You're mistaken. If you've followed the thread of discussion, you will have noticed this post from me:
It is merely an observation and a statement of fact saying how little mention is given to the progress car makers have made over the years.
Notice that I have not entered into any debate. At which point I get this response:
Now, at what point am I obligated to comply with this unreasonable request when there are literally terabytes of information freely accessible online on the improvements, innovations and changes - take them for better or worse - automakers (let's switch to BMW from here) introduce on a never-ending basis.
I'm not obliged to explain anything. This is a car forum - the constant evolution of BMW's products and what constitutes these changes over the years is common knowledge.
So any expectation that I'm to distil millions of man hours of progress into some kind of discreet itemised list is absurd and obnoxious.
This user gave the list of their own volition. I'm sure the contribution is appreciated. And, if we're being precise, the user gave a list of reasons why
they think the new 5 Series is worse. That's an opinion.
Now, am I to understand that because
@SaltkjelenBMW typed up a verbose list of simple and largely superficial examples of "cost-cutting" but I state just one but arguably more significant (and likely costly) development in the evolution of the 5 series that their list carries more weight, by your estimation?
Let's circle back to this subtle jibe:
Research, you say. I'm merely a moderator on this forum. I no longer have any motor industry association nor do I have access to key manufacturer information beyond what is available in the public domain. Moreover, I have no paid-subscription access to the real, meaty information that would not only enlighten our community but also lend a great deal more factual objectivity to such "debates".
In my 20 years of moderating on the forum, I have learnt a great deal of things and one of the most crucial is that there's no such thing as full disclosure about the most important goings-on in the automotive industry. The depth of detail that we crave, the fundamental substance (all of the facts) that makes up the full picture - this is never fully and publicly disclosed here. Especially not by the "industry insiders" that we - supposedly - have lurking in the wings.
We're simply not enabled in engaging on the true details that fully describe a core matter at hand such a "cost cutting" or more accurately "cost redistribution". The reason for this is glaringly obvious: manufacturers do not give away their trade secrets, intellectual property and commercially sensitive information.
Instead, we're left with discourse ranging from educated best guesses cobbled from pieces of info gathered in the public domain to the loose-lipped conjecture typified here by examples of "cost-cutting" without any real idea of the total lifecycle cost of one version of a product to another.
To be able to factually measure the extent of "cost cutting" then the first thing needed is the product cost. In all of its myriad facets - a near impossible undertaking.
But hey, sure thing, why don't I go and do some research. As if.
- Where to obtain the Bills of Material cost roll-up for a G60 5 Series
- How many lines of code difference is there between BMW's iDrive 7 and iDrive 8.5
- What are the differences in production line tooling costs for G30 vs G60
- And so on, ad nauseam
To even suggest one has a good grasp of the real and complete set of facts is a folly and a fools errand unless you work in this specific department in BMW.
But it's all good. If you to choose to lend more credence and value to a verbose but ultimately superficial list of little more than complaints-box entries, then by all means.
Or perhaps you do have access to such vital and enlightening information in which case you couldn't share it with us in any event for fear of breaching your NDA.
Either way, you'll add no value to this conversation other than to insinuate that I don't know how simple debate works. Your veiled insult is duly noted, lol.
What point are you making? These are the key elements of the supercilious instruction given to me:
So what of "modular platform and lots of drivetrain components likely shared"? Is economy of scale not an innovation? Is there not an improvement in quality (read reliability) as a result of volume? Someone's got a complaints-box list and this is your assessment? Phew, clearly I'm wasting my time here.
Again, until we come up with a complete cost comparison of a G30 to a G60 then this discussion is isolated to specific use cases only and is ultimately pointless.
In closing:
- Examples of cost-cutting are limited to specific instances and do not conclusively show an overall reduction of the cost of a product
- Manufacturers redistibute cost and investment based on a myriad of factors such as market forces, consumer needs, priorities, technology etc
- BMW employs thousands of people with the primary purpose of giving consumers the best possible balance of product improvement within the financial constraints imposed at a macro-economical level
TL;DR?
