Hello everyone,It was very interesting to read your responses to my previous posting regarding 97 Q45 vs. 97 Audi A8. What do you think about 97Q45 vs. 97 BMW 750IL? And how would you compare all three cars?
Thanks, Viktor
97 Q45 vs. 97 BMW 750 IL
if i were a saudi oil barron i would definitely go with the 750iL protection variant with bullet proof glass, kevlar and steel armour.
750s are too damn heavy...got to go with the Q, better suited for civilian use.
but if there are .50 caliber bullets involved, all bets are off.
The BMW does have a better overall build quality going for it.
750s are too damn heavy...got to go with the Q, better suited for civilian use.
but if there are .50 caliber bullets involved, all bets are off.
The BMW does have a better overall build quality going for it.
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
BMW 7$0iL
Your pocket book will attest to this the first time you have to do anything major (like change the spark plugs).Eswift wrote:The BMW does have a better overall build quality going for it.
Why do you think the value of these goes down faster than the Iraqi navy? It makes the Q look like an investment.
All BMW 12 cylindder engines were infamous for frequent and very very expesnisve gasket leaks.Also pre mature cam wear I am unsure which model year these problems were fixed (if ever).
If you go on the BMW forums you will get an earful about that.This question has come up beforre because the kind of folks that like Q's are also liely to like 750's.
Its a better looking macheen but that's all thats in its favor.
There was a guy on a BMW forum who spent $15,200 (fifteen thousand) in 2 years on maintenance and wasnt done yet and hadn't even addressed the cams.
There are a couple of lemon sites deidcated to this car.
I know its kinda sad to hear this, about the 750, I remember eagerly reading gushing reviews on it, when it was new.
But it'll make a first gen Q, look like a Civic when it come to cost of ownership.(and a 97 is of course less to maintain than a first gen)
The cost of ownership/reliability of a older 750i may possibly be worse than jaguar in its bad old days.
Fred...
If you go on the BMW forums you will get an earful about that.This question has come up beforre because the kind of folks that like Q's are also liely to like 750's.
Its a better looking macheen but that's all thats in its favor.
There was a guy on a BMW forum who spent $15,200 (fifteen thousand) in 2 years on maintenance and wasnt done yet and hadn't even addressed the cams.
There are a couple of lemon sites deidcated to this car.
I know its kinda sad to hear this, about the 750, I remember eagerly reading gushing reviews on it, when it was new.
But it'll make a first gen Q, look like a Civic when it come to cost of ownership.(and a 97 is of course less to maintain than a first gen)
The cost of ownership/reliability of a older 750i may possibly be worse than jaguar in its bad old days.
Fred...
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
For $25-$28k a used 12 cylinder BMW 6 year old 750il is a deal assumming you can stand the maintenance and repairs.
But unfair to compare a car which sold new for $34,000 MORE than the average 97Q...........almost $54,000 in depreciation means hold on for $12,000 in repairs soon [after 100k]......the transmission will set you back $6,000 alone.
Edmunds says year 5 m&r will be $3300 on a new 745 V8 so a 6 year old V12 would be $4,500 or so.
My guess is about 23 cents per mile MORE to drive a used 750il for 50,000 miles............$11,500 around $3,500-$4,000 more per year than a 97Q.
Based on a new ultra premium package Q and a 745 there is a 13 cent per mile difference favoring the Q.
What you really want is a 98 [97 is a dog] LS400 if you can't play with the big boys........better tires and shocks/bar will make it out handle the 750 due to lighter weight.........you should be able to find a nice one for under $25,000 but then again that's $12,000 more than a 97Q brings currently.
But unfair to compare a car which sold new for $34,000 MORE than the average 97Q...........almost $54,000 in depreciation means hold on for $12,000 in repairs soon [after 100k]......the transmission will set you back $6,000 alone.
Edmunds says year 5 m&r will be $3300 on a new 745 V8 so a 6 year old V12 would be $4,500 or so.
My guess is about 23 cents per mile MORE to drive a used 750il for 50,000 miles............$11,500 around $3,500-$4,000 more per year than a 97Q.
Based on a new ultra premium package Q and a 745 there is a 13 cent per mile difference favoring the Q.
What you really want is a 98 [97 is a dog] LS400 if you can't play with the big boys........better tires and shocks/bar will make it out handle the 750 due to lighter weight.........you should be able to find a nice one for under $25,000 but then again that's $12,000 more than a 97Q brings currently.
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Reality strikes again!
Thank you Fred and Dennis for the splash of reality. Exactly why I no longer pine after a 7 series BMW, Audi A8, nor a MB S series.
People desiring these cars should realize they have been brainwashed like the masses and the rappers(good clue there). A little research on the web, like Fred and Dennis have done, will quickly dispel these illusions for those capable of critical thinking. The rest are following the other lemmings.
People desiring these cars should realize they have been brainwashed like the masses and the rappers(good clue there). A little research on the web, like Fred and Dennis have done, will quickly dispel these illusions for those capable of critical thinking. The rest are following the other lemmings.
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Heck, the last 12.5 years of 90Q ownership cost a little over $103,000 in total but the gasoline was only $18,000............$8250 per year is cheap to drive a luxosport car and the absolute worst year for maintenance and repairs was from roughly [during the 120,000-150,000 miles period] and that was $7,000.........during 2003 if all goes as planned the 1990 will cost less than $5200 to drive 15,000 [from 242k to 257k] miles.....34 cents per mile toal cost [asssuming $3,000 in M&R] vs 98 cents per mile for a new Q [according to Edmunds].
If I had traded every 4-5 years and just stayed with Q brand it would have cost me almost double assumming I bought a new 95 and a new 2000......... a blended 75 cents per mile.
If I had traded every 4-5 years and just stayed with Q brand it would have cost me almost double assumming I bought a new 95 and a new 2000......... a blended 75 cents per mile.
Having a group of BMWs and also a Q45, I've been asked to compare them many times, so here's my best shot:
Compared to the (1997 e39) 540i, the (1994) Q is bigger and softer. The interior is slightly better, maybe a better grade of leather or something. There is slightly more room in the Q, especially for the front occupants. The rear is about equal.
The Q is definitely quieter and has fewer rattles. In high speed travel neither have much wind noise. The Q is more comfortable over rough roads. However the 540 is much faster through the bends and has more steering feedback. However the Q's steering is not bad. The Q does not have quite the directional stability at speed.
The Q brakes are great and comparable to the 540. The Q engine is equal to the V-8 in the 540 in smoothness and power. However, the transmission in the Q seems to shift too early and to resist downshifts when I would like to see them. As a four speed it also seems to be missing just the "right" gear at times. The trans I think hurts the sporting nature of the Q. The 540 is a 6speed and there is no comparison in that it feels much faster in the middle gears.
The Q trunk is too small and the 540, a smaller car, has a bigger trunk. Also the Q trunk has these hinges that impinge on the cargo area. The sound system in both cars is excellent. The air conditioner and heater controls are also excellent in both cars. The Q is much cheaper for an equivalent year and mileage, compared to a 7 series or even a 5 series BMW. My repair costs have been much higher for the Q; however that may just be the luck of the draw for these individual cars.
I don't have a 7 series,only a coupla fivers, so I can't answer the 750 question directly, except to say that the 750 (as opposed to the 740i and iL ) are not hot used items, probably because of the complexity of the V12 and its cost to maintain. However the 740i and 740iL are very good by reputation, and in a few drives in these I thought the transmission (auto) was much more responsive than the Q's, but that most of the other remarks for the 540 above still applied.
Compared to the (1997 e39) 540i, the (1994) Q is bigger and softer. The interior is slightly better, maybe a better grade of leather or something. There is slightly more room in the Q, especially for the front occupants. The rear is about equal.
The Q is definitely quieter and has fewer rattles. In high speed travel neither have much wind noise. The Q is more comfortable over rough roads. However the 540 is much faster through the bends and has more steering feedback. However the Q's steering is not bad. The Q does not have quite the directional stability at speed.
The Q brakes are great and comparable to the 540. The Q engine is equal to the V-8 in the 540 in smoothness and power. However, the transmission in the Q seems to shift too early and to resist downshifts when I would like to see them. As a four speed it also seems to be missing just the "right" gear at times. The trans I think hurts the sporting nature of the Q. The 540 is a 6speed and there is no comparison in that it feels much faster in the middle gears.
The Q trunk is too small and the 540, a smaller car, has a bigger trunk. Also the Q trunk has these hinges that impinge on the cargo area. The sound system in both cars is excellent. The air conditioner and heater controls are also excellent in both cars. The Q is much cheaper for an equivalent year and mileage, compared to a 7 series or even a 5 series BMW. My repair costs have been much higher for the Q; however that may just be the luck of the draw for these individual cars.
I don't have a 7 series,only a coupla fivers, so I can't answer the 750 question directly, except to say that the 750 (as opposed to the 740i and iL ) are not hot used items, probably because of the complexity of the V12 and its cost to maintain. However the 740i and 740iL are very good by reputation, and in a few drives in these I thought the transmission (auto) was much more responsive than the Q's, but that most of the other remarks for the 540 above still applied.