RE: The new BMW M3
Discussion
It is down to sales, simple as that, the reason Honda deny people in the UK the proper cars like the new 4 door civic is that not enough people will buy them. That is not the fault of Honda, just as giving M buyers what they want is not the fault of BMW.
We'd all like to think that hardcore stripped out versions of road cars would sell well but they can't do, and as we are in the minority we just have to make do with what we get given.
We'd all like to think that hardcore stripped out versions of road cars would sell well but they can't do, and as we are in the minority we just have to make do with what we get given.
Which is why the last brand new car I (reasonably) aspired to owning was the TVR Sagaris. I'm going to take the E92 out next week as part of the job - but knowing that the E46 didn't exactly knock me off my socks either I'm doubtful whether the new one will be thrilling enough on the road at anything but ASBO-warranting pace to justify a six figure euro outlay.
havoc said:
Pugsey said:
Have a look at my profile.
Fair points, well made.And I admit that comment WAS inflammatory...I was just trying to get people's attention (it seems to have worked). Apologies to you and anyone else offended.
Just exactly what are we still arguing over now anyway?!?
In answer to your question, who knows!? Good fun though.
Sunny B road beckons - so I'm off!
Pugs.
squeezebm said:
900T-R said:
squeezebm said:
Oh he doesn't buy any of the cars that he is very knowledgable about or even drive any of them,just trolls on and on and on about them.
Says the man with the diesel Cortina... erm, 3-series. .
Saabs and diesel BMW's are both fine motors if thats what you want, as long as they are good ones
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
squeezebm said:
900T-R said:
squeezebm said:
Oh he doesn't buy any of the cars that he is very knowledgable about or even drive any of them,just trolls on and on and on about them.
Says the man with the diesel Cortina... erm, 3-series. .Saabs and diesel BMW's are both fine motors if thats what you want, as long as they are good ones
Dave
Edited by squeezebm on Tuesday 31st July 17:10
squeezebm said:
900T-R said:
squeezebm said:
Oh he doesn't buy any of the cars that he is very knowledgable about or even drive any of them,just trolls on and on and on about them.
Says the man with the diesel Cortina... erm, 3-series. .
hmmm, let me think about that for a minute... 
900T-R said:
squeezebm said:
900T-R said:
squeezebm said:
Oh he doesn't buy any of the cars that he is very knowledgable about or even drive any of them,just trolls on and on and on about them.
Says the man with the diesel Cortina... erm, 3-series. . hmmm, let me think about that for a minute... 
I had an E36 and currently have an E46. I'm with the others waiting for the E92 - it is pretty much what I want out of my M car. I want something just a little bit more stirring both visually and to drive than an Alpina, or any previous AMG, or a 6 series short of the M6. But I also what something with better quality, better visual design and more pleasant on long journeys than an Evo, and more spacious than a 911, R8 or AM Vantage. When I changed my previous Evo for my current E46, I found that I hardly ever wanted to drive my 'more comfortable' car.
Can I be iconoclastic about the E30? When I drove an E30 Evo (on both road and track) I found it an interesting historic curiosity but quite disappointing. No torque, equipment or refinement. It was thrilling to get back into the Evo which I had at the time - which seemed, and indeed was, so much faster and crisper. Is it really that important for the car to be balanced and controllable when it loses grip at what now seem stupidly low speeds? If that's the sort of car you want, why not get an MX5?
Can I be iconoclastic about the E30? When I drove an E30 Evo (on both road and track) I found it an interesting historic curiosity but quite disappointing. No torque, equipment or refinement. It was thrilling to get back into the Evo which I had at the time - which seemed, and indeed was, so much faster and crisper. Is it really that important for the car to be balanced and controllable when it loses grip at what now seem stupidly low speeds? If that's the sort of car you want, why not get an MX5?
waremark said:
Is it really that important for the car to be balanced and controllable when it loses grip at what now seem stupidly low speeds?
I guess it's horses for courses.Some people want a car that's supremely capable (as evinced by the Evo) at whatever speed you care to do. And then do those speeds. Some people want that with refinement as well.
Some people want a car they can 'dance' in, can play about with, can generally feel in control of (as evinced by MX5 and Elise, to name but two).
I can see the benefits of both. But for the sake of my license I choose not to pick the mega-quick machines (of which Evo and E46 M3 are two 'affordable' options).
DoctorD said:
isuk said:
Interesting comments from Chris Harris on the new M3 in this weeks Autocar. Like many of us here it seems he is also waiting on delivery of "his" new M3 and has not yet had a drive in one.
Chris was with us in Marbella, so I cannot imagine he didn't drive it. havoc said:
Nathan,
Look at car-price inflation, not RPI, and you'll find the difference is far lower.
Miguel...WGAF about 'practicality' and 'kit'. And just because the competition have done it doesn't make it right. I'd far rather see a lightweight, well-engineered, proper drivers car than an overweight pastiche of a once-great badge.
I'll assume that WGAF means "Who gives a hoot?" Look at car-price inflation, not RPI, and you'll find the difference is far lower.
Miguel...WGAF about 'practicality' and 'kit'. And just because the competition have done it doesn't make it right. I'd far rather see a lightweight, well-engineered, proper drivers car than an overweight pastiche of a once-great badge.
And I'll tell you who: Perhaps the people who pay big money for these cars as opposed to those who just talk about them. I know what you'd rather see, but it makes more sense, if that's what you want, to buy such cars made by companies that currently build them rather than droning on and on about what BMW should do and used to do. Yes, I realize they've gone in a different direction. Move on.Of course, in your defense, you have two great cars that are exactly what you want and happen to be Japanese. Some others here do go on about this instead of buying such cars. At least, you'll keep talking about this subject, but you did do the logical thing and found another manufacturer who does build the kind of cars you like. And while I do agree that BMW's products have gone in a different direction, I definitely will take issue with you calling it "a once-great badge." Their cars may be different now, but they're still great.
havoc said:
And why the MX-5 / MGB comparison - the main advantages of a modern car over the MGB are the reliability and build-quality. You don't need to add weight to get them. It's the NVH etc. that you don't like either.
Havoc, you're a very knowledgeable enthusiast, but please lighten up. I was being facetious. I made my point with the first two cars I mentioned (M3 and small MB old vs. new) and was trying to inject a little humor with the MX5/MGB comparo. Sorry, I should've used a smiley, but you can still bet that, even though I was being silly, there are many MG nuts out there who'll go on and on about how the MX5 has power steering and, yes, too much NVH deadening (which I'm sure it does compared to an old MGB, etc.You are totally right that I do agree that most modern manufacturers have gone way overboard on NVH. I think that this is the part that most upscale European manufacturers got right in the 1980's or so but went over the top after that. I like the NVH level on cars like the Integra, S2000, my MX5, RX8, WRX, etc., which I believe is about the equivalent to that of those European cars in the 80's. To me, it's enough for it to be pleasant and comfortable enough and not feel homemade, while still maintaing great feel.
havoc said:
At the end of the day, us customers don't have much of a choice...the German marques don't want to sell you a fun car for £30k when they can sell you the same image and performance for £50k. Which is why I buy Jap...
Very true. The Japanese make fantastic cars. I'm not saying that because I own one. I own one because it's true. Still, you can't blame BMW et al for using the crazy business model of catering to those who are dying to hand over fistfulls of cash. The truth is that you do have a choice: It is to buy what you like from the manufacturers who build it.Miguel
havoc said:
Actually (and this is a new point):-
It's all Merc's fault!
This BMW being heavier etc. than any before (and more £££ is all down to Mercedes.
Why? Because they started this bl''dy stupid 'horsepower war'. FFS - over 10 years ago only supercars had 400bhp or more. The E39 M5 getting 400 ponies was considered shocking. Any car with over 200bhp was 'very quick' (Unless it was a Roller, of course, as Rollers would never do anything as vulgar as 'quick'...).
...and then Merc shoved a blower on an already oversized V8...and things went downhill. Everyone got obsessed by Top Trumps statistics, and then (worse in some ways), by 'ring times. To top it all, all the designers got nice CAD stations to use and the sleek curves we'd got used to made way to contrived designs that look good from one or two angles but don't make a cohesive whole (oops...tangent).
...then one day Merc decided that a single-blower V8 wasn't enough, and strapped two turbos to a V12. The first time it was road-tested it caused the Earth's orbit to shift slightly, giving us 'global warming'. And it made supercar manufacturers feel inadequately endowed...
So you see, it's simple. I don't blame BMW, I blame Mercedes...they made the 'game', BMW is just a 'player'. They're doing what they have to do to shift more units.
Havoc, I've got to hand it to you. This entire post is over-the-top funny, but especially the second to last paragraph, which made me laugh out loud.It's all Merc's fault!
This BMW being heavier etc. than any before (and more £££
is all down to Mercedes.Why? Because they started this bl''dy stupid 'horsepower war'. FFS - over 10 years ago only supercars had 400bhp or more. The E39 M5 getting 400 ponies was considered shocking. Any car with over 200bhp was 'very quick' (Unless it was a Roller, of course, as Rollers would never do anything as vulgar as 'quick'...).
...and then Merc shoved a blower on an already oversized V8...and things went downhill. Everyone got obsessed by Top Trumps statistics, and then (worse in some ways), by 'ring times. To top it all, all the designers got nice CAD stations to use and the sleek curves we'd got used to made way to contrived designs that look good from one or two angles but don't make a cohesive whole (oops...tangent).
...then one day Merc decided that a single-blower V8 wasn't enough, and strapped two turbos to a V12. The first time it was road-tested it caused the Earth's orbit to shift slightly, giving us 'global warming'. And it made supercar manufacturers feel inadequately endowed...
So you see, it's simple. I don't blame BMW, I blame Mercedes...they made the 'game', BMW is just a 'player'. They're doing what they have to do to shift more units.
Miguel
Mr Whippy said:
Miguel said:
You're complaining that the new M3 is, among other things, too expensive and too marketing driven, yet you want to make it more expensive for the folks who want to choose the 18 wheels, which were chosen by the chassis engineers. BMW admits that the 19's are purely there for marketing reasons, yet you want them for aesthetic reasons
I'm being sceptical of BMW strategy. I know for a fact the majority of buyers will buy the 19's. Personally I'd have preferred BMW to offer one wheel size and optimise the car for it. One wheel to design, safety test, tyre to sign off etc etc etc...Two wheels just adds lots of cost, and the reality is the 18 will be the forgotten wheel, just like it appears to have been on the E46. I've seen bugger all M3's on the 18's!
Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself: On one hand, you don't like that they make a car that is too soft because they're catering to who is actually giving them money for it. On the other hand, you're saying that they should do certain things because that's what people will buy.I believe that they did the right thing because they made the wheels and tires that are better dynamically standard and still offered the larger rims for those who think that 18 inch wheels look like shirt buttons. After all, who would want to be seen in those?
Mr Whippy said:
If I had the car 'made for my tastes' it'd have nicer looking 18's, the reality is, as with the E46, the 19's are a sublty more pleasing looking alloy. They could easily have made both styles almost identical, but they didn't, they made the 19 look different. Why would they do that? To help people visually see the difference, and be able to distinguish between the bigger 'better' wheels?
I also find it rather ironic that you refuse to let manufacturers compromise a car in any way to add more comfort, kit, etc., but you have no problem compromising it to please your eyes. I would want the 18's on this car, and guess what? I don't know what the 18's or 19's look like. I doubt that either one would make me vomit just from looking at it.Mr Whippy said:
I'm afraid the wheels are a marketing drive, and by offering 19's if they corrupt handling and add so much to the cost anyway, that the M3 is a fair marketing exercise.
Yes, very true, but so what? Again, the better wheels are the cheaper option, as they're standard.Mr Whippy said:
Why not offer just the 18's that look like the current 19's (which look better, even if they were 18's they would)? One wheel, one set of castings, one wheel to setup on, one bespoke tyre to design/sign off and road test?
Sorry, Dave, but again the answer is because they forgot to consult you. Mr Whippy said:
The 19's are there purely to make money off the increasingly image concious market this car is aimed at... thats good business, but another shame on BMW's perception of the focus and integrity of the M brand.
Dave
As I said before, the first part of that statement is very true, but I don't agree with the second. I think it's not only good business but better for the car to do what they did. Again, those who want the better wheel and tire package will take what's standard. Those who don't care about such trivia, such as better handling, etc. will buy the 19's. At least, the 19's will be better than the aftermarket crap that such people would almost surely buy if it weren't available from BMW. Yes, I know that there is good aftermarket equipment out there, but people who make these choices solely on looks will buy based on looks alone, compromising other qualities.Dave
Miguel
Miguel,
Your first response...agreed, probably took your post too literally! Apologies...
Your second response... While the post was very tongue-in-cheek, the last paragraph sums my true feelings up - I don't like the direction BM are going in, but I know why they're doing it and as a business-person can respect it...they'd be fools to do otherwise.
But what are car forums for if not having a good whinge about something you can never change, eh?!?
Have a good weekend Miguel,
Martin.
Your first response...agreed, probably took your post too literally! Apologies...
Your second response...
While the post was very tongue-in-cheek, the last paragraph sums my true feelings up - I don't like the direction BM are going in, but I know why they're doing it and as a business-person can respect it...they'd be fools to do otherwise.But what are car forums for if not having a good whinge about something you can never change, eh?!?
Have a good weekend Miguel,
Martin.
Pugsey said:
Olf said:
Engine Ferrari would be proud of.
How VERY dare you!Miguel
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff