[rolltidef32]

Originally Posted by Labeef

You'll probably have to pay to extend it.

This will definitely put some people of the brand, but I'm sure this was a calculated move by BMW.

Again, I just don't get this "free or reduced lunch" expectation?

Guys, as Labeef has pointed out, the maintenance plan will be offered; now you'll just have to pay for it if you want the 4yr/50K or beyond mileage coverage.

There is nothing wrong with this, just business. BMW is the market leader, so they don't need to give anything away.

I think the company has watched the brand go down market somewhat with all of the base models sold over the past few years. These cars look bad and tarnish the brand image a bit, so it's time to push these people away and focus again on the upmarket discerning buyer.

Dropping the base model, no maintenance plan carryover to second hand buyers, now, stripping the maintenance plan, all converge to take the brand back from the stretch buyer who they don't want on the road or in the dealerships pushing away the preferred demographics.

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by rolltidef32

Again, I just don't get this "free or reduced lunch" expectation?

Guys, as Labeef has pointed out, the maintenance plan will be offered; now you'll just have to pay for it if you want the 4yr/50K or beyond mileage coverage.

There is nothing wrong with this, just business. BMW is the market leader, so they don't need to give anything away.

I think the company has watched the brand go down market somewhat with all of the base models sold over the past few years. These cars look bad and tarnish the brand image a bit, so it's time to push these people away and focus again on the upmarket discerning buyer.

Dropping the base model, no maintenance plan carryover to second hand buyers, now, stripping the maintenance plan, all converge to take the brand back from the stretch buyer who they don't want on the road or in the dealerships pushing away the preferred demographics.

I'm not sure that's the reason why. BMW wants a "stretch" buyer. That's why the 320, A3 and CLA exist. Get a customer into your product early as a stretch buyer, with the hope that they continue to move up the product line.

The rolling back of the maintenance, I'm willing to bet, is based on market research that they would lose hardly any customers with the cutbacks.

[rolltidef32]

Originally Posted by tex2670

I'm not sure that's the reason why. BMW wants a "stretch" buyer. That's why the 320, A3 and CLA exist. Get a customer into your product early as a stretch buyer, with the hope that they continue to move up the product line.

The rolling back of the maintenance, I'm willing to bet, is based on market research that they would lose hardly any customers with the cutbacks.

Could be just as you say, but I don't think any luxury seller wants the stretch buyer. Not BMW, not Saks Fifth Ave, no one. BMW and the others aren't after a 35 year old stretch buyer, they want the younger upstart in their early to mid 20s who is a fast riser. True these smaller price point cars are a gateway to the "real" cars. Yes, that's money, but there are long term costs to consider. The new FWD platform is just a cheaper way to get them the badge.

Just look at BMWs marketing reports. To them, a target 3 series buyer earns $120K per year. Crazy, I know, but that's the target. True, that here in the US, many people who earn much less drive the 3.

I was mostly referencing brand image vs. stretch buyers. The 320i is no more than a cheap solution to counter the A3 and CLA. BMW didn't wish to bother developing, or didn't think they could bring the new 1 series hatch over.

To BMW, it's buyers, stretch or traditional, all want a 3 series badge on the trunk. Again, this is their thinking. Not sure if it's accurate.

[Polo08816]

Originally Posted by rolltidef32

Could be just as you say, but I don't think any luxury seller wants the stretch buyer. Not BMW, not Saks Fifth Ave, no one. BMW and the others aren't after a 35 year old stretch buyer, they want the younger upstart in their early to mid 20s who is a fast riser. True these smaller price point cars are a gateway to the "real" cars. Yes, that's money, but there are long term costs to consider. The new FWD platform is just a cheaper way to get them the badge.

Just look at BMWs marketing reports. To them, a target 3 series buyer earns $120K per year. Crazy, I know, but that's the target. True, that here in the US, many people who earn much less drive the 3.

I was mostly referencing brand image vs. stretch buyers. The 320i is no more than a cheap solution to counter the A3 and CLA. BMW didn't wish to bother developing, or didn't think they could bring the new 1 series hatch over.

To BMW, it's buyers, stretch or traditional, all want a 3 series badge on the trunk. Again, this is their thinking. Not sure if it's accurate.

M3 badge on Honda Civic and call it a day!

[Labeef]

Originally Posted by tex2670

I'm not sure that's the reason why. BMW wants a "stretch" buyer. That's why the 320, A3 and CLA exist. Get a customer into your product early as a stretch buyer, with the hope that they continue to move up the product line.

The rolling back of the maintenance, I'm willing to bet, is based on market research that they would lose hardly any customers with the cutbacks.

Originally Posted by rolltidef32

Could be just as you say, but I don't think any luxury seller wants the stretch buyer. Not BMW, not Saks Fifth Ave, no one. BMW and the others aren't after a 35 year old stretch buyer, they want the younger upstart in their early to mid 20s who is a fast riser. True these smaller price point cars are a gateway to the "real" cars. Yes, that's money, but there are long term costs to consider. The new FWD platform is just a cheaper way to get them the badge.

Just look at BMWs marketing reports. To them, a target 3 series buyer earns $120K per year. Crazy, I know, but that's the target. True, that here in the US, many people who earn much less drive the 3.

I was mostly referencing brand image vs. stretch buyers. The 320i is no more than a cheap solution to counter the A3 and CLA. BMW didn't wish to bother developing, or didn't think they could bring the new 1 series hatch over.

To BMW, it's buyers, stretch or traditional, all want a 3 series badge on the trunk. Again, this is their thinking. Not sure if it's accurate.

Why the 320i hate?? BMW has been producing the 320i longer than any car in the M lineup or the 335i. Europeans have 318's and 316's that far outsell the 328i's and 335/340. This has nothing to do with going down market, it's about competition and cost. Cost is important here because we are moving away from the gas engine and there is huge RD cost associated with that. So without cutting a series and closing factories and people loosing job, BMW has decided to reduce maintenance cost and some incentives.

Trust me, I can easily afford a 340i or an M3, I choose to have a nice house and other nice things over having an expensive car.

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by Labeef

Why the 320i hate?? BMW has been producing the 320i longer than any car in the M lineup or the 335i. Europeans have 318's and 316's that far outsell the 328i's and 335/340. This has nothing to do with going down market, it's about competition and cost. Cost is important here because we are moving away from the gas engine and there is huge RD cost associated with that. So without cutting a series and closing factories and people loosing job, BMW has decided to reduce maintenance cost and some incentives.

Trust me, I can easily afford a 340i or an M3, I choose to have a nice house and other nice things over having an expensive car.

I can only speak for me, but there's no hate on the 320 coming from me. It's an entry level BMW. MB started the entry level lux market with the 190E in the 80s, and others followed suit. It's exactly that--a lower priced version intended to grab buyers who want to move up to a lux make, and are willing to forego some lux features. If buyers like their experience, they may stay as loyal customers.

Are those the only people buying a 320? No--but that's the target market.

Frankly, what car companies sell in Europe has little to do with their offerings in the US. Gas prices and city streets built hundreds of years before the US was in existence factor in as well. Why do hatchbacks fail miserably here in the US? It's just a different market.

[atg4]

Originally Posted by Labeef

Why the 320i hate?? BMW has been producing the 320i longer than any car in the M lineup or the 335i. Europeans have 318's and 316's that far outsell the 328i's and 335/340. This has nothing to do with going down market, it's about competition and cost. Cost is important here because we are moving away from the gas engine and there is huge RD cost associated with that. So without cutting a series and closing factories and people loosing job, BMW has decided to reduce maintenance cost and some incentives.

Trust me, I can easily afford a 340i or an M3, I choose to have a nice house and other nice things over having an expensive car.

Then you should be driving a Honda. Let's not dilute the fact that the 320 is still a nice car by most standards.

[rolltidef32]

Originally Posted by Labeef

Why the 320i hate?? BMW has been producing the 320i longer than any car in the M lineup or the 335i. Europeans have 318's and 316's that far outsell the 328i's and 335/340. This has nothing to do with going down market, it's about competition and cost. Cost is important here because we are moving away from the gas engine and there is huge RD cost associated with that. So without cutting a series and closing factories and people loosing job, BMW has decided to reduce maintenance cost and some incentives.

Trust me, I can easily afford a 340i or an M3, I choose to have a nice house and other nice things over having an expensive car.

Wasn't hating on the 320i, or didn't mean to. I've defended the car several times in other posts.

Was more discussing the business case for the car and its target.

BMW didn't feel the need to develop a new car to compete with those others; just detune the N20.

Also said the car isn't for the stretch buyer, but new up and coming buyer. Gets them into the iconic 3 series with decent power in a nice package.

180hp in the hands of BMW is much more potent than any other car maker.

[CalCarNut]

Originally Posted by alexandertg21

Ehhh, I do city driving daily in socal and I need brakes about every 30k...

My SS, my Landcruiser and my wifes Benz all go through pads inside of a year. All different drivers...and none brake radically hard,etc. You're gifted I guess

[Vegetable]

Originally Posted by SoCalDave

My SS, my Landcruiser and my wifes Benz all go through pads inside of a year. All different drivers...and none brake radically hard,etc. You're gifted I guess

woa.. I typically need brakes every 150,000 miles/5 years.. I generally don't brake hard, but I'm certainly not afraid to use them.. I Just took my 46K mile 435i in for the vehicle check/final free oil change and apparently the brakes look "new." My iDrive still claims the brakes have 80,000 miles left on the rears and 60,000 on the front. My daily commute is 40% city/ 60% highway so I'm sure that helps.

[skw]

Originally Posted by rolltidef32

Could be just as you say, but I don't think any luxury seller wants the stretch buyer. Not BMW, not Saks Fifth Ave, no one. BMW and the others aren't after a 35 year old stretch buyer, they want the younger upstart in their early to mid 20s who is a fast riser. True these smaller price point cars are a gateway to the "real" cars. Yes, that's money, but there are long term costs to consider. The new FWD platform is just a cheaper way to get them the badge.

Just look at BMWs marketing reports. To them, a target 3 series buyer earns $120K per year. Crazy, I know, but that's the target. True, that here in the US, many people who earn much less drive the 3.

I was mostly referencing brand image vs. stretch buyers. The 320i is no more than a cheap solution to counter the A3 and CLA. BMW didn't wish to bother developing, or didn't think they could bring the new 1 series hatch over.

To BMW, it's buyers, stretch or traditional, all want a 3 series badge on the trunk. Again, this is their thinking. Not sure if it's accurate.

Originally Posted by tex2670

I can only speak for me, but there's no hate on the 320 coming from me. It's an entry level BMW. MB started the entry level lux market with the 190E in the 80s, and others followed suit. It's exactly that--a lower priced version intended to grab buyers who want to move up to a lux make, and are willing to forego some lux features. If buyers like their experience, they may stay as loyal customers.

Are those the only people buying a 320? No--but that's the target market.

Frankly, what car companies sell in Europe has little to do with their offerings in the US. Gas prices and city streets built hundreds of years before the US was in existence factor in as well. Why do hatchbacks fail miserably here in the US? It's just a different market.

Not to detract from the original topic but why is the 320 constantly dismissed as "entry level" and lumped in w/ the A3 & CLA? Isn't the 3 series in the same playing field as the A4 & C-class regardless of engine? Then the 1 or 2 series with the A3 and CLA? The C250 is only rated at 201hp (although at $40k in coupe form) but doesn't get considered as the entry level model instead of the CLA. Just curious why the 320 takes so much abuse when these other cars don't? Nor the e39 525 (189hp), e46 325, or e46 328? Is it just price, anything below $xx,xxx is entry? Or hp?

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by skw

Not to detract from the original topic but why is the 320 constantly dismissed as "entry level" and lumped in w/ the A3 & CLA? Isn't the 3 series in the same playing field as the A4 & C-class regardless of engine? Then the 1 or 2 series with the A3 and CLA? The C250 is only rated at 201hp (although at $40k in coupe form) but doesn't get considered as the entry level model instead of the CLA. Just curious why the 320 takes so much abuse when these other cars don't? Nor the e39 525 (189hp), e46 325, or e46 328? Is it just price, anything below $xx,xxx is entry? Or hp?

Isn't an "entry level" of any make of car the least expensive model available? i.e., 320, A3, CLA? or even Fit, Versa, etc?

[rolltidef32]

Originally Posted by skw

Not to detract from the original topic but why is the 320 constantly dismissed as "entry level" and lumped in w/ the A3 & CLA? Isn't the 3 series in the same playing field as the A4 & C-class regardless of engine? Then the 1 or 2 series with the A3 and CLA? The C250 is only rated at 201hp (although at $40k in coupe form) but doesn't get considered as the entry level model instead of the CLA. Just curious why the 320 takes so much abuse when these other cars don't? Nor the e39 525 (189hp), e46 325, or e46 328? Is it just price, anything below $xx,xxx is entry? Or hp?

Well, I guess my quickly written sentence does contain some hurt, but cheap doesn't necessarily mean bad. I do admit that part of my post does make me sound like an ass; my sincere apologies.

I think the 320i is a great car with more than enough power for most drivers. Here in the States; I guess due to all the open road and our car history, we tend to look down upon cars without knuckle dragger levels of horsepower. Many of the guys who do this can't drive worth a damn and just talk shit on the net in effort to boost a thin ego and weak self esteem.

I've said it et nauseum, fast doesn't always equal fun, and BMWs were never considered fast throughout the history of the brand.

A proper BMW is balanced, has a performance tuned suspension, performance rubber, and is stable and quick in the corners. Fast or horsepower are nowhere in this equation until you step into the track monster ///M cars.

[skw]

Originally Posted by tex2670

Isn't an "entry level" of any make of car the least expensive model available? i.e., 320, A3, CLA? or even Fit, Versa, etc?

That's the part I'm not understanding. By your definition of entry level being the least expensive the manufatcurer has available, shouldn't your examples have the 228 (instead of the 320) alongside the A3 and CLA? Of if you meant least expensive of a specific model, then the 320 is at the bottom of the F30 just as the C300 is at the bottom of the W205. But you hear of the CLA being the entry level, not the C300. Space wise, refinement, etc, the 3 series is on par w/ the C-class, not the CLA I would think.

Originally Posted by rolltidef32

Well, I guess my quickly written sentence does contain some hurt, but cheap doesn't necessarily mean bad. I do admit that part of my post does make me sound like an ass; my sincere apologies.

I think the 320i is a great car with more than enough power for most drivers. Here in the States; I guess due to all the open road and our car history, we tend to look down upon cars without knuckle dragger levels of horsepower. Many of the guys who do this can't drive worth a damn and just talk shit on the net in effort to boost a thin ego and weak self esteem.

I've said it et nauseum, fast doesn't always equal fun, and BMWs were never considered fast throughout the history of the brand.

A proper BMW is balanced, has a performance tuned suspension, performance rubber, and is stable and quick in the corners. Fast or horsepower are nowhere in this equation until you step into the track monster ///M cars.

No, I didn't read any hurt nor offense in your comment. And I'm not asking out of hurt feeling because I have a 320 (for now). I had the same question back when I was looking for an F10 535. I just fail to understand how the 2 series are completely disregarded, the F30 320 is grouped w/ the A3 & CLA, then the F30 328 is grouped w/ the A4, & C-class. How does the F30 chassis get split up between classes of vehicles?

[tex2670]

Originally Posted by skw

That's the part I'm not understanding. By your definition of entry level being the least expensive the manufatcurer has available, shouldn't your examples have the 228 (instead of the 320) alongside the A3 and CLA? Of if you meant least expensive of a specific model, then the 320 is at the bottom of the F30 just as the C300 is at the bottom of the W205. But you hear of the CLA being the entry level, not the C300. Space wise, refinement, etc, the 3 series is on par w/ the C-class, not the CLA I would think.

Sorry--entry level "sedan". Better?

I've seen car mags compare the 228 to the A3 and CLA--but there are a lot of customers, like myself, that would never even consider a coupe--especially one that doesn't even pretend to seat 5.

If you are moving up in the world, and you want a sedan from a lux make, but have a limited budget, those are the cars you would likely consider. Sure--Audi and MB differ in that you have 2 models to choose from if you are doing that--you can get an A3 or CLA, and add a few options; or move up to an A4 or a C, with fewer options. 320 vs 328 is the same analysis...until BMW comes out with a sedan based on the 2-Series.