[Mark M]

I have this on my 2014 Jeep GC and my father has it on a beater 2010 Chevy. Glad to see Bmw catching up.

[maze446]

The lease vs. buy question is very complicated and depends on a number of factors, including personal preference so I think we can all agree that no one can make a general statement that one is better than the other in all cases.

While it's true that you are effectively paying for the depreciation in a lease, I tend to think of it as a hedge against future fluctuations in the used car market. With a lease you get a fixed residual (i.e., a fixed value of the car after X months and Y miles). Buying a car leaves you at the mercy of the market at the time of sale or trade in so the market value may be higher or lower vs. the residual of a lease. For example, my 2015 F15 lease had a residual of 59%. Given the introduction of the new model and other factors, if I had purchased the car there's no way I would be able to recover 59% of the original value right now. That's just one factor and you could write a treatise on this topic analyzing all the different variables.

One last point — what people do with their own money is none of my business. I knew a guy once that put $20K down on a car he was financing for 0% interest when he had $15K of other loans at 9% interest. Terrible decision from an objective financial standpoint but it made him feel better to have a lower monthly payment on his car.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by mcc3456

How come you wouldn’t want to own one after the warranty period ends? I thought BMWs were the gold standard of reliability?

I never said that.

[marcva]

Originally Posted by P1et

Held its value? You realize you're on a BMW forum, right?

I just miss the days where you could comfortably pick up a 3 year old BMW and flog a depreciated car on the track for another 150k miles without too many concerns. Those days seem to be over.

[marcva]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

lol.. maybe he should have said.. BEWARE.. this could affect future lease residuals..

that would get some attention..

I suppose that's the evolving value proposition. The residual values erode and people get their used cars cheaper. They just have to plan on a slightly longer to-do list with them.

[Jklad]

Originally Posted by farns2345

Why does remote starting a car impact it's longevity?

Some of the guys in earlier posts on this thread covered it - most wear of engine internals occurs when the engine is below operating temp. When you start a car at cold temps and let it sit idling, it takes far longer to reach operating temp Than if you just get in and start driving normal. Also It may never reach operating temp from cold start just idling in freezing temps. So, the car is spending a lot more time below operating temps causing wear to internals than it normally would if you just got in and started driving. You can google to find out more about the specifics of how an engine wears when below operating temp.

[P1]

Originally Posted by marcva

I just miss the days where you could comfortably pick up a 3 year old BMW and flog a depreciated car on the track for another 150k miles without too many concerns. Those days seem to be over.

A 3-year old BMW needs to be babied. If and when it breaks, getting them fixed is an astronomical expense.

[farns2345]

Originally Posted by Jklad

Some of the guys in earlier posts on this thread covered it - most wear of engine internals occurs when the engine is below operating temp. When you start a car at cold temps and let it sit idling, it takes far longer to reach operating temp Than if you just get in and start driving normal. Also It may never reach operating temp from cold start just idling in freezing temps. So, the car is spending a lot more time below operating temps causing wear to internals than it normally would if you just got in and started driving. You can google to find out more about the specifics of how an engine wears when below operating temp.

Cool - thanks

[MysticBlue]

I think the most engine wear occurs when the engine in running. So, when I went out to dinner last night, when I really could have stayed home, I unnecessarily imposed wear on my engine. Also, I've had to rethink the entire comfort/luxury/performance thing. I could have spent $15k instead of $90k, and then I can drive around slowly, and uncomfortably and not worry about wear and tear, because I could just buy a new one every year and still be money ahead. I'm also now rethinking spending all those days at the track, using 2 full tanks of gas per day, imposing a lot of wear on my M3 engine, not to mention the brakes, tires, suspension, transmission, etc. Just thinking about it fills me full of regret.
No, not really.
My (sarcastic) point is, I'm not too concerned about any supposed added wear on the engine due to remote start. It's a convenience/luxury that I'm going to happily use. I will use it in the winter when my X5 is parked at work, outside, in a secure parking area and it's 15 degrees at 6am when I get off work. I will use it in the summer when it's 105 degrees when I get off work at 6pm. My current X5 is well on it's way to 5 years of trouble free service, and I expect my next X5, even with remote start, will give me 5 or 6 years of trouble free use. I think stating that long warm-ups cause more wear on the engine, while maybe true, is really splitting hairs and the chance it will actually result in a breakdown is miniscule. In the overall scheme of things, if that's something that you are truly worried about, maybe don't spend 90 thousand dollars on a vehicle.

[maze446]

Just make sure these guys don't get wet and you will never have any issues:

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by CP911

Except you guys are suggesting that because half of sales are leases, it's acceptable for BMW to build all vehicles they sell to a 3-year reliability standard. What do you think would happen to the brand if the other 50% of owners started having problems with their cars after 3 very short years? It's short-sighted thinking and justifications like this that fade my optimism for the future of the human race.

This has nothing to do with the human race. It has everything to do with BMW as a business. I don't think BMW really cares what happens to it after that. They've already made their money. BMW is a business. Why would they make a car that last 20 years when owners only keep them for three?

Be realistic in your approach to this. How long do you honestly think people hold onto cars? If 50-60% of the cars that BMW sells are leased and only driven three years, BMW isn't going to build a car that lasts 200,000 trouble free miles. They will build a good car that will last 10 years probably 100,000 miles which they do. Doing proper maintenance will get you there. After that, the car is probably pretty old anyway.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by mcc3456

Though I agree leasing is easier if you like having a new car more often without the hassle, but your point number 1 logic is backwards.

You know the vast majority of depreciation occurs in the first couple of years and that is exactly what you are paying for with your lease, right?

I'm paying for the depreciation during the time I am using the car. Not more, not less. That's where residual and Money Factor come in.

[e90_2_f80]

This is another good video from a factory trainer going over a couple of features an demoing the remote start and turn off.

[mcc3456]

Originally Posted by Mo@BMWofFairfax

I'm paying for the depreciation during the time I am using the car. Not more, not less. That's where residual and Money Factor come in.

Correction: you are paying the most severe portion of the depreciation during your lease term, not afterwards.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by mcc3456

Correction: you are paying the most severe portion of the depreciation during your lease term, not afterwards.

You're paying for the time that the car is used. The second a car rolls of the lot, you lose 20-25% of its value. You don't lose anything other than what you put down(never put money down on a lease) with a lease, and you don't pay for depreciation when the car gets into an accident, and you also don't have to worry about selling it.

The fact that it's a tax write-off if you have your own business is icing on the cake. My humble opinion.

[maze446]

Originally Posted by mcc3456

Correction: you are paying the most severe portion of the depreciation during your lease term, not afterwards.

It's no different when you buy. You aren't somehow exempt from the effects of depreciation.

[mcc3456]

Originally Posted by maze446

It's no different when you buy. You aren't somehow exempt from the effects of depreciation.

True. Repeatedly surfing new cars every three years (whether purchased or leased) and you are always experiencing max depreciation and max excise tax. Keeping them longer and you’re paying lower excise tax and seeing slowing depreciation...BUT, could also be seeing higher maintenance costs depending on durability/quality/efficiency.

[maze446]

I would get a new car every 2-3 years so I'm in depreciation hell no matter what. Leasing saves me taxes because I only pay tax on the depreciated portion and not the full value of the car. So, for me leasing is better and buying might be better for someone else.

[Jklad]

Originally Posted by MysticBlue

I think the most engine wear occurs when the engine in running. So, when I went out to dinner last night, when I really could have stayed home, I unnecessarily imposed wear on my engine. Also, I've had to rethink the entire comfort/luxury/performance thing. I could have spent $15k instead of $90k, and then I can drive around slowly, and uncomfortably and not worry about wear and tear, because I could just buy a new one every year and still be money ahead. I'm also now rethinking spending all those days at the track, using 2 full tanks of gas per day, imposing a lot of wear on my M3 engine, not to mention the brakes, tires, suspension, transmission, etc. Just thinking about it fills me full of regret.
No, not really.
My (sarcastic) point is, I'm not too concerned about any supposed added wear on the engine due to remote start. It's a convenience/luxury that I'm going to happily use. I will use it in the winter when my X5 is parked at work, outside, in a secure parking area and it's 15 degrees at 6am when I get off work. I will use it in the summer when it's 105 degrees when I get off work at 6pm. My current X5 is well on it's way to 5 years of trouble free service, and I expect my next X5, even with remote start, will give me 5 or 6 years of trouble free use. I think stating that long warm-ups cause more wear on the engine, while maybe true, is really splitting hairs and the chance it will actually result in a breakdown is miniscule. In the overall scheme of things, if that's something that you are truly worried about, maybe don't spend 90 thousand dollars on a vehicle.

Yeah we get it, you are exactly the type of customer they are targeting.

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by MysticBlue

Will remote start also be possible using "BMW Connected" from your phone? That's the only one I'm interested in. Just doing it from the fob is nearly useless. That just means I can start it 6 seconds before I'm going to be there anyway.

Agreed. Had this on a RRS and it was superb! Starting from the house or the office was the real benefit.

[MysticBlue]

Originally Posted by Jklad

Yeah we get it, you are exactly the type of customer they are targeting.

One that buys a car, doesn't baby it, and is still happy with it 10 years later? OK. Yeah, I would think most car companies would be happy with that. I would think most consumers would be happy with that.

[raysspl]

Yes Virginia, it took this long to implement this