Entry level F30 320i heads to the US - Starting at $33,445

Originally Posted by donquixotesque

I would think that a loaded accord would have everything an entry 320i has for the most part.
.

The loaded Accord is going to have a lot more gadgets and creature comforts. Look it up. You will find that I am right.

Originally Posted by donquixotesque

We are on the BMW forum so obviously a bias is expected. But really, drive that Accord on Saturday and report back. I think you yourself will be surprised.

Just a disclaimer, I haven't driven an Accord in years. But recently I have had an opportunity to drive a couple of new model full sized sedans as rentals, like the Malibu and I have to say I was impressed. Of course they were no BMWs but they didn't cost as much either. I suspect the differences between a high end Accord and entry level 320i are diminishing.

Plenty of people here have bias or are BMW fanbois, I am not one of them. I buy 10-15 cars a year(friends, family, coworkers) of all brands. I also have a background in car design and overall product development. Most all of my cars were FWD and were often modified and auto-x'd.

So I hold to my statements. My in laws just replaced a last gen Accord with a loaded $33k Optima. I like what I am hearing about the new Accord. Its structure and weight balance is factual, not an opinion. It will drive well, but some inherent qualities in it's design and structure cannot be overcome. To my knowledge there has never been a FWD car with 50/50 balance.

I also put 2k miles on a new '13 Altima this week. I am very up to date on what is out there in the segment.

Originally Posted by krash

The loaded Accord is going to have a lot more gadgets and creature comforts. Look it up. You will find that I am right.

Yep. A loaded Accord (EX-L w/Nav), or any loaded Honda will have way more features than even a base model 335i. For example, Bluetooth audio streaming, leather, Navigation, heated seats, cameras, etc.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

It will drive well, but some inherent qualities in it's design and structure cannot be overcome. To my knowledge there has never been a FWD car with 50/50 balance.
.

Do you really want a 50/50 balance in a FWD? Part of the advantages of FWD is in bad winter weather where there's more weight over the front drive wheels to give you more traction in the snow.

FWD is also better to reduce the size of the hump, creating more interior space.

My feeling is that if you have RWD, you should have 50/50 balance. The Lexus IS250 is terrible in that it is about 60/40 or 63/37 yet has RWD.

One can have a FWD that handles well, even better than a RWD car. However, the best RWD car will handle better than FWD in good weather. Since many RWD cars are not contenders for the best RWD, I think there's a big place in the market for FWD. There's a much smaller role for RWD, which is filled with cars like BMWs. The ordinary cars and minivans on the road are better as FWD. Likewise, if one skims on tires, just give up a BMW unless one is buying it merely for status.

Originally Posted by SamS

Yep. A loaded Accord (EX-L w/Nav), or any loaded Honda will have way more features than even a base model 335i. For example, Bluetooth audio streaming, leather, Navigation, heated seats, cameras, etc.

Yes, exactly. That's why it's sort of fallacious to say a 320 is the same price as a Honda Accord. If you load 'em up with identical features, the 320 will be $40,000+ and much more expensive than an Accord.

Originally Posted by BMW220i

Do you really want a 50/50 balance in a FWD? Part of the advantages of FWD is in bad winter weather where there's more weight over the front drive wheels to give you more traction in the snow.

FWD is also better to reduce the size of the hump, creating more interior space.

My feeling is that if you have RWD, you should have 50/50 balance. The Lexus IS250 is terrible in that it is about 60/40 or 63/37 yet has RWD.

One can have a FWD that handles well, even better than a RWD car. However, the best RWD car will handle better than FWD in good weather. Since many RWD cars are not contenders for the best RWD, I think there's a big place in the market for FWD. There's a much smaller role for RWD, which is filled with cars like BMWs. The ordinary cars and minivans on the road are better as FWD. Likewise, if one skims on tires, just give up a BMW unless one is buying it merely for status.

It was a statement without qualification. The 50/50 applied to FWD would offer some benefit but at the expense of others. I never said FWD does not have it's place.

My Saabs were amazing in winter, especially with snow tires.

So much of this debate is by people who not only do not drive cars towards their capabilities but also do not drive enough cars of varying configuration.

Magazine reviews and numbers are great and all. But driving the new Altima for ten minutes communicates to much as to the feel, something that the BMW has that is hard go write about.

I had the same debate with a GM head when I was saying how good the new Boxster is when he automatically stated the new Vette would be better. I explained the light weight inherent in the Boxster and purity in controls of steering, brakes, handling, are hard to replicate in the heavier C7 no matter how much faster it may be. I told him to drive both cars. That is what it comes down to. Drive 'em. The rest is just BS.

Originally Posted by krash

Yes, exactly. That's why it's sort of fallacios to say a 320 is the same price as a Honda Accord. If you load 'em up with identical features, the 320 will be $40,000+ and much more expensive than an Accord.

I have owned several Hondas (just sold my Accord, wife has '12 CR-V loaded), and I played with the Accord and 320i configurators. There is a basically a $10K premium for the BMW, when you spec them out with similar options. I can't see many non-enthusiasts picking the 320i, and to most people, they will drive the same.

Originally Posted by SamS

I have owned several Hondas (just sold my Accord, wife has '12 CR-V loaded), and I played with the Accord and 320i configurators. There is a basically a $10K premium for the BMW, when you spec them out with similar options. I can't see many non-enthusiasts picking the 320i, and to most people, they will drive the same.

I can't say if the 320i will drive very different than the Accord V6, but I drove one Accord V6 lately, it was very different than my E90 328i. The FWD, CVT, the brake and steering feel...all different.

Basically you don't really want to push the Accord V6 close to its limit, it will not make you feel very good. Most mainstream family sedans are not designed to encourage you to push it to the limit, even when they have the more powerful engines.

The only benefit of a more powerful engine in those cars, is so you can load the car full of passengers and junk, still drive on the passing lane up the hill.

Originally Posted by donquixotesque

I think you meant it as an insult. But I'll take it as a compliment.

For decades, BMW has been considered a premium car, at least here in the United States. Now with $30K options being introduced, that in my opinion is starting to dilute the brand. You can probably spec out an Accord now for $30.

And I don't like the fact that my $40K 328i now looks pretty much like a $30K 320i. That in my mind reduces it's exclusiveness.

I didn't mind the 1-series so much because it had different body style to distinguish it.

Will have to seriously consider a 4-series when it is time to buy a new car.

I know many will disagree with this, but many more will agree too.

Sorry, I did not mean it as an insult. To clarify, I thought you were looking at the 320i from an US centric point of view meaning ignorance of the various European models. Otherwise, there is very little exclusivity to owing a 3 series in the US. BMW sells 100,000/year here.

By the way, a top of the line Accord is now about $34K!

I'm not sure of BMW's strategy with the 320i other than the cost of the 328 has risen very quickly as of late. An F30 is probably out of my budget now. My lightly optioned 2011 E90 with Value Package, leather, heated seats, metallic paint and rear shades retailed for about $36,500.00. A comparably equipped F30 admittedly with more std features is about $40K. It has moved upscale, thus the more affordable 320i.

Originally Posted by BMW220i

My feeling is that if you have RWD, you should have 50/50 balance. The Lexus IS250 is terrible in that it is about 60/40 or 63/37 yet has RWD.

Where did you get that data? According to http://autos.yahoo.com/lexus/is/2011...fications.html, it's 52/48.

Originally Posted by dtc100

I can't say if the 320i will drive very different than the Accord V6, but I drove one Accord V6 lately, it was very different than my E90 328i. The FWD, CVT, the brake and steering feel...all different.

Basically you don't really want to push the Accord V6 close to its limit, it will not make you feel very good. Most mainstream family sedans are not designed to encourage you to push it to the limit, even when they have the more powerful engines.

The only benefit of a more powerful engine in those cars, is so you can load the car full of passengers and junk, still drive on the passing lane up the hill.

You are describing differences that the majority of buyers will not notice or feel during their average commute to work or running errands. Which is where the average person spends most of their time.

Originally Posted by BMW220i

Do you really want a 50/50 balance in a FWD? Part of the advantages of FWD is in bad winter weather where there's more weight over the front drive wheels to give you more traction in the snow.

FWD is also better to reduce the size of the hump, creating more interior space.

My feeling is that if you have RWD, you should have 50/50 balance. The Lexus IS250 is terrible in that it is about 60/40 or 63/37 yet has RWD.

One can have a FWD that handles well, even better than a RWD car. However, the best RWD car will handle better than FWD in good weather. Since many RWD cars are not contenders for the best RWD, I think there's a big place in the market for FWD. There's a much smaller role for RWD, which is filled with cars like BMWs. The ordinary cars and minivans on the road are better as FWD. Likewise, if one skims on tires, just give up a BMW unless one is buying it merely for status.

Not sure where you are getting your info but the IS250 has a 52/48% weight distribution.

(Oops, Mr Clueless beat me to it.)

Originally Posted by SamS

You are describing differences that the majority of buyers will not notice or feel during their average commute to work or running errands. Which is where the average person spends most of their time.

Which is why the majority buys Accord or Camry. But if some of them are curious to know what is the difference between a 3 series (other than the badge) and an Accord, then they need to be told the difference.

They should also know that with each new generation, the 3 series caters more for the majority of the drivers too.

I am amazed that we still debating the introduction of 320 will dilute BMW brand

comparing BMW to Honda or other cars is not the point. I owned many hondas and still like them.

the e90 325 when introduced in 2006 was around $30K, the f30 328 introduced last year around $36K. A $6k increase can't be attributed to inflation or increase in the average household income. The f30 328i moved upscale and there is a need to fill in the gap below the new 328 with a 320 to compete with the likes of MB, Audi, Lexus, etc..

So, 320i price (basic configuration) is more than e90 325 (basic) few years ago.

Originally Posted by y789

I am amazed that we still debating the introduction of 320 will dilute BMW brand

comparing BMW to Honda or other cars is not the point. I owned many hondas and still like them.

the e90 325 when introduced in 2006 was around $30K, the f30 328 introduced last year around $36K. A $6k increase can't be attributed to inflation or increase in the average household income. The f30 328i moved upscale and there is a need to fill in the gap below the new 328 with a 320 to compete with the likes of MB, Audi, Lexus, etc..

So, 320i price (basic configuration) is more than e90 325 (basic) few years ago.

the 328i is quite a bit more well equipped than a 2006 325i.

not to mention the 2007 328i was $2000 more than a 325i just for the model number change.

i mean a 325i came with 16" rims. 20% cost increase in 7 years. which if you compound 2.5% seems like its not that unreasonable especially considering the 3 became bigger, the 1 series came out (which moved the 3 slightly up market) etc.

Originally Posted by y789

I am amazed that we still debating the introduction of 320 will dilute BMW brand

comparing BMW to Honda or other cars is not the point. I owned many hondas and still like them.

the e90 325 when introduced in 2006 was around $30K, the f30 328 introduced last year around $36K. A $6k increase can't be attributed to inflation or increase in the average household income. The f30 328i moved upscale and there is a need to fill in the gap below the new 328 with a 320 to compete with the likes of MB, Audi, Lexus, etc..

So, 320i price (basic configuration) is more than e90 325 (basic) few years ago.

According to a CPI inflation calculator I found online, inflation may be more of a factor than you might expect.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc....006&year2=2012

$30,000 in 2006
Has the same buying power as:
$34,165.77 in 2012

Still, I agree with your point about filling the gap below the 328 and competing with MB, Audi, etc.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

I think I read somewhere smaller brakes, but that may be in other countries. I also see the exhaust is different.

There is all the stuff that was added to the 328i going from 2012 to 2013. I don't think any of it is standard on the 320.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

I also feel like good luck finding one of those A4 FWDs on a dealer lot. There is less money to be made on such a car. Sure, you can order one lol. Audi spends too much time drilling Quattro into your brain to get people excited about a FWD A4.

There are plenty of CVTs in Southern Cal. Some dealer stock more of them than quattros.

Originally Posted by mynycbimmer

So much for the 3 series being a status symbol, any schmuck can now drop the daily Starbucks latte and lease one of these instead.

My awareness of the 318 seems to betray my age (getting close to the median BMW owner). Those four bangers were quite popular.

The 318ti was a different story. I actually know two acquaintances who got them (with leather, sunroof, etc., not strippers). But a couple of girls commented how it looked like the back was chopped off and it was the car for people who could afford only "half a BMW." So cruel

Originally Posted by MMME30W

Here in Atlanta BMWs are a dime a dozen. They aint exactly a status symbol.

In some markets they are status symbols. In others, they are bought merely to send the message that the owners are not riffraff.

Originally Posted by krash

If you find the 320 to be so shocking, just wait until the 340 replaces the 335 in a couple months...

LOL!

My guess is that starting with 2014, we might have the following lineup: 320, 330, and 340.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

My awareness of the 318 seems to betray my age (getting close to the median BMW owner). Those four bangers were quite popular.

The 318ti was a different story. I actually know two acquaintances who got them (with leather, sunroof, etc., not strippers). But a couple of girls commented how it looked like the back was chopped off and it was the car for people who could afford only "half a BMW." So cruel

Maybe why BMW has not brought the US the hatchbacks. At least the 320i is still a "whole BMW."

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

There are plenty of CVTs in Southern Cal. Some dealer stock more of them than quattros.

definitely way more.

i bought my audi at the start of 2010. was living in norcal at the time. wanted a sport package quatro with premium plus. looked in socal, looked in norcal. very very hard to find, finally found one by some stroke of luck.

i guess the socal people wanted the sports package rims and looks, and didnt want to pay for awd. and the norcal people would only pay for awd. and premium plus wasnt super common either.

it was damn near impossible to find a quattro at all in socal. let alone with sport pack. i mean just like the 320i vs 328i, well quattro is just $2500 for something that most audi owners won't even use just like $2500 for that extra 60hp.

i really wanted quattro, i mean its not an audi without quattro and it was my first german car had to do it right. cousin bought same car but no quattro same options. he absolutely doesnt care and knew nothing about cars or how it drove and was coming from a 10 year old accord. its a "nice car" he didnt even know how to use the computer to check the oil, to see if his flawed engine was burning any oil (it was just like mine was. good riddance to that piece of crap, never buying a VW product again)

Originally Posted by donquixotesque

If you think ACCORD is cheap. Then so is the 320i. Both can be configured for the same price.
.

Yes, but obviously get very different things for your money. Btwy, the new 4-banger Accord supposedly does 0-60mph in the low to mid six seconds.

Originally Posted by krash

The loaded Accord is going to have a lot more gadgets and creature comforts. Look it up. You will find that I am right.

Supposedly all trims now come with a backup camera and bluetooth.