that they'll eagerly accept whatever BMW gives them. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but there are plenty on this board. Just look at the way people here convince themselves the E90 is good looking, because they don't know where else to turn. Others will come up with any semantic argument to justify BMW focusing on M SUVs instead of proper sports cars.

I know why I'm arguing (I'm just being difficult as Alex suggested), but I'm not sure you guys know why you're defending BMW. Is it fear of having to find another carmaker to fawn over?


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

In my perfect BMW M line up world I see an M2, M3, M5, M6 and an M Roadster again. I do see an X Series continuing in "iS" trim like now, not an M simply because I do not think that they are going to sell more tagging them as M compared with what they are selling now with the "iS". Too much development expense for the same -or less- volume. 

Every other automaker have a seudo M Division, AMG have 7 cars, Chrysler have 8 cars in its SRT (including a Pick up and an SUV) lineup for God's sake. Right now BMW has only one and in the next three years a maximum of 5 (if the M2 comes, and I strongly believe that it is a must because the M3 V8 will leave the $40,000 to $60,000 market devoid of M cars). Again, in my perfect world BMW should be thinking that this is becoming very fast an overcrowded market of high performance vehicles that eventually has to corrode the "mystique" of having one... and thus the motivation of buying one. 

If the M Division wants to build ice cream trucks, hey it's their business. Personally, the day that BMW cease to build the cars that I like I go somewhere.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Technic said:


> If the M Division wants to build ice cream trucks, hey it's their business. Personally, the day that BMW cease to build the cars that I like I go somewhere.












:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

jrp said:


> Exactly! _///M_ will lose its mystique and become another poseur's badge. They're definitely selling out.


The ///M is already a poseur's badge. There are more poseurs in my neck of the woods driving E46 M3s (SMG only) than REAL BMW enthusiasts. I can guarantee you 99.95% of the E46 M3s sold in the San Gabriel Valley are sold to people who bought the M strictly for the badge, and not much else.

That small percentage of people who buy the M3 for what it's really intended for is dwindling FAST. Those who need the performance are either moving on to something else (Porkchops, 'Vettes, STis...etc) or holding onto their old M3s if they can't afford it.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Technic said:


> In my perfect BMW M line up world I see an M2, M3, M5, M6 and an M Roadster again. (if the M2 comes, and I strongly believe that it is a must because the M3 V8 will leave the $40,000 to $60,000 market devoid of M cars).


I'm sure BMW will make an M2. When they say "no M version of the 1" I take that to just mean no 5 or 3 door M. Sure that would be nice, but a coupe would likely sell the best, and be more stiff.

So I'm sorry, Alex and the other guys, making a big deal over what will probably turn out to be nothing, but I have visions of M engineers working on side bolsters for the MX5's baby seats, instead of the next great M3.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

The HACK said:


> The ///M is already a poseur's badge. There are more poseurs in my neck of the woods driving E46 M3s (SMG only) than REAL BMW enthusiasts. I can guarantee you 99.95% of the E46 M3s sold in the San Gabriel Valley are sold to people who bought the M strictly for the badge, and not much else.
> 
> That small percentage of people who buy the M3 for what it's really intended for is dwindling FAST. Those who need the performance are either moving on to something else (Porkchops, 'Vettes, STis...etc) or holding onto their old M3s if they can't afford it.


So maybe an M SUV will give the poseurs something to buy, leaving room for a more hardcore M3 and M2.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

The HACK said:


> The ///M is already a poseur's badge. There are more poseurs in my neck of the woods driving E46 M3s (SMG only) than REAL BMW enthusiasts. I can guarantee you 99.95% of the E46 M3s sold in the San Gabriel Valley are sold to people who bought the M strictly for the badge, and not much else.
> 
> That small percentage of people who buy the M3 for what it's really intended for is dwindling FAST. Those who need the performance are either moving on to something else (Porkchops, 'Vettes, STis...etc) or holding onto their old M3s if they can't afford it.


Yeah, you're right, but it doesn't mean they have to dilute the ///M badge even more.


----------



## Bart001 (Apr 9, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> Actually I don't mind the newer BMWs


But this morning they were "ugly designs." :dunno:

You're no fun to argue with because you don't stick to your position.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Bart001 said:


> But this morning they were "ugly designs." :dunno:
> 
> You're no fun to argue with because you don't stick to your position.


I never said they weren't ugly - looks just aren't a high priority for me, or else I'd buy a G35 coupe or C class or something. There are many cars these days that look better than new BMWs.


----------



## Technic (Jun 24, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Dawg, you sound like the kind of guy Mazda is courting.

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102352



> *Might you change your advertising to show the economical side?*
> 
> No, I wouldn't change it. Zoom-zoom is a feeling. It's not about zero to 60; it's about ride and handling.


----------

