BMW Sales strong but E89 -16%
- Thread starter original guvnor
- Start date
original guvnor said:
I think there are a number of reasons why the E89 hasn't had monumentous sales,
A) Its a niche car which only appeals to limited customers.
B) Its still relatively expensive, average 30K and over in these
penny pinching times, plus many people I would imagine think BMWs
are expensive to run and maintain so look elsewhere for value for
money when buying new.
C) I think the complexity of the roof potentially puts buyers off.
Out of interest, I would be interested to know how many 3 Series Cabriolet Coupes have sold in relation to the E89.
I don't think BMW have got it wrong, for the market the E89 is aimed at its spot on. I think BMW were shrewd in not producing an M version. Their market is changing, for example the new 2 Series Active Tourer along with the i3 which appeals to a wider market etc
http://www.bmw.co.uk/en_GB/new-vehicles/2/activetourer/2014/startpage.html
Tim.
Carol M said:
There is the issue, I bet out of the numbers produced last year very little of them had the 3.0l engine. Its too expensive for a lot of people, there has even been comments on the site re how the second hand values of 35is are still around the 30k mark. Good deals can be had on the 18 & 20's but not the 28, 30 & 35's
Maybe what BMW did wrong was say we are not going to make this a 2.0l and instead plodded on with their crusade until 2012 when they decided to introduce the 18,20 & 28 models. This must have only helped the sales of Z4's. Everytime I get an email from Eastern they always seem to have 18 & 20 delivery millage cars for decent money.
If however the Z4 had only been avalible in the 18, 20 & 28 I know I wouldn't have bought one. I went from a 135i to a 120i and was never 100% happy and said my next car wouldn't be a 2.0l BMW.
I understand what you mean I went from a 4.8 X5 to a 520d & I couldn't quite believe what I did! nothing against 4 pot`s overall as the TTS only has a tiny engine but for me personally there is more reward from a higher cylinder higher capacity engine...the problem is the fuel costs & emissions in the UK are killing off the larger engine by the minute.Angie4m said:
The 2.0 was enough for me at the time. I needed the better fuel economy as well when I ordered it.
We've always had powerful cars interspersed with not so powerful ones now and again so I have plenty of experience with either.
The 2.0 is no slug, especially in sport mode but it obviously doesn't have the acceleration of bigger engines/higher bhp models.
We've always had powerful cars interspersed with not so powerful ones now and again so I have plenty of experience with either.
The 2.0 is no slug, especially in sport mode but it obviously doesn't have the acceleration of bigger engines/higher bhp models.
By the seaside...
Agree! :lol:Carol M said:PerryGunn said:I know what you mean, I had to drop from a 3.5l V8 to a 3.4l straight-six... bloody government... :wink:LeeZ4MR said:...the problem is the fuel costs & emissions in the UK are killing off the larger engine by the minute.
Oh the hardship :lol:
CornishRob
Senior member
grizzly said:
Problem with putting the V8 in is that it would be too thirsty. I wouldn't upgrade my M to it as I wouldn't want to spend all that extra, then have worse fuel economy. I know you don't buy them for fuel economy, but if you use it as a daily, it wouldn't work I don't think. They just couldn't win. They would need to design a new NA 3-4l engine to use in the M cars to get decent mpg and the driving experience people want. Porsche can do it!!
Newer cars seem to be getting more power from smaller engines via FI, but the actual fuel economy you get is worse than the bigger NA engines, which I find annoying. I wonder if the actual Co2 is actually lower, or the real world Co2 is higher, but these values are never discussed or published.
I do think after driving the E89 3.5is that they went the right way with it, but I just don't think there is the market for 2 seater fast cars anymore, so they shouldn't expect large sales. For people to buy, they need to be special, and a Z4 from BMW isn't special enough. This is where a Cayman or Boxter from Porsche probably wins as the overall experience beats it.
Just the world we live in now.
I'm bound to say this but I think the E89 is spot on. I'm on holiday at the moment and you show me one other 2 door sports car that can fit a full size suitcase in the back boot....and I mean a large samsonite hard case, the largest size they do.
Aesthetically, I still think it's a thing of beauty....regardless of what engine. It's proportions are perfect.
Aesthetically, I still think it's a thing of beauty....regardless of what engine. It's proportions are perfect.
I find this car the perfect all rounder for me, plenty enough performance, even with my little 23i engine! sounds superb, especially with the roof down. Still turns heads, and cheap to run. I have driven a fair few cars over the years and the grip on this car still amazes me, and its great as a cruiser, it just eats miles. The fact that there are little on the road is a bonus, they are less common.
Some good contributions to this thread everyone 
I think most of us agree the E89 looks really good, although I share Ranski's dislike of the rear and I don't like the rear wings either.
Weight
Here's a thing to discuss - I reckon the car is far too heavy. The Audi TTS Roadster is 1,455kg, The Boxster S is 1,320kg yet the Z4 35i is 1,505kg. It's already lugging around 200kg more than the Porsche. Just when the world embraced weight reduction it seemed odd that BMW added 200kg nearly to the weight of the Z4 by sticking a complicated metal roof on it. It's supposed to be a sports car. It's supposed to be lightweight, agile and nimble!!!
Engine Size
Porsche sell more Boxsters and Caymans than BMW do Z4's despite not having an engine any smaller than 6-cylinders and 2.7 litre so the engine size is a red herring. The introduction of the 4-cylinder cars has only accelerated the decline in sales. Let's face it BMW is synonymous with the straight six engine. Surely through cylinder deactivation, hybrid, KERS etc. it could be made efficient and economical? For all of the volume the Z4 generates (13k cars in annual sales of 2m) surely they could've left a larger capacity engine in and it would do diddly squat to the average BMW Group CO2 emissions.
I do agree with some of Tim's reasons for the possible small volumes. The selling price in a recession might have been an issue, the metal roof was certainly an issue for a lot of people. It added complexity, weight, cost and potentially much bigger repair bills if it goes wrong with not a lot of obvious benefit really. Anyone who has an E85 knows it is a quiet, warm and comfortable environment inside the cabin when you want it to be.
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion Tim. If my second generation model sells half what the first one did at roughly similar average selling prices and is in terminal decline every year from it's first full year onwards, I fail to see how that is getting it spot on. If they got their market spot on then they chose the wrong market in the first place. If that is getting it spot on I'd hate to see what you term as failure?
I think I agree with you on the M version though. It wouldn't have changed the perception of this model a whole lot and wouldn't have sold many either.
So I stick to my original point - wrong car for the wrong market and the sales don't lie.
I think most of us agree the E89 looks really good, although I share Ranski's dislike of the rear and I don't like the rear wings either.
Weight
Here's a thing to discuss - I reckon the car is far too heavy. The Audi TTS Roadster is 1,455kg, The Boxster S is 1,320kg yet the Z4 35i is 1,505kg. It's already lugging around 200kg more than the Porsche. Just when the world embraced weight reduction it seemed odd that BMW added 200kg nearly to the weight of the Z4 by sticking a complicated metal roof on it. It's supposed to be a sports car. It's supposed to be lightweight, agile and nimble!!!
Engine Size
Porsche sell more Boxsters and Caymans than BMW do Z4's despite not having an engine any smaller than 6-cylinders and 2.7 litre so the engine size is a red herring. The introduction of the 4-cylinder cars has only accelerated the decline in sales. Let's face it BMW is synonymous with the straight six engine. Surely through cylinder deactivation, hybrid, KERS etc. it could be made efficient and economical? For all of the volume the Z4 generates (13k cars in annual sales of 2m) surely they could've left a larger capacity engine in and it would do diddly squat to the average BMW Group CO2 emissions.
TitanTim said:
I do agree with some of Tim's reasons for the possible small volumes. The selling price in a recession might have been an issue, the metal roof was certainly an issue for a lot of people. It added complexity, weight, cost and potentially much bigger repair bills if it goes wrong with not a lot of obvious benefit really. Anyone who has an E85 knows it is a quiet, warm and comfortable environment inside the cabin when you want it to be.
TitanTim said:
I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion Tim. If my second generation model sells half what the first one did at roughly similar average selling prices and is in terminal decline every year from it's first full year onwards, I fail to see how that is getting it spot on. If they got their market spot on then they chose the wrong market in the first place. If that is getting it spot on I'd hate to see what you term as failure?
I think I agree with you on the M version though. It wouldn't have changed the perception of this model a whole lot and wouldn't have sold many either.
So I stick to my original point - wrong car for the wrong market and the sales don't lie.
I for one would never have considered aE85 just never appealed, first time I saw a e89 thought what a great looking car am now on my second started with a 23i which was great but I wanted a little more power and yes I have driven Porsche nice but to exspensive to buy and run paid 34k for my 35i brand spanking would have needed another 10k for a half decent Boxster and the sound of the Z4 is just great every time you give it the loud peddle can be a little lary on maximum revs but no matter the Porsche felt a bit sanitized to me not to say they are not good cars but it did not feel worth an extra 10k to me. 
am now on my second started with a 23i which was great but I wanted a little more power and yes I have driven Porsche nice but to exspensive to buy and run paid 34k for my 35i brand spanking would have needed another 10k for a half decent Boxster and the sound of the Z4 is just great every time you give it the loud peddle can be a little lary on maximum revs but no matter the Porsche felt a bit sanitized to me not to say they are not good cars but it did not feel worth an extra 10k to me.