Is it really? Which car is "better" depends to a great extent on what parameters you choose to establish value.

If you compare on the basis of fundamental purpose, i.e., the moving of people from one place to another, the Toyota is superior to the BMW in fuel economy, comfort (you pay a price for that BMW's superb handling and cornering ability!), reliability, and most especially total cost of ownership (overall cost per mile considering fuel, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, etc.) that is maybe 1/4 the cost of the BMW.

Only when you consider less tangible aspects of ownership does the BMW show superiority, things like pride and exclusivity of ownership, the knowledge (that only a tiny few owners will ever actually utilize)* that their BMW will corner at .9G whereas the best the lowly Toyota will manage is maybe .8, the satisfaction of amenities like leather seats and electric mirrors... all these things are nice to have but contribute little or nothing to the fundamental purpose of the car.

Of course nearly all of the supposed advantages of the Toyota disappear if you take cost out of the picture. In that case I guess I would concede the BMW is a "better" car.

tanstaafl.

*A Michelin tire engineer was quoted in Car & Driver magazine saying something to the effect of "Given the choice of cornering at more than .4G or hitting a tree, the majority of people will hit the tree." Most drivers obtain no benefit whatsoever from BMW-like handling prowess. Naturally everybody on this BBS is excluded from that generalization, the only reason we're not racing in Formula 1 is because we're just too busy to take on another hobby.