What is the most overrated car manufacturer?

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

Pommygranite said:

For those saying BMW there needs to be a clearer point made than just 'BMW!'

As a car manufacturer they are most definitely not overrated

You don't win c.60 World Engine Awards, countless Motorsport class wins, make €5b profit each year and make €1.5b profit by being overrated.

I can't remember more than 5 car tests that Audi have won but I can't remember more than 15 tests BMW have lost.

The big distinction, BIG distinction is that their base stuff is incredibly competent but doesn't set your world alight and if you drive say a 116 or 316 right back to model inception you might wonder where the sparkle found in 328,528,635,m series is and I think that's right. They feel extremely underpowered. So yes, their lower end stuff is quite mediocre but anything mid range and above is pretty bloody good.

That's if power makes the difference between mediocre or brilliant for you. For me it doesn't any more than volume on a hi-Fi determines its quality. One of the best BMWs I drove last year was a 116 MSport.

Not sure it serious. The 116 is very noticeably underpowered and laborious. It is too heavy to have such a weak engine.

Yes, completely serious. It was slow, but I didn't feel it was too slow to entertain on the B road I drove it on (speed limit 50, slowest bend 40, so you only need acceleration to get between 40 and 50). The performance felt slightly brisker than a Ka or Panda, both of which are reasonably fun to drive.

A pretty specific test! On boost at moderate speed, it will pull reasonably well. But it is a pig around town and has the overtaking ability of a 1.0 Focus.

BMW makes a lot of money from its cheapo cars with crappy engines, but it does cheapen the brand. I cannot question the economics of churning out 116ds with M Sport badges all over them, but it does make the marketing a bit of a joke. There are far more enjoyable cars for the cost of a moderately spec'd 116 or 316.

[RobM77]

SonicHedgeHog said:

RobM77 said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

Chris Y said:

1. BMW
2. Audi
3. VW

This. All badge and no substance. Bloody expensive too.

I suppose it's satisfying to say that and it makes you feel knowledgeable, but what would you do to a BMW to give it more substance? They've already got jolly close to 50:50 weight distribution, world beating engines, rear drive, good setups etc. They're certainly not 'The Ultimate Driving Machine', but what more do you want out of a family car? Serious question that - what more do you want? I guess they could be better built, but they're really not too bad. The steering feel could be better, but what modern ePAS cars have better feel? I find your statement confusing and to be honest rather illogical, or did you just say it to try and sound clever?...

I couldn't care less about sounding clever. What I mean is these manufacturers are masters at making their cars look good. However, look more closely and any perceived premium over something more mainstream starts to disappear. Certainly if you go from one of their showrooms into a Lexus showroom you can feel the difference in quality even if the driving experience of Lexus generally doesn't match the build quality.

So what do I want from a premium manufacturer? I want more than soft touch plastics and a fancy badge. I expect the design to exceptional. I want to look at the car and go "Wow!". It needs to be more than a massive set of alloys and a load of exhaust pipes. The design needs to be new and imaginative rather than barely evolutionary.

It's not my job to design cars so I can't tell you exactly what is missing, but if I'm going to spend a lot of money (and it is a bloody lot of money for some of these daily drivers) then I want to be excited. Rolling out the same old stuff that's got a bit more power and had a nip and tuck isn't enough. I'll spend my money on other things like amazing holidays instead.

I can see where you're coming from now. The reason our opinions differ is that I don't view BMWs as premium - they're just ordinary cars but with an emphasis on handling. The Lexus you mentioned for example starts at £26.5k in 250 SE spec (200bhp, 60 in 7.8) and the 320i SE is also £26.5k (180bhp, 0-60 in 7.1) -all figures from parkers.co.uk. As you say above, you get more as standard in the Lexus and higher quality, but that's always been the case with Japanese cars vs European cars, as discussed earlier. Most reviews do state that the BMW drives and handles better (from those acceleration figures Id guess it's lighter). Seems like a tit for tat standard comparison between two cars there. If you want front wheel drive then a Mondeo 2.0 Ecoboost is £700 less. Again, all around the same value - where's the 'premium'?

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 3rd November 10:33

[RobM77]

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

Pommygranite said:

For those saying BMW there needs to be a clearer point made than just 'BMW!'

As a car manufacturer they are most definitely not overrated

You don't win c.60 World Engine Awards, countless Motorsport class wins, make €5b profit each year and make €1.5b profit by being overrated.

I can't remember more than 5 car tests that Audi have won but I can't remember more than 15 tests BMW have lost.

The big distinction, BIG distinction is that their base stuff is incredibly competent but doesn't set your world alight and if you drive say a 116 or 316 right back to model inception you might wonder where the sparkle found in 328,528,635,m series is and I think that's right. They feel extremely underpowered. So yes, their lower end stuff is quite mediocre but anything mid range and above is pretty bloody good.

That's if power makes the difference between mediocre or brilliant for you. For me it doesn't any more than volume on a hi-Fi determines its quality. One of the best BMWs I drove last year was a 116 MSport.

Not sure it serious. The 116 is very noticeably underpowered and laborious. It is too heavy to have such a weak engine.

Yes, completely serious. It was slow, but I didn't feel it was too slow to entertain on the B road I drove it on (speed limit 50, slowest bend 40, so you only need acceleration to get between 40 and 50). The performance felt slightly brisker than a Ka or Panda, both of which are reasonably fun to drive.

A pretty specific test! On boost at moderate speed, it will pull reasonably well. But it is a pig around town and has the overtaking ability of a 1.0 Focus.

BMW makes a lot of money from its cheapo cars with crappy engines, but it does cheapen the brand. I cannot question the economics of churning out 116ds with M Sport badges all over them, but it does make the marketing a bit of a joke. There are far more enjoyable cars for the cost of a moderately spec'd 116 or 316.

I drove it through traffic to get to the B road, and naturally the performance in town was unusable and therefore inconsequential. I mentioned the B road as it's the sternest test of the point I was making. Overtaking is harder in a low powered car, but that's nothing new really.

The engines aren't 'crappy' - they're just low powered.

Finally, you talk about M Sport like it's just a badge or a few styling options. You do realise it's a totally different suspension option comprising different springs, dampers and geo?...

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

I drove it through traffic to get to the B road, and naturally the performance in town was unusable and therefore inconsequential. I mentioned the B road as it's the sternest test of the point I was making. Overtaking is harder in a low powered car, but that's nothing new really.

The engines aren't 'crappy' - they're just low powered.

Finally, you talk about M Sport like it's just a badge or a few styling options. You do realise it's a totally different suspension option comprising different springs, dampers and geo?...

Yep. I do. I have just spent weeks trying to find a 3 series with the decent suspension plus the other stuff I want and finally succeeded on Friday

The M Sport suspension should be standard. The standard suspension is woeful. It ruins the 3 series as a driver's car. We have spoken about this before, Rob. You couldn't understand why I thought the current 320d handled like a boat, and I couldn't understand why the reviews of its handling are so good. The simple reason was that the standard suspension (which the test cars for journos never have) is appalling, whereas the M Sport suspension is decent. It transforms the car. But it does not make a 1500kg or 1700 kg car with a 1.8 engine merit a "Sport" badge, let alone the use of the "M" lettering all over it! The M Sport styling is embarrassing. It is cringe-worthy on anything below the 328i or 330d, and even for the faster cars it is OTT.

We disagree as to what makes a car underpowered. I think the 116 is underpowered and so are the 316 and 318. For me, the 118 and the 320 have the minimum acceptable performance for the price bracket.I wont be razzing around in my wife's 320i Touring, but I do want to be able to overtake and/or reach the speed limit without waiting an eternity.

I disagree re performance around town. A small car such as a 1 series should feel very light and responsive around town (because that is the whole point of a small car). The 116i engine struggles with the car's weight, making it feel like a big and heavy car when it should be nipping around.

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

Yep. I do. I have just spent weeks trying to find a 3 series with the decent suspension plus the other stuff I want and finally succeeded on Friday

The M Sport suspension should be standard. The standard suspension is woeful. It ruins the 3 series as a driver's car. We have spoken about this before, Rob. You couldn't understand why I thought the current 320d handled like a boat, and I couldn't understand why the reviews of its handling are so good. The simple reason was that the standard suspension (which the test cars for journos never have) is appalling, whereas the M Sport suspension is decent. It transforms the car. But it does not make a 1500kg or 1700 kg car with a 1.8 engine merit a "Sport" badge, let alone the use of the "M" lettering all over it! The M Sport styling is embarrassing. It is cringe-worthy on anything below the 328i or 330d, and even for the faster cars it is OTT.

We disagree as to what makes a car underpowered. I think the 116 is underpowered and so are the 316 and 318. For me, the 118 and the 320 have the minimum acceptable performance for the price bracket.I wont be razzing around in my wife's 320i Touring, but I do want to be able to overtake and/or reach the speed limit without waiting an eternity.

I disagree re performance around town. A small car such as a 1 series should feel very light and responsive around town (because that is the whole point of a small car). The 116i engine struggles with the car's weight, making it feel like a big and heavy car when it should be nipping around.

But the 1 series isn't really small or light? The M Sport suspension and devils own RFT conspire against it as well.

[RobM77]

ORD said:

RobM77 said:

I drove it through traffic to get to the B road, and naturally the performance in town was unusable and therefore inconsequential. I mentioned the B road as it's the sternest test of the point I was making. Overtaking is harder in a low powered car, but that's nothing new really.

The engines aren't 'crappy' - they're just low powered.

Finally, you talk about M Sport like it's just a badge or a few styling options. You do realise it's a totally different suspension option comprising different springs, dampers and geo?...

Yep. I do. I have just spent weeks trying to find a 3 series with the decent suspension plus the other stuff I want and finally succeeded on Friday

The M Sport suspension should be standard. The standard suspension is woeful. It ruins the 3 series as a driver's car. We have spoken about this before, Rob. You couldn't understand why I thought the current 320d handled like a boat, and I couldn't understand why the reviews of its handling are so good. The simple reason was that the standard suspension (which the test cars for journos never have) is appalling, whereas the M Sport suspension is decent. It transforms the car. But it does not make a 1500kg or 1700 kg car with a 1.8 engine merit a "Sport" badge, let alone the use of the "M" lettering all over it! The M Sport styling is embarrassing. It is cringe-worthy on anything below the 328i or 330d, and even for the faster cars it is OTT.

We disagree as to what makes a car underpowered. I think the 116 is underpowered and so are the 316 and 318. For me, the 118 and the 320 have the minimum acceptable performance for the price bracket.I wont be razzing around in my wife's 320i Touring, but I do want to be able to overtake and/or reach the speed limit without waiting an eternity.

I disagree re performance around town. A small car such as a 1 series should feel very light and responsive around town (because that is the whole point of a small car). The 116i engine struggles with the car's weight, making it feel like a big and heavy car when it should be nipping around.

Yes, we have chatted before but that’s not what I actually said – I differentiated between the outgoing range and the current range, which has seen a shift in how the standard and M Sport packages drive. The outgoing E90 standard suspension was fine (nice and neutral, reasonable ride etc), and M Sport was a handling biased upgrade which many people eschewed for its harsh ride. For the latest range (1 series at least, which is what I’ve looked at in the most depth), M Sport is the one that’s fine (nice and neutral, the ride is fine also), whereas standard suspension understeers and wallows a bit (which is why I drove that 116 M Sport – it was a comparison between the standard and M Sport suspension that I was doing).

Regarding your comments above on performance, I’ve looked the following up on Parkers:

116i: 0-60 8.2 seconds
116d: 0-60 10.0 seconds
Focus 1.0: 0-60 12.1 seconds

All three cost around £20k. For you, yes, it sounds like you’d want more performance and more handling, but what if someone isn’t a petrolhead likes us and just wants a family hatchback that’s got just enough oomph to keep up with traffic, but they don’t overtake much and don’t want to pay a premium for a handling package? The above three cars are all suitable for that (although personally I’d recommend a Civic or a Yaris for that person). I thought for most people, 0-60 in 10 seconds was a bit of a benchmark for acceptable everyday performance if you didn’t want a fast car? It used to be anyway. I know for a fact that plenty of my friends and family would be fine with a car that does 0-60 in around 10 seconds.

[Beer Man]

yonex said:

But the 1 series isn't really small or light? The M Sport suspension and devils own RFT conspire against it as well.

It IS f*****g ugly though.

[jimbop1]

Beer Man said:

It IS f*****g ugly though.

Out of interest.. What is your current car?

[RobM77]

Beer Man said:

It IS f*****g ugly though.

Oh yes, it's definitely ugly I think it looks a bit like one of those green things from Angry Birds

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

Beer Man said:

It IS f*****g ugly though.

Oh yes, it's definitely ugly I think it looks a bit like one of those green things from Angry Birds

I think the way the 1 series looks is actually one of its strengths, but I am just about alone in that!

10 seconds to 60mph is the usual standard for tolerable performance, I agree. But there is something about small turbo engines in heavyish cars that makes them feel annoyingly sluggish even when then they can, if really pressed, produce reasonable performance. A NA 2.0 with the same stats as the 116i engine would, to me, feel a lot faster and less irritating. I think it is the combination of turbo lag and, at best, moderate performance than makes it feel sluggish - at anything but WOT, it feels inadequate for the task of propelling the car, and at WOT it has the "power on a rubber band" feeling (which the more powerful BMW engines do not).

A lot of it is subjective, though - I find a RWD car with little power a lot more irritating to drive than a FWD car with the same power. I think I feel sorry for the chassis not having enough power to extract its potential for fun

[anonymous-user]

Beer Man said:

yonex said:

But the 1 series isn't really small or light? The M Sport suspension and devils own RFT conspire against it as well.

It IS f*****g ugly though.

What do you drive again? All this resentment towards a single car manufacturer, hilarious.

[epom]

Threads like this are a bit of a waste really, usually ends up with the same arguments. After all one mans cheese is another mans chalk

[Kawasicki]

bmw 116i...reet slow...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW3GeEEhQBw

[ORD]

Kawasicki said:

bmw 116i...reet slow...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW3GeEEhQBw

Looks a bit fast to me. Downhill?

[bqf]

All cars are over-rated, I prefer the bus, or walking. When I lived in Newcastle I liked the metro, it's big and yellow and that and you don't have to fix it yourself when it goes wrong.

If I must talk about cars, then Ferrari's are rubbish, BMWs are for poseurs and Troy Queefs and Volkswagens are rubbish as well. Of the four brand new Volkswagens I have had, and of the 200,000 miles I have done, I have had to replace all sorts - wipers, brake discs, pads, filters - everything. They're st.

I must confess I've only had my Ferrari for a month or so but I've already needed to get some new tyres, a cover for it, some carpets and a new gearknob. TOTALLY unreliable - bloody Italians etc etc.

[AW111]

bqf said:

All cars are over-rated, I prefer the bus, or walking. When I lived in Newcastle I liked the metro, it's big and yellow and that and you don't have to fix it yourself when it goes wrong.

If I must talk about cars, then Ferrari's are rubbish, BMWs are for poseurs and Troy Queefs and Volkswagens are rubbish as well. Of the four brand new Volkswagens I have had, and of the 200,000 miles I have done, I have had to replace all sorts - wipers, brake discs, pads, filters - everything. They're st.

I must confess I've only had my Ferrari for a month or so but I've already needed to get some new tyres, a cover for it, some carpets and a new gearknob. TOTALLY unreliable - bloody Italians etc etc.

200,000 miles in the VWs and never replaced a tyre? Amazingly reliable those german cars.

I now have a picture in my head of some random passenger spannering a train engine after the call comes over the pa for a mechanic.

[Kawasicki]

ORD said:

Kawasicki said:

bmw 116i...reet slow...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW3GeEEhQBw

Looks a bit fast to me. Downhill?

No, it really takes a full 8 seconds to 100km/h, just as slow as expected.

I think a 135i is more suitable for the cut and thrust of typical UK traffic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0sY0gfxJJ4

[Hol]

20 Years ago, the contenders would have been Rover, Ford or Renault etc, and we would all be talking about the impressive build quality of BMW, Mercedes and to a lesser degree Audi.


Today BMW have their faults, but they have deliberately dumbed down their range and their price/quality to become the new 'Cortina and Granada' of the current age.

Worse than BMW are Mercedes today, as the C Class AMG clad poverty cars are a chavs dream - irrespective of the thin plastics inside.

VAG are supposed to be based on the same chassis and I bought one because it was a cheap AWD/Big petrol engined car. To say that VW is now a classy act because the passat is an A4 is actually wrong. All of them are now intermediate VW-level cars.


The days of the German prestige motor are gone. The accountants willed it so, to obtain greater market share for their badge and the longer term servicing revenue that would then provide for their dealer networks.

[jimbop1]

Have we found out what Beer Man drives yet? His profile just has a bicycle mentioned.

Is this because BMW took his company car off him when they sacked him?

[Soupie69uk]

I do agree that more modern Audi's have dropped in quality over the past 10 years.

Bentley is one I was surprised at when I sat in one. A GT and the interior did not feel anywhere near as solid as I expected. Maybe the £200k+ cars are better but for a £100k car I was expecting it to feel better.