Speculation of value....

[m73]

A lot of owners and would-be owners enjoy discussing coupe values....

For me, it's simple. Whenever I google Mercedes, Porsche or Alfa cars etc....
Loads of vintage racing pictures pop up such as the Mille miglia etc...

BMW has a rich racing history, but it differs from the competition...that and the fact that BMW currently makes sporty cars and values its classics slightly differently sets a market price.

I for one enjoy having my coupe worth a lot, but not too much...after all it's just money and it will never replace my memories....

I would be hard pressed to buy back the joy at any price when selling a car I care about, that might be the most ironic point of all...

MF

 

[JFENG]

A lot of owners and would-be owners enjoy discussing coupe values....

For me, it's simple. Whenever I google Mercedes, Porsche or Alfa cars etc....
Loads of vintage racing pictures pop up such as the Mille miglia etc...


MF

BMW doesn't have the racing history because (I'm guessing here),
(a) THey started out doing airplane motors, not cars like Mercedes, Alfa, etc. FWIW, Porsche and Mercedes weren't successful at moving into airplane engines

(b) Wasn't BMW penalized heavily after WWI, where they essentially lost their entire business because they were banned from doing aero-motors? So, starting from scratch in post WW1 Germany. Tough job. But they did produce the 3 series that did very well in the types of racing where it was relevant (eg not the big time GP stuff).

(c) They were devastated by WWII as well, and not being nearly as big as Merc, it was that much harder for them to regroup and restart. Ditto for Audi.

What do others think about BMW's relatively lower profile in the old racing days?
I know they supplied motors for some very successful cars in the 1960s/70's (Elva, Chevron, etc.), but stayed out of the car/chassis business other than "touring" racing based on street cars (till the CSL/M1 days).
John

 

[Arde]

I don't know much but the associations I have are more with rally competitions than racing at least in South America in the 70s, that is when the brand was reborn. Yes they have the glorious pre-war 328 but I am not sure you want to associate the brand to the military profile it had in WWII. Their use of "short term" slave labor was not exactly about using temps instead of full time workers...And the Soviets taking over their plants and brand for a while is not exactly advertising I would use for the Superbowl.

I wonder what I would get back if I sent Andreas the VIN number of a 1944 car produced in Eisenach. I could do a fake writeup of the response but it may be offensive and disrespectful.

 

[JFENG]

I am not sure you want to associate the brand to the military profile it had in WWII. Their use of "short term" slave labor was not exactly about using temps.

I didn't think they were any better or worse in that regard than VW, Daimler and Audi, no?

 

[Arde]

I didn't think they were any better or worse in that regard than VW, Daimler and Audi, no?

Probably better than VW and Mercedes.

 

[tochi]

BMW doesn't have the racing history because (I'm guessing here),
(a) THey started out doing airplane motors, not cars like Mercedes, Alfa, etc. FWIW, Porsche and Mercedes weren't successful at moving into airplane engines

:wink: :wink:

Mercedes successfully pioneered all sorts of military, marine and industrial power plants. See, e.g., http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/mercedes-engine/daimler-mercedes-d-iii-series-engine

Alfa Romeo also successfully produced aircraft engines

As did Fiat

 

[JFENG]

But weren't they automakers first and foremost? Also BMW wasn't very big compared to VW and Daimler so I think that made it a lot harder to come back after the war. In Italy the govt picked car makers to help after the war (not Lancia) which also contributed to quicker recovery for some brands. Maybe the same thing happened in Germany with VW being their Chevy and Daimler being the national prestige band?

 

[tochi]

But weren't they automakers first and foremost? Also BMW wasn't very big compared to VW and Daimler so I think that made it a lot harder to come back after the war. In Italy the govt picked car makers to help after the war (not Lancia) which also contributed to quicker recovery for some brands. Maybe the same thing happened in Germany with VW being their Chevy and Daimler being the national prestige band?

For the most part, I agree with everything you said in your posts. The reasons for various auto manufacturer's business solvency/profitablity (or lack thereof) could fill books and even then, scholars might still reasonably disagree regarding the same. So much has to do with hard-to-explain happenstance.

Historically, BMW was Mercedes' smaller stepsister, with mostly a European following. Until the mid-late '60s, the global public-at-large probably knew BMW better for its motorcycles than its autos or its aviation contributions. Post-WW2 BMW had a tougher struggle than Mercedes and the former came close to absorbing the latter in December '59. As you noted, BMW's factories sustained heavy damage during WW2 and the victors banned or severely limited BMW's motor vehicle production for a few years. Additionally, some manufacturing assets were lost by virtue of geography (location in what was to become the separate country of East Germany). Coupling this with the lack of a viable sales distribution network and questionable product demand made for a less-than-sterling business climate (or even a shoestring budget to underwrite a team of racing Isettas.)

BMW's history shares similarities with other boutique manufacturers of aircraft engines and autos. Hispano-Suiza and RRoyce come to mind. Of course, each story is different. :smile: