MyE28.com

AAs chip/exhaust stuff for 335i

Im guessing thell release in ~month. This is the first Ive seen of a US chip tune for a N54.

RussC

chip = no warranty

i dont think theres a single 335 out there thats paid off. if you want to pry the ecu apart and chip a car you dont own, you're really asking for it. i bet BMW is just aching to bring the hammer down on those guys.

turbodan wrote:pry the ecu apart and chip

Chip swapping ended in 96 with the introduction of OBDII. ECU's are now flashed. The plus about this is, you can flash and reflash with stock or modified profiles, and no one would be the wiser.

turbodan wrote:chip = no warranty

i dont think theres a single 335 out there thats paid off. if you want to pry the ecu apart and chip a car you dont own, you're really asking for it. i bet BMW is just aching to bring the hammer down on those guys.

I see it from a somewhat different perspective. One, there are in all likelihood a number of 335s that were paid for in cash but in the event they were financed, the buyer is no less the owner of the car. Agreed, modifying a new BMW turbo is asking for problems, especially one with an engine block that isn't the strongest one BMW offers. I don't believe for a moment BMW "is just aching to bring the hammer down on those guys". BMW receives some collateral benefit to having their cars worked on by third parties and being perceived as "fast", so the issue is, what's the expense to BMW? Like all companies, BMW wants good PR and low expenses. To "bring the hammer down on those guys" is something they will only do if it becomes a problem and they feel confident they can make their case. The more significant issue (IMO) is the potential criminal and civil liability to which the owners of both the shop and the car may be exposing themselves.

turbodan wrote:chip = no warranty

i dont think theres a single 335 out there thats paid off. if you want to pry the ecu apart and chip a car you dont own, you're really asking for it. i bet BMW is just aching to bring the hammer down on those guys.

pretty bold assumption in regards to car ownership...

But like most major purchases in this country people are leveraging their credit...same thing with houses...people say its their house but the bank really owns it..

So its 6 of 1 and a half a dozen of the other..

they are enjoying the now...as we all should

rundatrack wrote:

turbodan wrote:chip = no warranty

i dont think theres a single 335 out there thats paid off. if you want to pry the ecu apart and chip a car you dont own, you're really asking for it. i bet BMW is just aching to bring the hammer down on those guys.

But like most major purchases in this country people are leveraging their credit...same thing with houses...people say its their house but the bank really owns it..

OK, help me to understand your thinking. I've always understood ownership as having two components; 1) Title and, 2) Possession.

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that someone who buys a car doesn't usually take and hold possession of it so the only other component of ownership is title. Is there anyone on the board who has bought and financed a car and received a certificate of title listing the bank as owner?

I would suggest if someone is in possession of a car and the certificate of title for that car lists that person as the owner (and not the bank), then and in that event, that person "really" owns the car and not the bank.

I've never owned a brand new car, so I've never had to make payments or anything like that. But I dont think you own the car based on your down payment. If you still owe 30k of monthly payments through 2012 or whatever, you haven't paid for it yet. You don't own it until the bank sends you the title in the mail. But thats just the way I see it. I don't doubt BMW would void your warranty if you had the computer remapped. Especially if you have any sort of problem where they might come across any evidence of modification. Definitely if you have any real problems like a blown turbo.

If there are guys out there that put down cash, then its clearly different. I just doubt that such situations exist. The only difference is that it wouldn't be ethically wrong to perform the modifications in the first place. BMW would still have the right to hose you down on warranty coverage.

M635CSi wrote: Is there anyone on the board who has bought and financed a car and received a certificate of title listing the bank as owner?

I thought that whenever a car is financed through a financial institution the title is issued in the name of that institution, and it does not go into the "owner's" name until it is fully paid off...

turbodan wrote: If there are guys out there that put down cash, then its clearly different. I just doubt that such situations exist.

In the grand scheme of things, $50k cash isn't all that much. Most of the marketing for new BMWs is aimed at those capable of walking into a dealership, saying, "I want that one," and writing a check for the full amount. I would have to sell my house to do it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of folks who can, and do.

Money-wise people only borrow money under two distinct circumstances:
1) The cost of borrowing for a desired object is lower than the amount that can be made investing money saved up-front (often the case with mortgages; my mortgage is at 4% and I can do better than that with my money in many places);

2) There is a NEED for money that can't be met out-of-pocket, and the cost of borrowing is a necessary cost incursion.

A new BMW isn't a necessity for anyone, so my view is that anyone who borrows money at more than, say, 6% to buy one is foolish. If you have $50k in the bank, borrowing at 6% may or may not be foolish depending on how well you leverage your money to make money for you during the loan term. Borrowing money on a depreciating asset that you just plain can't afford is foolish. On the other hand, if you NEED a car and cannot afford even a $5k used Civic, then borrowing on a new Hyundai or similarly inexpensive car might make sense (especially given that used-car loans, when available, are usually more expensive than new-car loans).

In the above scenarios, I would say the person who has borrowed $50k they don't have on hand to buy a BMW doesn't own the car. They don't have the means to take full legal possession, and are in constant danger of the car being re-possessed. The person who borrows $50k because the loan is cheap, and invests $50k elsewhere does own the car, because at any moment they could pay it off in full. Perhaps the difference is semantic, but it's significant--it's impossible to go upside-down on an item you own outright.

I'm sure most folks here know that borrowing money on a depreciating asset is just stupid in any case other than that driven by absolute necessity. It's probably one of the reasons we like E28s ... great cars that are financially accessible for just about anyone with a job and a bit of common sense.

-tammer

turbodan wrote:I've never owned a brand new car, so I've never had to make payments or anything like that. But I dont think you own the car based on your down payment.

The car is owned based on the purchase and sale documents - with or without a down payment. The title is evidence of that ownership. While the bank does not own the car, they do own the right to have the loan repaid. The bank has a lien on the car (shown on the title) which helps to enforce their right to loan repayment.

turbodan wrote:I If you still owe 30k of monthly payments through 2012 or whatever, you haven't paid for it yet. You don't own it until the bank sends you the title in the mail.

That is not correct. It is important to understand the difference between owning the car, and owing the payments on the car. The bank's right to own the car does not attach unless and until there is a default on the loan agreement.

turbodan wrote:IBut thats just the way I see it.

It's important to understand why the way you see it is not correct. While the bank is “trust”ing the borrower to repay the loan and it is wrong for the borrower to jeopardize that loan repayment (value of car), the car does not constitute trust property and the owner of the car is not a trustee. Therefore, the borrower is not bound by the “prudent man rule”.

turbodan wrote:I don't doubt BMW would void your warranty if you had the computer remapped. Especially if you have any sort of problem where they might come across any evidence of modification. Definitely if you have any real problems like a blown turbo.

I can envision situations which could result in someone being arrested for attempting to have BMW repair a vehicle under warranty after removing signs of having modified the car.

Tammer in Philly wrote:In the above scenarios, I would say the person who has borrowed $50k they don't have on hand to buy a BMW doesn't own the car.

That argument finds its currency in philosophy. Not law, economics or finance...

Tammer in Philly wrote:They don't have the means to take full legal possession, and are in constant danger of the car being re-possessed.

That's simply not true. Someone who buys a $50,000 car with $100 down takes no less "full legal possession" then someone who walks in with $50,000 in cash.

Tammer in Philly wrote:The person who borrows $50k because the loan is cheap, and invests $50k elsewhere does own the car, because at any moment they could pay it off in full. Perhaps the difference is semantic, but it's significant--it's impossible to go upside-down on an item you own outright.

What you've said is significant because it goes to net worth, what you've said is not significant as it relates to ownership. Ownership does not depend on equity.

bmw4aaron wrote:

turbodan wrote:pry the ecu apart and chip

Chip swapping ended in 96 with the introduction of OBDII. ECU's are now flashed. The plus about this is, you can flash and reflash with stock or modified profiles, and no one would be the wiser.

I would be careful though cause BMW dmes are only programmable 13 times. Make sure it's the final tune that you load.