KCcarguy
New member
no need to be getting all defensive. I pointed out the fact that you danced around.. cost of ownership and low reliability. tis all.
the way I see it, larger BMW are just not cost effective.. I mean, really, I ran against and beat a more than a couple m3s in my old car. My set up was worth way less than what those owners paid for theirs, and I had less problems with mine.
The cost of their normal brakes got me a 6pt BBK..etc. Cost of motors/trans... i'm not even going there.
I love the way they look, but owning one, not having a bank in Cayman islands makes no sense to me.
I'm not getting defensive. You were putting words in my mouth. I never said BMW's were "really reliable". They are expensive to maintain.....any luxury car is, no matter who makes it. Look at the Land Cruiser....expensive AND expensive to maintain. If anyone buys a BMW (even a cheap used one) and gets angry when they have to pay more for parts/ maintenance, they're a fool.
As far as the beating M3's, etc.....If I was racing, a M3 would not be my first choice. You could build a Miata that would beat M3's all day at the track (after all, an M3 is a hopped-up 3,500lb sedan, not a true sportscar). But, for a do-it-all car, BMW's (especially M cars) are pretty hard to beat. Now we're getting off the topic, but I feel like you're stating obvious things: BMW's are expensive/ expensive to to work on, BMW's are not as reliable as Toyota, BMW's are not the fastest cars on the planet..... like it's some kind of profound statement.