1 Series M Coupe US Base Price Announced: $ 47,010

[Joer]

Originally Posted by as7920

I take it you saw South's post with the PDF with Performance accessories in it?

Yup I sure did, however was after some UK info.

[auggiem3]

Originally Posted by RobMason

My 88s prices (effective in '87) would not have changed until MY '89, so you have to go by that. So you have to go from MY '88 to MY 2012, so 24 years.

I think you're confused on how the calculation works. Its very simple. If you were to buy a MY 88 M3 on 12/31/1987 (or earlier in the year), you take the price for the car and use 1987 dollars against the 2010 CPI benchmarked to 87.

Its not a time value of money problem where you'd discount with a cost of funds and use the # of years as an input b/c of the potential for deflationary pressures and inconsistent movements....the numbers are extrapolated from a time series regression where you need to use t, t-1, t-2, etc. and input real CPI figures from the specific years associated with the various T periods.

[MKParris]

I guess I will be holding on to my 335i a while longer, or just get an S4. Damn that price is HIGH for the 1M!!!

[Blackfield]

Originally Posted by 02fireman

Yep. you got it. If they don't come out of a dealer allocation and BMW builds what they can sell (which I still can't see being too much with only 6mt and color limitations for the spoiled), then we should get the ED discount. That would knock off about 6k bringing it down to a hell of a deal for those that can get to Munich.

And to put in in another perpective, if they decide not to give the ED discount or pull it out of dealer allocation, the E90M3 is $47500 ED invoice. Factor in the usual holiday, spring, summer $1500-2000 cash back that would cover the gas guzzler tax and it would look too easy not to do. So you know where I would be headed with my deposit.

Per Bimmerfile interview with Matthew Russell (M brand manager in US),
he expects the ED pricing discount to be inline with other 1 Series and M cars.

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2011/01/11...ell/#more-9924

...and 6FL (USB-iPod) is going to b e available as standalone option for US!!

[jyl4]

Originally Posted by SlickShift

I'm definitely surprised; both at the price jump for the 135i and price of the 1M. A stripped 135i is going to be in the low 40s! At least I don't feel so bad about the 1M coming out now...because I certainly can't afford it!! haha

I don't know if I can afford it yet, probably not, but the base price with delivery added costs $90.00 dollars less than the U.S. AUDI S4....

http://configurator.audiusa.com/acc/...w?msk=4#engine

[Diver]

I drove a Mustang GT with the Brembo brake package. The suspension is so stiff that it is miserable car to drive on anything but a perfectly flat road. It's amazing how the automotive press manages to gloss over this little problem. It is also a bit too easy to kick the rear end out of control. Not my idea of a daily drive.

[Smoltz]

Crazy to think that less 2 years ago I could have bought a brand new M3 that was well equipped for less than the base price of the 1M.

Oh well.

-Adam

[jeeter]

Originally Posted by Blackfield

Per Bimmerfile interview with Matthew Russell (M brand manager in US),
he expects the ED pricing discount to be inline with other 1 Series and M cars.

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2011/01/11...ell/#more-9924

...and 6FL (USB-iPod) is going to b e available as standalone option for US!!

That is the answer to one of the questions I had. Now I just need to know if they are coming out dealer allocation or not.

I do have a question on that. If they are not allocated, does that mean an ED customer's order could/would be filled before an allocated order from the same dealership?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by auggiem3

IMO people are making some apples to oranges comparisons.

This car is an all around better performer than the 135 and less capable than the M3. It is priced accordingly.

In fact, it is very similar in performance to the e46 M3 (possibly even a bit improved) with more updated technology and standard features. When I bought an e46 M3 in 2002, the base price was in the 48k range. That is a more applicable benchmark for me and, when incorporating the 135 and e92 m3 prices, I feel like this price-point was set appropriately.

People rant about the affordability of the e30 M3. Thats bull. Those cars were in the $35k range in 1986. The US government CPI (consumer price index) calculator demonstrates that $35,000 in 1986 represents over $71,000 in 2010 buying power.

These cars are actually getting cheaper in real monetary terms although notional prices went up. Quite complaining. People got what they asked for - an entry level M car.

You must have missed my post few up from you. I made the same argument that looking at inflation alone 1M is more affordable than ever. But, the issue for median income family is it's wage increased by 0% from 1990 to 2010 (see WSJ for reference). Despite CPI increased by 3-5% annual people's real income dropped in the same period. I thought the baby M is aimming at median wage earner and not the ultra rich.

[Ayrton91]

Originally Posted by Blackfield

Per Bimmerfile interview with Matthew Russell (M brand manager in US),
he expects the ED pricing discount to be inline with other 1 Series and M cars.

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2011/01/11...ell/#more-9924

...and 6FL (USB-iPod) is going to b e available as standalone option for US!!

Beautiful, that seals it for me. European delivered Alpine White with iPod/USB and maybe Bluetooth.

As for the whole pricing question I think 47K is on the upper end of the expected range and that probably has to do with the buzz the car has generated, but that should not be a shocker for all of us who have been following the painfully long launch of this car. Also 47K is still several thousand dollars below the M3 which was they wanted. As he says on the interview this is the cheapest M car ever built (adjusted for inflation). I do believe there seems to be one inconsistency in terms of the original intent and the execution: this is supposed to be the M car for a more mass market audience, yet by limiting production they had turned it into a sort of special edition that could result in prices going up (assuming a true demand supply driven market that could drive prices above MSRP - hopefully not the case), this goes against the idea of this being the entry level M car. I wonder how many of these are going to end up in the hands of M collectors or current or former M3 owners as opposed to newcomers to the M world.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Robert

Will 1M be able to keep up with 2011 Z06? We will see.

Serious?

From C&D's 2011 Lightning Lap:

"The Z06 Corvette was 5.3 seconds quicker than the Grand Sport from our last Lightning Lap and shaved 4.7 seconds off the Z06’s time from the 2007 event. It was also quicker than the Lamborghini Murciélago LP670-4 SV we ran last year and the breathtaking Ferrari 430 Scuderia at VIR in 2008, cars that are vastly more expensive. And the Vette felt as if it could run fast, repeatable laps all day long."

[oasis3582]

Originally Posted by ruff

Serious?

From C&D's 2011 Lightning Lap:

"The Z06 Corvette was 5.3 seconds quicker than the Grand Sport from our last Lightning Lap and shaved 4.7 seconds off the Z06’s time from the 2007 event. It was also quicker than the Lamborghini Murciélago LP670-4 SV we ran last year and the breathtaking Ferrari 430 Scuderia at VIR in 2008, cars that are vastly more expensive. And the Vette felt as if it could run fast, repeatable laps all day long."

Pretty sure they ran the carbon package which is a $90k car.

[auggiem3]

Originally Posted by Robert

You must have missed my post few up from you. I made the same argument that looking at inflation alone 1M is more affordable than ever. But, the issue for median income family is it's wage increased by 0% from 1990 to 2010 (see WSJ for reference). Despite CPI increased by 3-5% annual people's real income dropped in the same period. I thought the baby M is aimming at median wage earner and not the ultra rich.

A valid point. I have read quite a bit about that staggering statistic. But ask yourself a question - how many people do you know that were employed in 1990 and still employed today earning less in nominal or real wage? There are obviously anecdotal exceptions, but on the whole, 20 years of experience yields greater earning power.

So how did they come up with 0% real income gain over a whopping 20 year period of efficiency gains and positive real GDP growth?

First, unemployment plays a role. At 10% the US unemployment rate is crippling and far higher than in years past. Especially amongst the middle class (those folks targeted by the 1M) and young professionals (in the 18 to 24 age group unemployment clipped the 24% mark in 2010). As such, the numbers reflect 1 less income per 20 folks surveyed than over a more normalized 4% to 5% unemployment - assuming all else equal that factor alone absorbs a great deal of positive momentum.

Demographic changes also play a part. Boomers are high earners and, with improved technology and education, tend to require fewer employees to replicate their output when they exit the workforce.

As corporations make cuts, they offer early retirement packages to the experienced, high earning boomers. There is also an increasing attrition associated with planned retirements. Those experienced (but inefficient from a wage to output perspective) folks leave the work force or move to more "relaxing" occupations typically accompanied by lower earnings. The young "fresh" minds are not getting jobs (see the 18 to 24 unemployment referenced above). The combined result is a significant drop in non-farm payrolls and, as such, a decline in real earnings outside of the contribution from increased unemployment.

So I'm sticking with CPI even though part of the growth is driven by increased goods included in the bucket (for example technology items such as cellular phones that are considered virtual necessity today when no such product existed for the average American 30 years ago).

[Diver]

People who make median income do not buy new BMW's, unless they are planning on eating nothing but PB&J until the lease runs out. BMW buyers have done better than the average, that is why they can have a better than the average car.

[sq86]

Originally Posted by NYC6

I read most of this thread. It seems that much of the squawking about the new car is coming from M3 owners both past and present generations. Thats pretty telling, I think.

I def agree with this 100%! This car will eat up the E46 and be a real challenge to the E9X on small, twisty tracks. The E9X will win on the bigger, long straight tracks though.

If some people are comparing this to a Mustang then why not a Camaro or a 370Z or a Caymen or a TT or a... oh wait.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by sq86

I def agree with this 100%! This car will eat up the E46 and be a real challenge to the E9X on small, twisty tracks. The E9X will win on the bigger, long straight tracks though.

If some people are comparing this to a Mustang then why not a Camaro or a 370Z or a Caymen or a TT or a... oh wait.

Camaro = too heavy/poor handling

370Z is a SPORTS CAR (no rear seat)
Cayman (see 370Z)
TT (see 370Z)


Why compare to Mustang Boss 302? I guess just because the Boss interests me, so it is another car I'm checking out. Both mid-$40k range, both a special/limited model, both offer fantastic performance for the price, both have small, cheap interiors, lots of power and handling, big brakes and tires.

Ideally, if I shop with my head instead of my heart, I'll buy neither. Buying a new car is close to as stupid as you can be with your money.

So, we'll see ...

[fuzzy_dunlop]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Camaro = too heavy/poor handling

Ideally, if I shop with my head instead of my heart, I'll buy neither. Buying a new car is close to as stupid as you can be with your money.

So, we'll see ...

It may be stupid, but stupid things can be fun. Actually, if you think of it like that, the stupidest thing to do with money would be to travel. How impractical is that? Its like throwing money away... very little in the way of something tangible to show for it. Pictures, memories, souvenirs.

But I am going to travel. And I am going to buy a new car. And I will save my money in other ways. Because life is short.

[HondaGoneRogue]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_dunlop

It may be stupid, but stupid things can be fun. Actually, if you think of it like that, the stupidest thing to do with money would be to travel. How impractical is that? Its like throwing money away... very little in the way of something tangible to show for it. Pictures, memories, souvenirs.

But I am going to travel. And I am going to buy a new car. And I will save my money in other ways. Because life is short.

Wonderfully stated!

[Robert]

Originally Posted by auggiem3

A valid point. I have read quite a bit about that staggering statistic. But ask yourself a question - how many people do you know that were employed in 1990 and still employed today earning less in nominal or real wage? There are obviously anecdotal exceptions, but on the whole, 20 years of experience yields greater earning power.

So how did they come up with 0% real income gain over a whopping 20 year period of efficiency gains and positive real GDP growth?

First, unemployment plays a role. At 10% the US unemployment rate is crippling and far higher than in years past. Especially amongst the middle class (those folks targeted by the 1M) and young professionals (in the 18 to 24 age group unemployment clipped the 24% mark in 2010). As such, the numbers reflect 1 less income per 20 folks surveyed than over a more normalized 4% to 5% unemployment - assuming all else equal that factor alone absorbs a great deal of positive momentum.

Demographic changes also play a part. Boomers are high earners and, with improved technology and education, tend to require fewer employees to replicate their output when they exit the workforce.

As corporations make cuts, they offer early retirement packages to the experienced, high earning boomers. There is also an increasing attrition associated with planned retirements. Those experienced (but inefficient from a wage to output perspective) folks leave the work force or move to more "relaxing" occupations typically accompanied by lower earnings. The young "fresh" minds are not getting jobs (see the 18 to 24 unemployment referenced above). The combined result is a significant drop in non-farm payrolls and, as such, a decline in real earnings outside of the contribution from increased unemployment.

So I'm sticking with CPI even though part of the growth is driven by increased goods included in the bucket (for example technology items such as cellular phones that are considered virtual necessity today when no such product existed for the average American 30 years ago).

Very good counter points. I will have look into the data collection methodologies when I have time. So it's true that lots of smart people dwell near DC.

[blueshark]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_dunlop

It may be stupid, but stupid things can be fun. Actually, if you think of it like that, the stupidest thing to do with money would be to travel. How impractical is that? Its like throwing money away... very little in the way of something tangible to show for it. Pictures, memories, souvenirs.

But I am going to travel. And I am going to buy a new car. And I will save my money in other ways. Because life is short.

I respectfully disagree!
Travel experiences make a difference in people's lives! Travel can provide inspiration, perspective, learning opportunities, and the ever-important fun / mental health aspect!

[auggiem3]

Originally Posted by Robert

Very good counter points. I will have look into the data collection methodologies when I have time. So it's true that lots of smart people dwell near DC.

[JB135MDCT]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Ideally, if I shop with my head instead of my heart, I'll buy neither. Buying a new car is close to as stupid as you can be with your money.

I am stupid, now I have nothing to fix. How am I supposed to feed my addiction? Oh yeah, mods.