By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Exactly. Touting low depreciation rates on certain expensive vehicles as if that's somehow an inherent advantage over lower-priced vehicles is absurd.
When it comes to comparing resale values and depreciation among vehicles, the only fact that matters is the dollar loss. The percentage is utterly irrelevant.
I would propose the percentage is very relevant as it has a big effect on lease values. However, having said that I would rather lose 90% of the value on a 15k car than 20% of the value on a 100k car. But that's not how people play the game. If they did, you wouldn't be able to give away any car over $15K. So while you look at absolute dollar amounts, many people do not. Saying it another way, what holds the value better and what would you be in the market for? If I could afford it the 100K vehicle - 20%. Not the $15K vehicle minus 90%.
I've been a CPA and tax specialist since the '70s, and no one has ever shown to my satisfaction how leasing a vehicle rather than buying makes any sense at all except for some (and even then, not all) business requirements.
But that's not how people play the game. If they did, you wouldn't be able to give away any car over $15K.
'Game' is exactly the right word. Many of the arguments advanced about the alleged advantages of buying (or, even worse, leasing) these ultra-expensive vehicles on the basis that they "hold their value better" are games, nothing less.
-Frank P.
Please let this become true. A return to some semblance of common sense would be long overdue.
My take is that you figure what features you really need and want. Then compare that list against the 3 vehicles and how they stack up. Then test drive and figure out if you agree with your on-paper comparison.
1) I would imagine that the x3 and the fx35 have more advanced traction control/skid recovery features as well better airbag protection (curtains, side, rear-side) but dont quote me on that.
2) Driveability I think the new xdrive system would be more advanced than the subie AWD or the infiniti AWD. I drove a subie forrester XS and managed to overwhelm the AWD system on a manual tranny without being a bonehead. What worried me is that there was no skid control feature. I think this is a big deal if you live in bad weather climates.
3) Fun to drive - there is something special to BMW about roadfeel/driver feedback. The general sentiment is that BMW makes really nice suspension setups (dont know about x3 though).
4) Cost to own - BMW will kill you on onwership costs. They are expensive to maintain and insure. But they are very rewarding cars--fun to drive. I actually don't like the snob factor of having one. Some people like to key what they can't afford so it is a liability. Dont know about the others.
I'm glad you put advantage in quotes, calling into question whether it's an advantage or, as I would contend, a serious disadvantage. Living beyond one's means (whether via leasing or via debt) is not the path to wealth accumulation or financial security.
Other threads here contain my multiple reviews (glowing praise, actually) about how my 5-speed XT, still running on the OEM all-season Geolanders, got me up and down Portland's many steep hills during our 10"+ snowfalls (later crusted with frozen rain) several weeks ago. I would put my XT up against an FX or X3 under the same circumstances, and I'd bet the $24K Forester XT would do as well as the much-costlier others. Maybe better.
The BMW is 100% RWD until it senses a need to engage the front wheels. BMW's argument is RWD is more satisfying to most (debatable), and it uses less fuel (perhaps). However, there's no way an on-demand AWD system will be as fast as a full-time AWD system.
Bob
Not so with the X3. I also think that's the case case with the FX35 too; I think that's also an on-demand AWD.
Bob
My sister has an '03 A4 Avant with Quattro, and she had good results during our snowstorms. Probably not as good as mine, but good enough.
3) if you did mess up, does your XT have VSC/skid recovery? The XS did not
How on earth did the human race manage to get by all these years without skid recovery?
Answer: Conservative, defensive driving, coupled with driver skill that comes from practice and experience. Technology for technology's sake doesn't interest me.
Unless I read BMWs description in the X3 brochure incorrectly, xdrive can vary the amount of power between the front and rear axles as well as direct 50% torque to one wheel. Since it can vary power between the front and back, as opposed to switch the back off and the front on, I am concluding both axles can be engaged at the same time.
"Answer: Conservative, defensive driving, coupled with driver skill that comes from practice and experience. Technology for technology's sake doesn't interest me."
Traction control and EDB provides another measure of safety. I survived without ABS and airbags for many years by careful application of the brakes in emergency situtations and avoidance of accidents. I wouldn't be caught without those now. DSC is another one of the must haves on all future vehicles. Technology for technologies sake doesn't interest me, but when it can save my life or vehicle I'm interested.
Just because a system is reactive doesn't mean it can't send power to both axles at once (in fact that's the norm). The difference with the XT's full-time system is that it starts out with a 50/50 power distribution and then varies the split front-to-back and side-to-side depending on traction. The X-3 on the other hand, sounds like is starts out with all the power going to the rear wheels and only sends power to the front if it detects slippage.
-Frank P.
According to the description, one example of front/rear application, is it will senses when the car is in a turn and provide torque to the front axle as well as the back axle. According to the description, it seems to react to the environment and detect when application of torque to the front will help the situation to the positive. It starts out in 4 wheel mode, switches to 2/4 wheel mode as conditions warrant, and after 112(?) switch to 2 wheel mode.
It would be nice however, to electronically disable it, which I don't believe you can do.
I think both AWD systems are reactive to some degree. The difference is that Subaru and Audi start off in all conditions with power going to both front and rear (50/50 split on the MT) and then react as the conditions change. The real-time, or on-demand, systems start with power going only to the front (Honda for example) or the rear (BMW) and react as conditions warrent.
Zman
Bob
A special highlight of the BMW X3 is the all-new xDrive intelligent all-wheel-drive system, which sets new standards in agility for all-wheel-drive vehicles. BMW's xDrive allows infinitely adjustable and fully variable distribution of torque front-to-rear. The system immediately recognizes any need for a change in power distribution and responds very quickly when driving on road, often before the wheels begin to lose their grip. As a result, the X3 responds with cat-like reflexes, but at the same time is able to feed optimum drive forces to the respective axle at any time when cornering, significantly minimizing both understeer and oversteer in the process.
It says: often before the wheels begin to lose their grip, which means not always before losing grip, which means on-demand AWD.
Bob
True Cost to Own
Well, we don't have numbers for the BMW yet :-(. Guess you could extrapolate from the X5 in the meantime until the X3 TCO goes live.
Steve, Host
True. However, the depth of Portland snow accumulations (and frequency) varies quite a bit with altitude. She lives in lower, nearly-flat terrain, so her A4 is very adequate. I'm in the westside hills, with very challenging terrain starting right at the end of my driveway. I'm certain that her car wouldn't have taken me where the XT did this winter. Also, she's retired and has no pressing need to get out and around in bad weather.
BMWs are for people with no self esteem and they are not reliable and they are overpriced, Subaru is girlish, for thousands less do yourself a favour and buy a CR-V. Reliable and real time 4x4 gives you real offroad ability unlike these fake suvs.
tidester, host
Insurance for the Forester XT is significantly lower than either. Yet another benefit of ownership.
It depends, I have a friend who has a Subie and I'm paying less than him. Of course, insurance is complicated in my state and even if you own both a Subie and a BMW the Subie could be more. However, no doubt about it, the BMW will cost more to fix in an accident, as a Subie will cost more to fix than a Hyundai elantra.
And the reason the luxury car companies can afford to build them in is because their buyers are willing to pay a premium for the latest technologies (AKA "early adopters"). This is indeed good news because the luxury car buyers foot the majority of the research bill which allows the good technologies to work their way down into the mainstream vehicles at a fraction of the original cost. Conversely, expensive gimmicks that bomb in the luxury car marketplace are weeded out before they reach the larger market.
-Frank P.
I'm not sure I know the answer to your question. I just believe that if *some* power is sent to all the wheels all the time (by default), that's better than having all the power sent to either the front or the rear wheels (by default). In the real world I'm sure both systems work fine. I just think, when-push-comes-to-shove, the full-time system has an edge over the on-demand system.
Bob
-Frank P.
Exactly. That's what differentiates a luxury car from a non-luxury car. Gimmicky items, such as ABS, Airbags, HID etc, were all found on luxury cars first. It is a given that mass produced items have a lower per unit cost. Luxury buyers expect these items in their cars. Idrive is a gread concept, active steering is a great concept. I don't mind having it five years before you and paying for it.
So anyone having a different perspective than yours is unwise?
Why buy a big house, it can burn down in a fire?
That's what insurance is for. Some people like/can afford high end stuff and don't care if it gets ruined, dinged, dented or stolen. They just replace it. Whether you can afford a 911, or 100 911s or .25 911 you vote with your dollars.
So the Subaru gets straight As. Can't do any better than that...heck even the bumpers get a "Good" score in the IIHS bumper basher tests, so a fender bender won't hurt your wallet.
I'm not sure if the others have been tested but at best they'll tie the Subie, and I seriously doubt the bumpers on any luxury SUV will match the Forester's.
-juice
Wow. I go away for the weekend after voicing my opinion in the X3 thread that the XT belongs in the comparo and I come back to this! Nice discussion here. :-)
It appears that I wasn't alone in the fact that I could have spent a lot more money but just didn't see the need. Enough with the comments like "If I only had 28k I'd consider the Subie...". Its the new age of cross-shopping. I like the FX and X3 but lesser performance combined with more snob appeal lessen the attraction for me. The 2004 S4 Avant would have been very attractive (despite the snob appeal) had it been high-30s to low-40s.
Oh yeah...I spent the weekend up in the Truckee/Tahoe area. The XT didn't even notice long steep hills at the high altitude even with a car fully loaded with big guys who overly stuffed themselves at the buffet...must be the fact that turbos absolutely rule up there...
overtime
Missed the point, you can get a Hyundai Santa-Fe and be content. The question is one of entry level luxury. Justifying the Subie over the X3 on the basis of crash-tests, low-tech equipment, and low price is like justifying a two inch tv over a huge plasma TV because it will probably last longer and it's portable. Also justifying the 14 mph some of the magazines reported with the turbo is laughable.
You can pass me anytime, anywhere, I'll even move over for you and make you feel good you have a car that's faster than mine.
The analogy of 2inch TV v. plasma is off the mark. Its more like the X3/FX is a 13" plasma TV (high tech stuff!) and the XT is a solid HD-ready digital 32" direct view set. Less "gee-whiz" but more "bang-for-buck". :-)
overtime
kdshapiro: who says a car is better just because it costs more? Obviously it'll depend upon your priorities. To some there would just be more gadgets to distract you or break.
Point is, different buyers use different criteria, and yes, in some way the Santa Fe would win over the Bimmer - ride, for instance. Size and price, too. What matters to you?
-juice
Exactly. Who says a car is better because it cost less. Depends on your priorities. Actually I'm not sure gadgets like active steering will break, but you never know. But then again the turbo could go.
If you dislike money, I'd be glad to give you my address so you can send me yours.
I sat in an X3 at NAIAS. Packaging is a lot better than the X5, which of course isn't saying much. It's only not as wide, besides that it actually seemed roomier than its bigger brother.
FWIW, the Forester XT comes very well equipped, I'm sure some of these things will be extra-cost options on the Bimmer:
* heated seats
* heated mirrors
* front wiper de-icers
* rear wiper de-icer
* in-dash 6CD changer
-juice
I do, unless the costlier alternative provides clearly superior value for the dollar. For any significant purchase I plan to make, I begin by evaluating the least-costly item that might meet my requirements. I then work up the price scale, comparing advantages gained (if any) versus the additional outlay. I stop when I find the item that meets all of my requirements at the lowest total cost of ownership, which includes operating and upkeep costs, repairs, insurance, the entire gamut. Paying more than the lowest price for an acceptable item would be pointless.
The presence or absence of snob appeal, "class", costlier parts that don't translate to longer service life, allegedly better depreciation rates(but only when expressed in misleading percentages, not in dollars), and tech for tech's sake all have zero value and add nothing of any importance to me.
Not to those who want their possessions to impress others.
-juice
"I do, unless the costlier alternative provides clearly superior value for the dollar."
"Not to those who want their possessions to impress others."
Nice quotes. I think we can all agree on the following:
1. You cannot presume I have the same value class of you. You cannot presume everyone is out to save 10 grand for an apparent better deal. Otherwise the streets would be filled with cheap Hyundais. But it's not so, because in my neck of the woods there are more S500s than Civics.
2. You cannot presume I believe cheaper is better. Cheaper is cheaper, not better. Generally get what you pay for, whether you think it hold any value to you.
3.Are we discussing the attributes of the car or the attributes of the car buyer? Seems like the attributes of the car buyer.
4. As BMW sells boat loads of cars with little intrinsic value, there must be some appeal that the collective Subie mind is missing.