Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB
Correct- pricing reflects what people are willing to pay.
Porsche makes a "Club Sport" or "RS America" by removing a bunch of equipment. It costs them less, and back in the late 80s/ early 90s they also charged less. Unfortunately they found that it pissed buyers of the regular version off: they paid more for a lower performance car. More comfortable, more practical, etc, but slower. So rather than piss off the heart of their market, Porsche now simply charges more for the lightweight versions. Ditto engines- they use an identical motor in their 311 hp Boxster S as they do in the 345 hp Carrera, they simply change the software to prevent the e-throttle from fully opening in the Boxster.
Some would say they are fleecing the customer, charging hundreds of dollars to unlock each extra hp. But as long as consumers insists on using their car's speed as a measure of their manhood, and tying what they'll pay to that measurement, they basically have no choice.
|
I just can't find any sense in your whole premise.
You are saying that because we the consumers want better-performing cars, the manufacturers won't build them? Or at least not without charging a premium for the extra performance.
So your suggestion would be to tell the manufacturers "We collectively don't care about performance and we're not going to pay for it", and then magically they will fall for the ruse and build cars that perform better but at lower prices because they believe we won't buy them otherwise?
First, that's a ludicrous notion.
Second, it has nothing to do with the premise of the original question.
Now, the REAL problem, which I think is what you are trying to get at, but phrasing it poorly, is that the M3 is (was) a legendary car. The current M3 is not the M3 of legend (if for no other reason than the fact that it is a full-sized performance sedan now), hence the whole notion of the "spiritual successor". To some (and possibly to BMW as well), they want to make the M4 the continuation of that lineage. My point, and at least one other poster picked up on it without needing spoonfeeding, is that the M2,
not the M4 should inherit that mantle.
I believe it will. And yes, the M4 may "outperform" the M2, but likely only in the same way that the M5 "outperforms" the M4: bigger HP, but not as nimble, nor as quick, nor anywhere near as fun.
Now, it is possible that my premise will not come to pass, if BMW truly forces the issue and doesn't let the M2 live up to its potential just so it won't eat into M4 sales, but we can only hope that they will let the M2 live up to its potential (which it totally can with an N55 if they do the weight reduction and suspension right) and let each speak for themselves without trying to artificially rig the market.
So back to the original premise: If BMW does the M2 right, it will be the true successor to the M3 concept of old in ways that the oversized (but admittedly sexy) M4 cannot.