REALITY Check: Is BMW Charging Buyers More Than $7,000 For A Package That SHOULD Have Already Been Integrated Into The Standard Car?

Typical BMW to nickel and dime options. It's where the margins grow. The fact that leather is an option on the 3 has always kept me away.

The changes offered in the competition package are relatively minor, and would only benefit someone if they had plans to track the car occasionally (lower stiffer suspension, lighter wheels, 15 hp). That being said the Nissan GTR receives suspension and power tweaks every single year...I don't hear anything about their customers getting boned. Also Porsche just updated the panamera turbo with power and suspension adjustments, and the Mercedes E63amg received a much more dramatic changes for its refresh including a new AWD drive-terrain!

The Porsche and AMG changes are mid-lifecycle changes.

I have a conspiracy theory that the Nissan changes aren't changes at all. When I drove the GT-R in 2010 the vehicle was already making 550 horsepower, IMHO.

I see this as a "me too" strategy, copying Porsche and others, aimed at increasing excessive margins even more.

There's been a Competition Package on the M3 for generations, is that a problem too? Mercedes charges even more for the S Performance Package (or whatever they're calling it now) on their AMG models, and you have to get it just to get a limited slip differential. You want to talk about "should be standard"? Because THAT is ridiculous. Nissan upgrades the GTR every year, and the price has almost doubled since the car came out. Anyone complaining?

How dare you add some facts and logic to the discussion /s

We have written about the GT-R's major pricing premium since launch. Where have you been?

And the M3 competition package for generations? Just E46 and E90. E36 had the LTW, which was essentially the CSL or CRT. The ZCP packages were only at the end of the development cycle and not right off the bat.

Frankly, no one with a brain is tracking these things. It makes no sense to have a track-inspired pack. Just give it all up front. I mean these cars only cost six figures...

An M3 with a Comp Pack makes sense since it can be tracked sensibly AND people pick them up in a variety of configurations.

This is just a slap in the face to any 2013 buyer.

"And the M3 competition package for generations? Just E46 and E90."

That's two generations. Sorry, when I said "generations" I did not realize that two of something no longer made it the word plural.

"Frankly, no one with a brain is tracking these things. It makes no sense to have a track-inspired pack. Just give it all up front. I mean these cars only cost six figures"

But it's ok for Benz and Audi and Porsche to do it. Those guys don't have to "give it all up front", only BMW does apparently. Let the other guys make the money, right? Maybe they should have called it "M Development Package" or "M Plus" or "M Sport Chrono Package" so as not to offend you by implying "track use". Guess BMW just isn't sneaky enough.

"An M3 with a Comp Pack makes sense since it can be tracked sensibly AND people pick them up in a variety of configurations."

All these vehicles can be built in a variety of configurations, and I would be willing to bet you that 90% or more buyers of any M, AMG, RS, or Porsche do not track them no matter what configuration they buy.

"The Benz AMG Dev package is $6k....which is less than $7k last I checked."

Yes, $6k is less than $7.3k. However, that $6050 price is for a C63. It's $7300 on the outgoing S63, and $9000 on an SL63. We don't know what it will cost on the E63 yet, but my guess is it'll be comparable. But hey, on the plus side at least BMW doesn't force you to get the package by not making certain items standard that should be on a $100k 550+hp vehicle. Like, oh, I don't know, a limited slip differential. And let's not even get started on Porsche and their options.

"This is just a slap in the face to any 2013 buyer."

I get that, I do. Let me ask you: when would it NOT be a "slap in the face" to previous buyers to come out with a new, cool option? I bet 2013 buyers are also annoyed LED headlights are available on the new one. Should BMW have waited an entire generation to release those then? Let's be honest with each other -- it wouldn't matter when this package came out. If they released it in a year, two years, whatever, anyone who bought one previously, especially recently, wouldn't be happy. Every manufacturer makes changes to their cars over the years. You either make them and stay ahead of the curve and sell more cars, or you don't make them and fall behind and sell fewer. But then at least you won't piss off the people who already bought them, right? Is that what you're advocating? Not improving cars and selling more in order to appease people who already bought? Did you ever see the movie "Dave"? Your logic reminds me of the scene where they're balancing the budget.

Audi has 'Plus' variant for some of its RS models such as R8 V10 Plus and TT RS Plus. For the RS6/7, Audi will have RS6 Plus and RS7 Plus models that bump up power from 560 HP to about 600 HP as well as possible weight savings and other changes (e.g., suspension).
http://tinyurl.com/a6bht4u

M5twinturbo: "That being said the Nissan GTR receives suspension and power tweaks every single year."
Excellent for Nissan. Every car company should make continuous tweaks EVERY year to EVERY variant of EVERY car model (e.g., from 528i to M5, from A6 to RS6), no just cosmetic changes inbetween new models and facelifts.

In Germany, Mercedes offers three separate refreshed variants: E63 AMG, E63 AMG 4MATIC, and E63 4MATIC S. Their E63 AMG 4MATIC S variant is their top performance variant for the E Class (see link), similar to Audi's 'RS Plus' variant.
http://tinyurl.com/pwh2938

If it were up to me the package would just be part of the car. But it's hypocritical to call out BMW for this when

a) they've already been this for years on the M3 without anyone complaining, and
b) the competition has been doing the same thing for years without anyone complaining.

Apparently it's only a problem if BMW does it. If Audi or Benz or Porsche do it, no big deal. Just like when BMW came out with M versions of SUV's. Everyone was up in arms about brand dilution. Meanwhile Mercedes will happily AMG anything and everything, including a minivan, and Porsche will gladly collect your $180k for a Cayenne Turbo or Turbo S. As much as I dislike the package I dislike hypocrites more.

@JRobUSC

No one has done it right out of the gate AND I am still confused as to why you think Porsche has done it. You're off base, dude.


@BobM

You, sir, are on point.

"No one has done it right out of the gate AND I am still confused as to why you think Porsche has done it. You're off base, dude."

Sport Chrono Package anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[img]http://www.avtocar.su/ava/gud.jpg[/img]

00R - you should have known better than criticizing BMW for anything on this website :-)

Agent ooR; Mercedes has done similar things in the past with the AMG model in the E55, E63 where they changed engine mid lifecycle. The best way to look at this is BMW is wanting to always make sure the M division is setting the standards for performance & the best way to do this is to be able to adapt to the market. I don't have a problem with a slight facelift and the availability of getting a higher performance version for those that would want to track the car. The differeces between the 2014 M5 and the 2013 M5 are not really that great and to most people they would not notice the slight headlight and taillight changes. I think you are being a bit over dramatic with this. Does it really affect the resale value if someone keeps the car 4 to 5 years? NO ...

...And all I really wanted on my new BMW was a simple sliding sunvisor...

BMW should have integrated that package into the standard M5 in order to improve the performance and driving dynamics of the standard M5.

BMW's M division failed to set the standards for performance in this class with the pre-facelifted M5 that was subpar against its rivals (its buyers bought an M5 that was not the ultimate driving machine). It's clear that BMW has turned into a company more interested in selling more cars, making more revenue, and keeping its stockholders happy rather than in producing the best cars in its class.

Last year, Car and Driver magazine's "World's Best Sedan" issue compared the BMW M5, Audi S6 (not even RS) and Mercedes E63 AMG.
http://tinyurl.com/pbj8h2e

The BMW M5 was dead last, scoring only 193 points out of 240.
Audi S6 was first (213 points)
E63 AMG was second (210 points).
Scores and specs (PDF):
http://tinyurl.com/cqntdwx

The Audi S6 comprehensively beat the M5 in 12 of the 22 measures, tied in 6 measures with the M5, and marginally lost in only 4 measures to the M5. Significantly, the S6 beat the M5 in "fun to drive" (20 to 18) and most driving dynamics. To add insult to injury, the all-wheel drive S6 was lighter than the rear-wheel drive M5 -- and the S6 was $18 thousand cheaper than the M5.

Article:
http://tinyurl.com/6olv8mu

http://tinyurl.com/cm5d2vz

lol ... I love the constant Audi refernce just to hear yourself on here. Do we need to bring up the fact that the M5 was 1.5 seconds faster to 100 mph, almost 2 seconds quicker to 130, was quicker on the race track and for the most part lost due to price.

BMW4me4ever, are you are sensitive to hearing me on here because you've worked for BMW for 20 years?

BMW4me4ever: "(BMW M5) for the most part lost due to price."

ROTFL. This is monumental nonsense.

Car and Driver's comparison test was assessed on 22 measures.
- The Audi S6 comprehensively beat the M5 in 12 of the 22 measures: fun to drive, transmission, steering feel, brake feel, exterior styling, interior styling, fit and finish, features/amenities, as-tested price, fuel economy, ergonomics, rear-seat comfort.
- The S6 tied the M5 in 6 measures: engine nvh, handling, ride, driver comfort, rear seat space, cargo space,
- The M5 marginally beat the S6 in only 4 measures (BMW won by only 1 point in each measure): rebates, 1/4 mile acceleration, performance, flexibility

See this PDF link for the scores.
http://tinyurl.com/cqntdwx

Other readers who know basic math will understand why the Audi S6 won:
- S6 won because it beat the M5 in every major dimension (driving experience, vehicle, powertrain, chassis).
- S6 was 20 total points higher than the subpar M5 (M5: 193 points, S6: 213 points).
- On 'as-tested price', S6 did score 5 more points than M5 (M5: 15 points, S6: 20 points). This accounts for only 5 of the Audi's 20 total points -- so obviously, scored at least 15 other points on factors other than price.
- What's really funny is that one of the 4 measures won by M5 was price-related: rebates (M5: 1, S6: 0). Lol.
- Furthermore, S6 scored 4 total points more than M5 on the 11 measures related to powertrain (1/4 mile acceleration, flexibility, fuel economy, engine nvh, transmission), chassis (performance, steering feel, brake feel, handling, ride) and experience (fun to drive) -- all of which have nothing to do with price (or comfort, features, design, quality).

BMW4me4ever: "Do we need to bring up the fact that the M5 was 1.5 seconds faster to 100 mph."

You have a problem reading the instrumented test results? The M5 was 1.1 seconds faster to 100 mph (NOT 1.5 seconds) -- that happened largely because of its 140 HP advantage. Regardless, this does not matter much in real-world driving with speed limits on the urban freeway (45 to 75 mph) and residential (10 to 55 mph). Below 75 mph the difference between the two cars will be negligible, despite the M5's HP advantage. In real world driving, most overtaking acceleration will be within 60 mph (that's why it is the benchmark, not 100 mph or 130 mph).

Do we need to bring up the fact that the Audi S6 (compared to the M5):
- was 0.4 seconds faster to 30 mph
- was as fast to 60 mph
- only 0.2 seconds slower to the 1/4 mile.
- 3 feet shorter in 70-0 mph braking
- 22 lbs lighter in curb weight
- quieter in the cabin
- more rear seat passenger space
- $21,000 cheaper in base price (more money to spend on options)

actually .... the M5 was faster to 100 by 1.1 seconds, faster to 130 by 3 seconds, quicker in the quarter mile by .3, handles better by over 2 mph through the slalom, has a higher corneering by 3 lateral g, is more spacious inside with 57 to 51 for the audi in front seats, and 45 to 46 in rear which thus means that the S6 is Smaller ....

Take out the interior styling, exterior styling, as tested value, then the gap is a few points even though the S6 won on being less money. The S6 is faster? No, handles better? No, corners better? No , The M5 is an actual Performance sedan that would blow the doors off the Audi S6 on a track. I bet the performance variances would be around 2 to 3 seconds per lap. Yet what do I know... I am sure you you will write an essay trying to prove your point....

BMW4me4ever: “Take out the interior styling, exterior styling, as tested value, then the gap is a few points even though the S6 won on being less money.”

You like to keep repeating the Big Lie don’t you? I’ve already told you that the S6 scored 4 more total points than the M5 on the 11 measures in the ‘final results’ relating to powertrain, chassis and driving experience in the C&D test. None of these measures have anything to do with styling or price.

Indeed, when you take out the four measures (price, rebates, interior and exterior styling), the S6 still heroically beats the M5 by 12 total points in the remaining 18 measures (195 max points). That’s a lot of points.
http://tinyurl.com/cqntdwx

BMW4me4ever: “(the S6) handles better? No”
Car and Driver gave both the S6 and M5 the same score for handling (8 out of 10). However, C&D assessed the S6 as more fun to drive than the M5 – the S6 scored 20 points to the M5’s 18 points.

Car and Driver’s assessment of the last-place M5:
“Lows: Comparatively dull steering, hippity-hop over bumps, that @#&$ shifter, unsatisfying in ways an M5 shouldn't be... Verdict: Cleanup in aisle five, please… So color us pissed that the M5 suffers shortfalls in three areas where an M usually excels: steering, suspension, and brakes. We noticed this while tackling fast bends on Bavarian back roads. The calipers supplied a cold, weak bite. There was too much up-and-down bobbing of the body, and the relatively slow, remote steering wasn’t always able to place the front tires exactly where we wanted them. To drive in haste, you must trust the machine, and the M5, capable as it is, keeps secrets. Playing with the vaunted buttons didn’t produce the needed medicine... Returning to the Audi’s old-fashioned PRNDL was a relief.”
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2013-bmw-m5-page-2

BMW4me4ever: “(the M5 was) quicker in the quarter mile by .3… over 2 mph through the slalom, has a higher corneering by 3 lateral g,”
Actually… you really have a problem with math, don’t you? Or is exaggerating part of the BMW culture (pretending BMW cars are still the ‘ultimate driving machines’)? You struggled to come up with a fee things where the M5 has an advantage yet can’t get it right.
-Quarter mile: What is 12.1 seconds minus 11.9 seconds? It’s 0.2 seconds, NOT “.3” seconds. For the vast majority of that quarter mile, the S6 is ahead of the M5. The heavy M5 has to use its confusing launch control, huff and puff its 560 HP engine – yet is only 0.2 seconds faster than the 420 HP Audi S6 after quarter mile? Lol.
- Slalom: What is 43.1 mph minus 41.6 mph? It’s 1.5 mph, not “over 2 mph”. It’s likely the S6 would have done the slalom a bit faster had the tester simply set the Audi Drive Select to “Dynamic” (instead of leaving it on ‘auto’) to permanently engage the rear sports differential, sports suspension, sports steering, etc.
http://tinyurl.com/cqntdwx

Unlike BMW, Mercedes realized the deficiency of rear-w

Unlike BMW, Mercedes realized the deficiency of rear-wheel drive and this year in Germany is offering two all-wheel drive variants (E63 AMG 4 MATIC and also E63 AMG 4 MATIC S) to compete with Audi.

BMW4me4ever: “(the M5) is more spacious inside with 57 to 51 for the audi in front seats, and 45 to 46 in rear which thus means that the S6 is Smaller ....”

ROTFL. This is nonsense and dishonest. The Audi S6 has significantly more legroom for rear passengers, and more overall legroom. Even a 7 Series does not have 57/45 inches, lol.
- rear leg room (inches): M5 is 36.0 vs S6 is 37.4
- front leg room (inches): M5 is 41.5 vs S6 is 41.3

BMW4me4ever: “The M5 is an actual Performance sedan that would blow the doors off the Audi S6 on a track. I bet the performance variances would be around 2 to 3 seconds per lap.”

Given your track record of exaggerating and misinformation, would anyone believe your bet?

to angent00r:
this performance package adds virtually no incentive to the average driver of this vehicle. in fact im sure if you took a survey and asked if owners would prefer a more aggressive / stiffer suspension, most would say no. creating an option for the select few who didnt want the M5 because it was less track-able is much better strategy than launching it with a rougher suspension and then softening it due to customer complaints. have M5 sales been suffering due to Car and Driver's review that the S6 is better? i doubt it. this seems more like a rant that someones dream car just became $7k more unreachable...

yeah, 2013 M5 buyers really 'got boned.' they ONLY have a pathetic 560hp car instead of 575hp. lol