Edmunds "buy" a 1er

[aus_buster]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*

[ScottyGams]

cool, can't wait to see their long term opinions as i form my own!

they only keep it for 12 months though...

[gio]

What... that's it? Where is the rest of the article? What do you mean, I have to wait? By then I'll have my own 135i and I won't need a review.

[ScottyGams]

they already reviewed it... they bought their own so they could do a LONG TERM test.

See what parts fail, how much service costs, how it holds up, etc...

[BMW Dreamer]

Looks like the 135i gets pretty good MPG in that test. Average 21.4 is pretty good IMO for a car that fast.

[Robert]

Already bought one. I am that smart.

[Guibo]

"If we wanted a 1 Series more like a BMW 2002 tii — something in the spirit of cheap and cheerful, only with terrific speed — it was clear we would have to build our own."

A brand new 2002tii back in the day was far from cheap.

[Citizen Z]

Originally Posted by Jeff1962

Looks like the 135i gets pretty good MPG in that test. Average 21.4 is pretty good IMO for a car that fast.

In town I've consistently been getting 18mpg, some tanks as low as 15mpg. Highway, if I restrain myself, I have been seeing 24-26mpg, 14mpg if I cut loose a lot. Its all over the place and just depends on how you drive it.

[BMW Dreamer]

My Civic Si gets about 17mpg in the city if I drive it hard. 29mpg on the highway doing 80. In my daily driving 70% city 30% highway I average about 20mpg with the Si. I think the 135i will get about the same because its not reving like the Si. So for the power the 135i does a pretty good job.

[Duckw]

Originally Posted by Guibo

"If we wanted a 1 Series more like a BMW 2002 tii — something in the spirit of cheap and cheerful, only with terrific speed — it was clear we would have to build our own."

A brand new 2002tii back in the day was far from cheap.

True enough. If memory serves, my 1968 2002 (ED) cost me a total of around $2900 when it arrived back in the states after several months abroad and was taxed as a used car. That was what one paid for a Chevvy. In 1972 my new 2002tii was $5200, about what one paid for a loaded Cadillac.

That said, my calculations of the perceived value of the 135 in today's market echo Edmunds' almost exactly. If dear in absolute terms, the car nevertheless seems to offer a solid return in performance, handling, and ostensible build quality.

[Brandon26pdx]

That test car is kinda lame with the options and colors. (I'd still take'er though.)

[Christos]

Originally Posted by aus_buster

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*

Yes true, however, read on:

"But it's not all bad news for the 335i. It wins the editors' popular vote when it comes to the car we'd most like to have if cost were no object. Having the most usable backseat and largest trunk of the group doesn't hurt. It's also arguably the easiest car to live with — large enough to comfortably haul four, yet quick and nimble enough for all but the most demanding drivers. "

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by Duckw

That said, my calculations of the perceived value of the 135 in today's market echo Edmunds' almost exactly. If dear in absolute terms, the car nevertheless seems to offer a solid return in performance, handling, and ostensible build quality.

Yup, the 135i is today a better value compared to alternatives than the 2002tii was. Back in '72, you could not only buy that loaded Cadillac, but a whole host of high hp, high tq Detroit iron. Camaro Z-28 was about $3600. A 425 hp Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda would probably be pretty close to the tii's price. And back in those days, the differences in interior quality between American and European cars wasn't like it is today.
The 135i is also much more car compared to the 350Z than the tii was compared to the 240Z (~$3500 in '72). It's also now faster than the Z car.

So these journalists and others hoping that the 135i would be "cheap like the 2002tii" have a pretty skewed sense of history. No wonder they're disappointed. They have only themselves to blame.

[whya1?]

I agree that it shouldn't perhaps be so cheap but that is the image BMW is hoping to install with the car. Cheap, lightweight, tossable and quick.

They really only pegged the quick aspect.

[Guibo]

Originally Posted by whya1?

I agree that it shouldn't perhaps be so cheap but that is the image BMW is hoping to install with the car. Cheap, lightweight, tossable and quick.
They really only pegged the quick aspect.

When did BMW say the 1-Series was going to be cheap? If they wanted to install an image of a cheap BMW, they wouldn't give it the same 6-cylinder drivetrain, suspension, steering, and overall build quality of the 3-Series. Nor would they give the 135i 6-piston Brembos and e-LSD.

[gmund1948]

My Mom's 72 2002 TII ED Sunroof and sportseats was $5300
My Dads 240 Z in 71 was $3400. My 72 911S was $9700 and a
Camaro Z-28 $4000,

Small does not mean cheap, I own a Z-4 a C-6, my wife has a 335 convertable. I choose to have a 135 over an M-3 The 135 is a good value imho but I wont buy the Japanese competitors

But for those who wanted a cheap BMW do you want a cheap small Girl or a small girl with all the goodies

Made my choice !

If you want cheap look elsewhere

In Germany a 135i Coupe is $60K usd

Originally Posted by Duckw

True enough. If memory serves, my 1968 2002 (ED) cost me a total of around $2900 when it arrived back in the states after several months abroad and was taxed as a used car. That was what one paid for a Chevvy. In 1972 my new 2002tii was $5200, about what one paid for a loaded Cadillac.

That said, my calculations of the perceived value of the 135 in today's market echo Edmunds' almost exactly. If dear in absolute terms, the car nevertheless seems to offer a solid return in performance, handling, and ostensible build quality.