[deilenberger]

Originally Posted by hoonpv

BMW isn't at fault here.

Companies that don't grow cannot sustain in capitalism, and to grow they need diverse products that appeals to different markets and wider range of customers.

It's like iPad; no one really need the damn thing but they sell 'em by the boatload, and that equals profit/power.

Every company that is publicly owned must please its shareholders by growth in profit.

Blame the society.

BMW isn't really "publicly" owned. The Quandt family owns the controlling stock, held in a trust so none of them can sell it.. They are who the board of BMW reports to. (Interesting family - sort of like the family in "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" - a lot of rather unsavory history if you dig a bit..)

I think your analysis falls apart if you consider companies like Ferrari, Rolex, Hasselblad, etc.. making a small number of models of a premium product. Last I heard they're still successful and haven't felt the need to grow huge. That bigger is better/more-successful idea was disproved by things like Ford/Jaguar, BMW-Rover, Daimler-Chrysler - all unmitigated disasters. I do see other companies falling prey to the same thinking though.. (A Lambo SUV? Bentley SUV? Gimme a break.. next thing you know Porsche will make an SUV.. )

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by deilenberger

Part of the problem I see is there is no economy of scale when you're producing speciality models in small numbers. While drivelines/running gear may be similar - the bodywork/interiors are each different. Ford/GM/Chrysler are prime examples of how badge/model engineering doesn't work out all that well (and they are all now profitable AFTER dumping the duplicate models that were stealing sales from their other models..)

Wonder when the 5-series coupe is gonna show up? Then they can slap some M-lipstick on these pigs and move'm outta the showroom..

First, agree with your OP.

Earlier this week, there was an "economies of scale" comment in one of BMW's statements, but that had to do with engines. Perhaps sharing a smattering of engine blocks among the plethora of models will contribute something toward lowering the average unit cost. What seems unlikely is that any benefits from that quarter will be sufficient to prevent BMW from incurring the negatives of diseconomies of scale thanks to its mushrooming lineup.

Minivans, electric cars, hydrogen cars, hybrids, twin and tri-turdbros, and whatever else can be built will be built as the current management has embarked on a massive effort to abandon its position as a premium car manufacturer with relatively affordable models in favor of a volume seller that offers all things to all mankind. We will soon be witnessing something that has typically involved one model per year, if even that, and that is the cancellation of multiple BMW models in a given year in order to issue another model to fill the void just as Detroit and Japan have done for years. Manufacturers that make something for everyone are ordinary.

[hoonpv]

Originally Posted by deilenberger

BMW isn't really "publicly" owned. The Quandt family owns the controlling stock, held in a trust so none of them can sell it.. They are who the board of BMW reports to. (Interesting family - sort of like the family in "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" - a lot of rather unsavory history if you dig a bit..)

I think your analysis falls apart if you consider companies like Ferrari, Rolex, Hasselblad, etc.. making a small number of models of a premium product. Last I heard they're still successful and haven't felt the need to grow huge. That bigger is better/more-successful idea was disproved by things like Ford/Jaguar, BMW-Rover, Daimler-Chrysler - all unmitigated disasters. I do see other companies falling prey to the same thinking though.. (A Lambo SUV? Bentley SUV? Gimme a break.. next thing you know Porsche will make an SUV.. )

You are undoubtedly correct in certain aspect of the company, but to call it "isn't really publicly owned" is outrageous. BMW Group is a publicly traded company with more than 50% of its shares owned by various investors and institutions.

In another words, Quandt does call the shots (because they are the largest shareholders), but they are nonetheless shareholders: Their networth is determined by the share price. Let's just say, one day, Quandt family axes all the useless models and tells investors we are going to sell cars for purists only. Do you think investors will react well? Investors will dump all their stocks driving down Quandt family's/BMW Group's networth as well.

With a waiting list of many many years, Ferrari-world is very nice indeed. But as you know, Ferrari is owned by Fiat, which *surprise* is a pubicly traded company also. Do you think Ferrari purists was pleased to hear the news of Ferrari hatchback FF? (AWD Ferrari?!?)

Like I said, ALL publicly traded companies in capitalistic market MUST grow. It's one of those fundamental aspect of capitalism and anyone who studied a least bit of Karl Marx would know.

Oh, and the last time I saw Rolex, they had 8 "collection" models and 9 new models for 2012 + a few more for women.

It's the same story for Mont Blanc, Louis Vuitton, Chanel.. you name it.

[deilenberger]

Last I checked the Quandts owned ~51%.. it's varied a bit through the years, but it's always been a controlling interest. And as noted - they DO call the shots. They were the people who fired a CEO who thought it was a good idea to purchase Rover..

And I know Ferrari is owned by Fiat, but it's also run pretty much independently from Fiat (who in turn is owned by the Italian government.)

And I believe Marxian economics fell out of favor a few years ago didn't it? Something about the fall of the Soviet Union?

I believe the Ferrari hatchback wasn't going to be a mass production car.. at the price there won't be a lot of them showing up in the supermarket parking lots like BMWs around me.

[RSRlover4life]

Its like I said before, the first thing Adam Mullaly did when he became CEO of Ford was to dump all the extras and focus on the core.

BMW will eventually have to do this as well, I promise you that.

X1, x4, x6, 3gt, 5gt and many others will be done with soon enough.

[deilenberger]

I agree. They've diluted the brand. My wife often comments "There are a lot of BMWs around here.." - and there are. We are in an affluent area, but a BMW is no longer "special" - there are 4 of them (besides mine) on my 10 house street. Only one of the other owners is an enthusiast.

When special goes away - paying a premium for a BMW will seem less desireable to people. BMW will sell less cars or have to charge less for them.

When people like me - who have owned a scad of BMWs start buying other vehicles - it should be a clue to BMW that they're not going to get me back by making yet another bloated turbo'd model. And now they're dumping buzzy turbo 4's in the real cars. Common. Chevy and Ford can do that for a lot less money.

[hoonpv]

Originally Posted by deilenberger

Last I checked the Quandts owned ~51%.. it's varied a bit through the years, but it's always been a controlling interest. And as noted - they DO call the shots. They were the people who fired a CEO who thought it was a good idea to purchase Rover..

And I know Ferrari is owned by Fiat, but it's also run pretty much independently from Fiat (who in turn is owned by the Italian government.)

And I believe Marxian economics fell out of favor a few years ago didn't it? Something about the fall of the Soviet Union?

I believe the Ferrari hatchback wasn't going to be a mass production car.. at the price there won't be a lot of them showing up in the supermarket parking lots like BMWs around me.

Course they call the shots. the point is not the fact that they have control in the company. It's a PUBLIC company with legitimate shareholders who own half of the company. They can sac CEOs for making bad decisions (bad for profit, bad for shareholders) but they cannot cater to certain group of customers by sacrificing growth/profit.

Do you honestly believe that, there's absolutely ZERO pressure from Fiat for Ferrari? Look at Lambo, they are making SUVs. And this happened what, like couple years since Audi bought 'em? Trust me, you will see more retarded cars from Ferrari in the future.

Publicly owned companies cannot just do what they want to do. It's like, I own half of my grocery shop, and 2 other people owning 25% each on my shop as well. Yeah I call the shot, because I am the single largest owner, but that doesn't change the fact that 2 other guys also own the same 50%.

And as far as Marx, it's a long story so I'm not gonna go there.

And NONE of the Ferrari are mass-produced. well, at least that's what they think you to believe.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I hate how some of the BMWs are stupid and irrelevant (At least to me that is). I will never buy X5M etc. But there's no point in losing brand royalty or declare them "changed" and ignore the brand completely. It's just the way it is. Buy the model you like. Both sides happy.

[EKaru]

Here are a couple renders of the upcoming rival to the CLS Shooting Brake...
The 6-series gran touring....
Gran Turismo
Gran Coupe
Gran Touring

[keca10]

nothing about the new 6 appeals to me. I like the 5 much more.

[///MATTY C]

Originally Posted by keca10

nothing about the new 6 appeals to me. I like the 5 much more.

The new 5 is really appealing IMO.