If BMW Decides To Build Its Vehicles In Mexico, Will YOU Be LESS Inclined To Pick Up A 3-Series Or 1-Series?

WHERE the 3 series is BUILT is not the issue for me, HOW the front end LOOKS is another story...

Audi and VW have already committed to building plants in Mexico, which is why BMW is considering such a move. If VAG is taking advantage of the cheap labor its only natural the comp does the same, so they are all on the same playing field.

Well

They have been building in South Africa for a while now and it does not seem to have made a difference.

people said the same thing when they started building in South Africa and Spartanburg, SC. Both have worked out tremendously well. BMW isn't going to open a plant anywhere without ensuring the quality of the product output is as it should be. I've been to Spartanburg, the majority of production is done by robots anyway. The humans were basically just there to move parts around, feed parts to the machines, glue or rivet the occasional part, and do quality control. The parts are still from Germany and the robots doing the building are the same, so as long as the people are trained I don't see why it would matter what race or nationality the workers were.

BMW isn't VW Agent00R.

As long as the Mexican workers have the same training, attention to detail, have a clean and safe work environment, and are paid a decent wage.

Otherwise I'd only consider a "Bavarian" if it costs half as much.

Remember when the first gen. X3 was made by Magna Steyr in Austria? Quality suffered.

Ok, I probably should know better than to feed the animals but after a million of the same posts I'll bite -- why do you have such a problem with people leasing cars? For people who want new cars every few years, leasing is a better value, period. You could take a loan out and finance the purchase, but after three years you're usually only at the break even point on a trade, and you had higher payments for three years than the guy next to you who leased the same car. What is the benefit there? Does it make you feel better to pay more for the same thing? Leasing also gives the manufacturer the ability to forecast and control preowned inventory levels, which in turn aids resale value, and therefore lets the manufacturer set new car programs. It's a win-win cycle.

Also, just to inject a dose of reality, whether you lease or take a loan, the bank is on the title. It's their car either way, not yours. The only reason to buy a new car is if you plan on keeping it long term. If not, leasing is smarter. You buy appreciating assets, you lease depreciating ones. Every decent financial planner will tell you that. Maybe the difference here is the people that can afford to lease those 7's, S-classes, etc. have one of those, and you don't. Look into it, and take off the hater blindfold once in a while.

"-- why do you have such a problem with people leasing cars? "

- He wants to put as much money as possible into a depreciating asset. And I doubt that he will reply to you.

did you know that 70% of ALL luxury cars are leased? and did you also know that somebody BUYS these cars at the end of the lease?

Man, there are so many misinformed statements there I'm not even sure where to begin.

"with a lease you are penalized for... racking up miles or not keeping the car mint"

I hate to state what should be obvious, but if you purchase the car instead of lease it and drive a shitload of miles and/or beat the shit out of your car, you'll pay the same penality. You won't get "charged" for it, but you're still paying it in the form of a significantly lowered value on resale or trade. If you're a high mile driver and you insist on getting new cars, you 100% should be leasing unless you plan on driving the car until it's paid off or the wheels fall off. If you are a high mile driver who insists on buying cars instead of leasing, you should be looking at a used car, preferably one with extended warranty.

"Leases require GAP coverage."

Yes, because the bank is smart enough to realize that since THEY are responsible for the lien should something happen, they want insurance the value will be there. That's why most banks include GAP automatically, it's simply part of the lease. Consumers, for whatever reason, think when THEY are responsible for the value of the car that GAP is a bad thing. Newsflash -- the bank is right. Most people don't put down large sums of money when they buy cars and should be getting GAP too, especially if you're a high mile driver. The bank cares only about their money. You're not smarter than they are. If you wreck your car a year into your five year loan, you're screwed without GAP. Not with a lease.

"with a lease you always have zero or negative equity, never knowing what you will pay on the back end, not to mention nothing to put towards another vehicle."

Yes, you're right. But just how much equity do you have three years into a five year loan when you have 60k miles on that car you bought new? That's right, zero or negative. You don't have anything to put towards the next car after three years either. Your trade or resale value will still be dependant on the mileage and condition... just like the "charges" the lease guy may or may not have accrued at lease end. The only difference is the guy who leased the same car had lower payments the three years he had it. And he had GAP coverage automatically if the car was totalled. You had to pay extra for it (and probably didn't, leaving you on the hook).

Again, if you only want to get new cars, and you're going to get out of them every few years, then you should be leasing. You want to buy because it makes you feel superior? Hey, go ahead, it's your money. But you will pay more over those three years buying the car versus leasing it. It's not even a question, it's simple economic fact. If wasting as much of your money as possible is your goal, why not just do the absolute stupidest thing you could do with your large sum of money and pay cash?

Sooo, to tie the two subjects together, the US or Germany should "lease" Mexico and the problem of Serie Tres would be resolved, no?

My leasing experience of an X5 exceeded all of my expectations. I had purchased extra miles up front (+3,000 miles a year) and since I didn't use them I got a nice fat check when I terminated the lease 6 months early - no questions asked...

I had put no money down, but had loaded the lease with multiple security deposits that lowered the monthly payment and that I got back at the end with interest, no questions asked.

The X5 was clean at the end, but not what I would call outstanding. A windshield star that was epoxied, scrape in the front painted bumper, wear in the floor mats and leather seats, and a left tail light that was having some corrosion issues with the ingenious bulb sockets so the lights worked intermittently. They did the inspection and took it, no questions asked.

My point is that not all leases and leasing companies are the same and that the "luxury" branding does in general translate into a better overall experience. My other point is that a car that is older than 3-5 years could no longer be really considered luxury when taking into account the wear/tear and the new models and features already available. So if one's objective is to drive a "luxury" car, leasing is the better option.

There are 5 million Turks living in Germany and a lot work for automakers. So a Mercedes or Porsche could have been made from Turkish workers. One of BMW head designers is Turkish. As long as quality is good, who cares.

I bet even MB will build cars in Mexico or anywhere where they pay less...Is business wise..

MB does build cars in Mexico, the C-Class.

It'd certainly make me hesitant, at least at first.
Back in 2001 I had a VW Jetta which was built in Mexico and was an absolute lemon -- it was in the shop 16 times for various problems in the first year. I fought VW on the issue all the way up to the regional supervisor. They never admitted fault, but I was told that VW knew of all the problems and most of them were due to the car being built in Mexico where there is little-to-no quality control. Of course, I'd find it hard to believe that BMW would allow quality to drop, but I also wouldn't go back to a 3 Series now that I have a 6.

MB allowed their quality to flop and they paid dearly. Once you have bean counters in charge with the next quarterly results (and their bonus) in mind quality goes to hell.

Why can't we have things that Mexico does well instead? For example, why are all of the tomatoes and cucumbers in the grocery store in the middle of the summer grown in greenhouses in... Canada?

Since it's cheaper to build cars in Mexico, will it mean the prices of the 3 series will come down to reality?

Comment posted: "With a lease you always have zero or negative equity, never knowing what you will pay on the back end"

Huh?? "Open End" leases went out years ago. Today's "Closed End" leases state right up front at signing PRECISELY what you will be paying at the end (including charges for mileage overages, etc.)

I've leased my last four vehicles (MB, Audi, BMW, MB) and I will never go back. Everyone who says leasing is "like throwing money away" never takes into account how your "purchased" vehicle drops 20% in value THE MOMENT YOU SIGN THE CONTRACT AND GET THE KEYS. (Not, as is usually stated, "when you drive it off the lot"). Figuring the declining value of a purchased car (with mileage, age and wear-and-tear), any so-called advantages of buying vs. leasing quickly disappear.

True, you don't have a used vehicle's worth to use as a down payment for your next car, but it will NEVER make sense to use a heavily depreciated vehicle as a down payment against a fully marked up new one.

And to remind everyone who compares leasing vs. buying... On some vehicles, you may not have to pay for vehicle maintenance during the term of the lease (except for tires). And, you won't have to have Auto Club for roadside assistance.

If BMW builds the 1 or 3 Series in Mexico and does not lower the price point, then it this venture will not work for American luxury car buyers.

If BMW does decide to build cars in Mexico, like MB, I doubt they would sell them in the United States.

That's the whole point man to avoid the 2.5% tax on them and keep the price the same to boost profit margins 2.5%. They are in the business to make money first then sell an ok product tarted up with hopes and dreams to people who really do not know a lot about vehicle dynamics and think they are the Ultimate driving machine because the We said So Corporation of Bavaria

Yes, BMW is and wants to remain a profitable company. With BMW, especially with the "entry" level models such as the 1 & 3 Series, Brand image is key. For whatever reason you choose, Americans do not associate quality built products with being manufactured in Mexico.

The 1 & 3 Series models are not Jettas & Golfs. Unless BMW is going to cut 30%+ off of the cost, to consumers, of the cars built in Mexico, their competitors will be the first ones to tell consumers that they are paying $40k+ for a car built across the border for pennies on the dollar.

The only product Made in Germany that I buy that's made like it used to be and is made awesome is a Montblanc pen! The cars not so much!

montblanc is swiss, not german.