# That $475 metallic paint



## waxhaw (May 5, 2003)

I specified metallic paint on my '04 330Ci -- due here on 7/9 :banana: -- after having owned three consecutive non-metallic BMWs (Alpine White, Bright Red, and Evergreen (aka "Gumby"). Real-world considerations, including a long, dusty gravel driveway, factored into the decision. Not that a grubby metallic paint car will look one bit better than a grubby non-metallic one, but a "good-but-not-perfect" level of cleanliness, where my car will spend the bulk of its time, is much more acceptable on a metallic finish.

So. Four hundred seventy-five bucks? Does that bear any relationship to the extra cost incurred in the manufacturing process? If it actually costs BMW say, $300-350 more, then I have no objection; they're in business to make money, and as a right-wing capitalist, I appreciate that. But somehow, I doubt that their increased cost is anything like that. And I note that metallic paint is offered gratis on larger BMWs. Odd, particularly since they use more paint.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that years ago, metallic-painted cars got clearcoats added, but that non-metallic cars did not (in which case a hefty surcharge may have been warrented); however, is it not now the case that all of them, metallic and non-metallic, are clearcoated?

As we say down here in North Carolina, $475 seems "a mite strong." Am I wrong? Does the metallic paint require additional steps? And if so, how is the lack of a charge for metallic on the larger cars justified? Letting the 7er buyers skate, while popping us poor (well, relatively poor) 3er buyers seems a form of regressive pricing.


----------



## Terry Kennedy (Sep 21, 2002)

waxhaw said:


> *Letting the 7er buyers skate, while popping us poor (well, relatively poor) 3er buyers seems a form of regressive pricing. *


The higher model cars get a number of options / features standard that 3er buyers pay extra for - examples being the alarm and universal garage door opener. The marketing tagline for the Z8 was "so complete, the only option is the color" if I recall correctly.


----------



## dlloyd1975 (Sep 8, 2002)

Everything gets the clear coat now, so no worries there. No idea why they charge so much extra for it, except that I do know from the factory tour that metallica cars have one extra stop to apply the metallic bits over the base coat.

BTW, Gray Green is a *great* color. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## visor (Sep 7, 2002)

This is just the way BMW cars are priced. Nickel and diming for every little "option" that should have been standard.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

I believe all the German premium brands charge for metallic/pearl colors in their lower-end cars. BMW's problem is that, unlike Audi for example, for many years (aside from the occasional non-metallic M color) they've only offered a small handful of non-metallics (generally black, red and white).

I don't think BMW would look as 'greedy' in this respect if there were more non-metallics offered. I certainly felt that way when I ordered my car.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

Kaz said:


> *I believe all the German premium brands charge for metallic/pearl colors in their lower-end cars. BMW's problem is that, unlike Audi for example, for many years (aside from the occasional non-metallic M color) they've only offered a small handful of non-metallics (generally black, red and white).
> 
> I don't think BMW would look as 'greedy' in this respect if there were more non-metallics offered. I certainly felt that way when I ordered my car. *


i thought audi started not charging for metallics :dunno:


----------



## waxhaw (May 5, 2003)

dlloyd1975 said:


> * ...I do know from the factory tour that metallica cars have one extra stop to apply the metallic bits over the base coat.
> 
> BTW, Gray Green is a *great* color. You won't be disappointed.  *


Well, that extra step would certainly explain the extra manufacturing costs. I had assumed that they simply tossed $20 worth of mica chips into the paint, but of course, now that I think about it, that would clog the nozzles. So there is a cost involved over and above the materials.

There is no free lunch, and even though metallic paint is "free" on the 7ers, we can rest assured that _someone_ is paying for it -- in that case, the extra costs are being spread to all 7er buyers, whether they order metallic paint or not. Socialism for the rich! 

I'm sure marketing strategies drove the 3er policy. Perhaps they decided it was important to advertise 325s "starting at under $30,000" even though not many will leave the lot under that figure. (Am I the only one who winces a bit at the thought of a $29,995 car being promoted as a "bargain"?)

Thanks for your encouragement on the Gray Green. I wanted something a bit different, but I wouldn't have ordered it had I not liked it as well.

And thanks to all for the responses.


----------



## numbersguy (May 21, 2003)

There are plenty of other options that have little to do with manufacturing cost, such as larger engine displacment and bigger brake rotors.

BMW is a master of something business economists call "price discrimination." It works like this: If you are willing to pay 40K for a car but I am only willing to pay 35K they have to figure out how to sell a car to both of us. At the same time they have to figure out how to capture the "consumer surplus" which is the extra money you would be willing to pay for a product over and above the price they could profitably sell it for. On the other hand they don't want to pass up a low profit sale because with fixed costs to pay every sale helps pay overhead and maintain or build market share.

The answer is to create "price discriminators." These are product features that are priced higher and provide extra benefit to somebody with lots of money to spend, but don't add significantly to cost. The airlines pioneered price discrimination by having different passenger classes and offering different deals depending on when you travel, how long you stay and how far in advance you book. The airlines were forced to figure this out because if you try to fill a plane with passengers all paying the same ticket price you may not attract enough passengers to pay for the fuel and the labor, much less make a profit. You need first class and coach flyers all chipping in their cash to make the plane take off.

Nowadays price discrimination is used in marketing nearly every product sold. BMW has mastered it and is using it with stunning success to capture our disposable dollars.


----------



## mquetel (Jan 30, 2003)

waxhaw said:


> *...So. Four hundred seventy-five bucks? Does that bear any relationship to the extra cost incurred in the manufacturing process? If it actually costs BMW say, $300-350 more, then I have no objection; they're in business to make money, and as a right-wing capitalist, I appreciate that. But somehow, I doubt that their increased cost is anything like that....*


Congrats on ordering your car... I'm sure it will be a real beauty! Gray green metallic was on my short list of colors and I really like it.

About the pricing... As a self proclaimed right wing capitalist why would you think that the upcharge for metallic paint has anything to do with BMW's in-house costs? I think they charge what they feel the market will bear. Based on the large number of metallic vs. non metallic cars I see, they have their price point correct. :dunno:


----------



## visor (Sep 7, 2002)

numbersguy said:


> *BMW is a master of something business economists call "price discrimination." *


Thanks for the explanation! I couldn't have said it better. :thumbup:


----------



## dlloyd1975 (Sep 8, 2002)

waxhaw said:


> *
> There is no free lunch, and even though metallic paint is "free" on the 7ers, we can rest assured that someone is paying for it -- in that case, the extra costs are being spread to all 7er buyers, whether they order metallic paint or not. Socialism for the rich!
> *




Sort of like the flat tax a lot of them seem fond of. 



> *
> I'm sure marketing strategies drove the 3er policy. Perhaps they decided it was important to advertise 325s "starting at under $30,000" even though not many will leave the lot under that figure. (Am I the only one who winces a bit at the thought of a $29,995 car being promoted as a "bargain"?)
> *




I think we got a great deal on our car, espically with the Euro Delivery, but I agree, I don't think it was a bargain. However, I do think it was a good value for what we got. The major systems in bimmers seem to be pretty stout, they handle very well, and are very, very safe. A new Mazda 6 would have a been a bargain and a good value, but the bimmer is still a good value.



> *
> Thanks for your encouragement on the Gray Green. I wanted something a bit different, but I wouldn't have ordered it had I not liked it as well.
> 
> And thanks to all for the responses. *


There weren't too many of them rolling off the line on the tour, and I haven't seen too many of them here, either. However, there were several people that commented that they had never seen that color before and liked it. I like green cars but I don't want something that's *GREEN!* like the Oxford green is. Gray-green seems to be more understated and neutral. Classy if you will. Slate green on the 5er is an even better color, but they don't offer that for the 3.

Here's a some more of gg for you:


































And one more reason why you should do Euro Delivery if you can:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

waxhaw said:


> *I specified metallic paint on my '04 330Ci -- due here on 7/9 :banana: -- after having owned three consecutive non-metallic BMWs (Alpine White, Bright Red, and Evergreen (aka "Gumby"). Real-world considerations, including a long, dusty gravel driveway, factored into the decision. Not that a grubby metallic paint car will look one bit better than a grubby non-metallic one, but a "good-but-not-perfect" level of cleanliness, where my car will spend the bulk of its time, is much more acceptable on a metallic finish.
> 
> So. Four hundred seventy-five bucks? Does that bear any relationship to the extra cost incurred in the manufacturing process? If it actually costs BMW say, $300-350 more, then I have no objection; they're in business to make money, and as a right-wing capitalist, I appreciate that. But somehow, I doubt that their increased cost is anything like that. And I note that metallic paint is offered gratis on larger BMWs. Odd, particularly since they use more paint.
> 
> ...


That $475 is what the market will stand - I doubt metallic paint is any more expensive for BMW than it is for any other German manufacturer.

As it is, you're getting the cheaping BMW metallic paint in the world, especially given your earnings. Metallic paint in the UK? £495 - US$800 equivalent. Metallic paint in Germany, BMW's home market? E670 - $750.

The fact that metallic paint is offered on larger BMWs is nothing to go with the square footage of paint applied and the notion concept of how "free" this is. The margin is very high on bigger-engined, better-equipped BMWs and the importer (not the manufacter - this is the deal done by the importer) will give a little and add more hi-ticket items for "free" (of course, nothing is actually *free*).

So if you baulk at paying $475, look around at what other manufacturers are offering. Decide if the premium is worth it to you (if there is one; in the UK frinstance Merc and Audi charge more for metallic). If not, buy a solid colour. If $475 is a problem for you, well, I wish I had *your* problems .


----------



## waxhaw (May 5, 2003)

Yep, Andy, I'm neither balking at nor whining about (well, not much) the $475 charge. After all, I did order it voluntarily. I'm just fascinated in the marketing decision to charge for it in the 3 series but not in the 7 series. And as you say, nothing is really "free."

Thanx for the pix, dlloyd!


----------



## n0_jokes (Jun 29, 2003)

I paid about that for my metalic paint.


----------



## Bud330 (May 25, 2003)

Regarding gray-green - My wife's Acura 3.2 TL is that color, and it's beautiful. BTW, metallic is no extra charge from Acura, and xenons, leather, power seats, alarm, etc. are standard. I'm not saying they're equivalent cars, but the TL is one car BMW is trying to stay price competitive with. I wish BMW would just claim that they're selling a superior car for a slightly different market. It's the truth, and I think people could live with that.


----------



## numbersguy (May 21, 2003)

> I'm just fascinated in the marketing decision to charge for it in the 3 series but not in the 7 series.


A prospective 7 series buyer might get ticked off at the idea of paying extra for metallic. I'm sure they do focus groups to find out this sort of thing.

On Friday I accompanied an older friend who drove his fully loaded Boxster S Tiptronic to the plumbing supply store to return a $13 toilet valve that he had already removed from the sealed package and attempted to install. They didn't want to refund his money so he took a couple of flapper valves in trade.

Would you like to sell this guy a 7 series? He'll be in the market soon.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

Isn't metallic no extra cost in Canada? Or maybe only on the M3.

It is BMW NA that sets the prices on the sticker. BMW AG may or may not charge BMW NA for metallic paint.

Metallic paint is harder to spray consistently. The paint has to be stirred contantly or variations in the amount of metallic results. Also the paint has to be thicker to allow the metallic bits a place to be. For color with clear coat the color just has to be thick enough to hide the primer underneath. And with colored primers, that is not much paint. The paint also has to be slower drying to allow the metallic bits to oreint themselves. Srpaying in different temps with metallic can lead to different looking colors even with the same can of paint.

The other choice would be for BMW NA to raise the price of the base model by some amount and then not charge extra for metallic. 

Also non-standard colors do not come with an extra charge for metallic, it is built into the $2000 charge.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

TiAg is such a great color, it's worth it. :angel:


----------



## Saintor (Dec 14, 2002)

Just another way to screw the consumer. 15K$ Honda Accord do have metallic paint standard and they last long (when there is no rust underneath!). :tsk:


----------



## Dan Martin (Apr 3, 2003)

Pinecone said:


> *Isn't metallic no extra cost in Canada? Or maybe only on the M3.*


It's a no cost option on the M3 but it's $800 ($600US) on the rest of the 3 series.


----------



## Masskrug (Feb 11, 2003)

Like others have said above, it's better to be able to pay for metallic rather than getting it "free" like I did on my X5. I'd really be cheesed if I wanted a non-metallic color for the X.

And if you think BMW is atrocious for nickel and diming, trying building out a Porsche sometime:yikes: 

Maybe its a German thing?


----------



## routesixtysixer (May 2, 2003)

Or you could look at it this way... they could make metallic paint standard, raise the "base price" $475 and if you buy one of the non-metallic colors, you get a $475 discount... same difference.


----------



## wookiehoth (Jun 14, 2003)

MB also charges extra for metallic paint for their c class cars.


IMHO, this is absolutely silly and ridiculous. Toyota does not charge for metallic paint on the brand's cheapest models so for a prestige marque like BMW or MB to do so is a disgrace.

But guess what, I like the BMWs and MB so much that I am stupid (or illogical) enough to pay for it.:banghead:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

waxhaw said:


> *Yep, Andy, I'm neither balking at nor whining about (well, not much) the $475 charge. After all, I did order it voluntarily. I'm just fascinated in the marketing decision to charge for it in the 3 series but not in the 7 series. And as you say, nothing is really "free."
> 
> Thanx for the pix, dlloyd! *


I do note that BMW GB (for instance) provides metallic paint free on up-spec 3s over here (330i/d and M3). I think some other national-market cars are specced similarly, with no-cost-option (shall we say) metallic on upper-end cars. Also as the car gets older and starts to lose sales, free metallic paint starts creeping down the range (the E39 5 came with metallic paint if you got the SE pack - a bit like the premium package, and available all the way down to the 520i). I suppose BMW needs some room to dress the car up when sales start slipping...!

I baulked at the £495 charge not only because of the very high cost, but also the poor choices of colour. The funkier colours have been removed from the regular line and dropped into the Individual range - and at £990 for a coat of Individual, I think I'll stick with black.


----------



## tommyd (Jul 8, 2003)

Metallic paint is an $800 cdn option in Canada. Not sure about the M3.
I almost balked at the price... i mean, black is black right?

Wrong.. once i got the mettalic and non-mettalic paint cars beside each other, the decision was immediate.

I did hear that the non-metallic paint was actually heavier and thicker... but the number of coats necessary for the mettalic paints makes BMW think their justified with the cost.... whatever...

It all comes down to what makes you happy, and i'm happy... just $800 shy is all...


----------



## JetBlack330i (Feb 8, 2002)

numbersguy said:


> The answer is to create "price discriminators." These are product features that are priced higher and provide extra benefit to somebody with lots of money to spend, but don't add significantly to cost...
> Nowadays price discrimination is used in marketing nearly every product sold. BMW has mastered it and is using it with stunning success to capture our disposable dollars.


Then explain to me why Honda is so successfull with their simplified trim line offerings. The Accord, which sells in excess of 400 thousand cars/year has very few options (metallic is no charge).


----------



## Masskrug (Feb 11, 2003)

JetBlack330i said:


> Then explain to me why Honda is so successfull with their simplified trim line offerings. The Accord, which sells in excess of 400 thousand cars/year has very few options (metallic is no charge).


The answer lies in your answer to this question:

Why didn't you buy a Honda then?


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

Waxhaw, 

I have G/G too. Take a look at the pics in my sig (yes, you'll have to copy/paste the link). This is a pre-facelift Coupe. I dont' see too many G/G on the road, which is what i love about it. :thumbup:


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

JetBlack330i said:


> Then explain to me why Honda is so successfull with their simplified trim line offerings. The Accord, which sells in excess of 400 thousand cars/year has very few options (metallic is no charge).


You're really comparing apples and oranges, but you probably knew that. BMW sells mostly luxury cars, Honda sells more mainstream cars.

BMW is second only to Porsche in profit per vehicle (as the owner of a new BMW, this is a fact that I'm not really that proud of). Honda has great sales success in terms of units sold, and they also turn a healthy profit, but BMW earns more cash from their approach. Selling a luxury car doesn't hurt profit per unit either.

It doesn't really help my argument any, but I thought you guys would find this chart interesting...go to page five in the following link to see profit per vehicle. It lists cars by brand, so you'll see that Audi, Lincoln, Cadillac, Lexus etc. all have higher profit numbers per vehicle, but they are all part of larger car companies. I suspect BMW's profits per vehicle will be going down a bit with more Minis being sold.

http://www.gabelli.com/Gab_pdf/res_reports/an052303.pdf


----------



## 325i RocketGuy (Sep 27, 2002)

PhilH said:


> It doesn't really help my argument any, but I thought you guys would find this chart interesting...go to page five in the following link to see profit per vehicle. It lists cars by brand, so you'll see that Audi, Lincoln, Cadillac, Lexus etc. all have higher profit numbers per vehicle, but they are all part of larger car companies. I suspect BMW's profits per vehicle will be going down a bit with more Minis being sold.


Keep in mind that the referenced report shows _dealer_ profits per vehicle, not manufacturer profits.


----------

