RE: BMW M135i facelift: Driven

[PunterCam]

Still a horrid looking little car. Different shaped headlights isn't going to change anything. Headlights and bumpers aren't styling. A fat ugly hooker in a new pair of shoes is still a fat ugly hooker. It's a car for people who think they like cars.

[Crafty_]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't disagree, but the trend of praising a car and then on a re-review picking fault with it isn't unique to this review, or PH..

The car hasn't suddenly started handling worse since the first review or the monkey videos. So how come the suspension is so unsettled, the steering vague (where it was precise previously) ? It doesn't quite add up, the two reviews and night and day different. At best, we can say they are both useless and (as always) one should decide for themselves.

[Crafty_]

PunterCam said:

Still a horrid looking little car. Different shaped headlights isn't going to change anything. Headlights and bumpers aren't styling. A fat ugly hooker in a new pair of shoes is still a fat ugly hooker. It's a car for people who think they like cars.

I wonder who said:

PHer said:

I'd much rather have ugly than bland

need a clue ?

[Numeric]

Oddly I find our 135i gives a lot of confidence in the wet and the suspension is just the right side of firm - any more and you'd be getting thrown off line. No it isn't perfect but its is LOT of fun and I'd rather be having fun if a couple of MPH slower than a techno car. Only the steering catches me out being a little light, but once I get used to it I find it precise though requiring more delicacy than I'm used to in my E39 diesel, funny that :

[Esceptico]

Had ours for over 18 months. Mixed feelings about it. As an every day car it is very nice. Engine super smooth and very powerful. Comfortable. Practical. Wife loves it. Automatic gearbox makes it a very easy car to own and use.

However the alloys are really st. They don't look great and they stand so proud of the wheel that my wife has pretty much destroyed them all with parking (to be honest even I managed to ding one). In winter we swap the wheels and those have remained perfect so it is definitely the alloys as they give you no room for error.

Not a great car to drive fast in my view. Doesn't have enough traction and the turbo power delivery means that it often catches you out even at half throttle. Not confidence inspiring. What is annoying is that in LHD markets they get a 4WD version that solves most of those issues.

If it were my only peformance car I would not be happy.

[xRIEx]

slowhand99 said:

Facelift my ar5e.

Why, is it need of a bit of a refresh? In styling, performance, or both?

[kambites]

bertie said:

What's wrong with the suspension?

I think it's great, comfortable yet controlled.

Hmm, clearly yours is different than the two I've driven then. I found them to be over-sprung and significantly under-damped with a strange feeling of poor rear axle location. It feels a little nose-heavy to me too, but that might be because I'm used to rear/mid engined cars. I'd love to have one for a few days with a load of different springs to play with, I get the feeling it would handle much better with springs which were 20-30% softer, probably with the greater change to rates at the rear or maybe a stiffer front anti-roll bar. I'm not sure what can be done about the slightly loose feeling of the rear axle; I'm sure the wheel control isn't actually bad so I've no idea what causes the feeling.

Oddly the car that it most reminded me of in terms of suspension tuning is the S2000, which I also think is rather poor. In fact, it also reminds me of the M-sport suspension on the E90 which is bafflingly bad considering the non-M-Sport is so good.


I might be completely wrong about all of that, I'm no suspension engineer. I suppose I'm also being unfair in my expectations because part of me thinks of it as an A45/RS3 competitor and it isn't. If viewed simply as a family hatchback with a big engine shoehorned in, I suppose the suspension is adequate. What we need is a proper replacement for the 1M, preferably in hatchback form this time.

Edited by kambites on Friday 1st May 08:02

[Matt Bird]

nickfrog said:

Very odd indeed. The description of the way it handles in this latest review doesn't correspond to the reality at all unlike the positive extract above which was spot on. BMW get criticised for the suspension set up of E8X cars then they respond and make it supple yet really well controlled damping wise and now they got it wrong again, they can't win. Make your bloody mind up Mr Journo.

But still, for me its USP is that it's not 4wd.

As for looks, I am really surprised that most comments are about the (subjective) looks, but I guess if you haven't driven it... Is this really a driving enthusiast forum though ?

Can't wait to get mine early next month !!!

Hi all,

I wasn't the journalist on that original M135i launch but I think there are a few crucial differences. The first being that the original drives were our in Germany on smooth, dry roads. My time in the car on Wednesday was predominantly on damp, bumpy British roads. Issues that wouldn't have shown up there become more apparent here I would think.

The second is the cars introduced in that market since 2012. For me the A45 AMG feels far more composed down a British country road, the damping keeping the body movements under control far better and inspiring more confidence. Furthermore, the Golf is better tied down over bumps and undulations. The BMW just becomes a little scrappy towards the limit where those cars reach their best. And back in 2012 we didn't have those to compare it to! For much of the time it's good but the numb steering and the sense the suspension always isn't in control of the body prevents it being really enjoyable when pushing on. In my opinion, of course.

As something for everyday I think the M135i would be great because of that engine but I just think there are better driving cars in the segment now. BMW said they may spec a press car with a few of the additional M Performance parts which would be interesting to try. Then the M2 of course....


Cheers,


Matt

[Matt Bird]

Crafty_ said:

I don't disagree, but the trend of praising a car and then on a re-review picking fault with it isn't unique to this review, or PH..

The car hasn't suddenly started handling worse since the first review or the monkey videos. So how come the suspension is so unsettled, the steering vague (where it was precise previously) ? It doesn't quite add up, the two reviews and night and day different. At best, we can say they are both useless and (as always) one should decide for themselves.

I think also it's dependent on personal experience. We obviously aim to be as objective as possible but experience will always influence judgement to some extent. As new cars are introduced sometimes they expose issues in the existing models, or at least serve to make the weaknesses more prominent.

For me the steering responds to inputs as intended but is either too light or artificially heavy depending on the mode. There's no real sense of connection with what the front wheels are doing (yes, I know it's electric but other systems do it far better) and that's what contributes to the sense of vagueness.

But please do go and decide for yourself, I think you will like the M135i but find its rivals do certain things better.


Matt

[jrodzy]

I totally agree with Matt's comments above and find his assessment fair and accurate (and i'm a current owner of the pre LCI model!). My experience of the Golf R is far more composed on a bumpy B road especially in respect of pitch and roll and it seems to manage this whilst retaining a smoother ride over all which is confidence inspiring, drivers being equal the M135i would not keep up with the Golf R on a testing road, add in some wet weather and the gap increases significantly.

However... imo the M135i fights back with a classier engine, better sound track, more premium interior and rear wheel drive dynamics that are certainly testing (in a fun kind of way) when the weather turns damp. No it wont keep up with an R easily but maybe the driver of the M135i will be having more fun?

In summary I think with some choice suspension mods the M135i would be much improved. I would be interested to know if the suspension set up on the M235i is any better?

[epom]

xRIEx said:

slowhand99 said:

Facelift my ar5e.

Why, is it need of a bit of a refresh? In styling, performance, or both?

Would that not be called an Arselift ??

[bodhi]

jrodzy said:

I totally agree with Matt's comments above and find his assessment fair and accurate (and i'm a current owner of the pre LCI model!). My experience of the Golf R is far more composed on a bumpy B road especially in respect of pitch and roll and it seems to manage this whilst retaining a smoother ride over all which is confidence inspiring, drivers being equal the M135i would not keep up with the Golf R on a testing road, add in some wet weather and the gap increases significantly.

However... imo the M135i fights back with a classier engine, better sound track, more premium interior and rear wheel drive dynamics that are certainly testing (in a fun kind of way) when the weather turns damp. No it wont keep up with an R easily but maybe the driver of the M135i will be having more fun?

In summary I think with some choice suspension mods the M135i would be much improved. I would be interested to know if the suspension set up on the M235i is any better?

First of all top lurking! That has to be some sort of record surely?

Secondly your post has summed up the precise reason why I got bored of fast Golfs, is that because they are generally well composed down a country road, you have to drive the things like you've just stolen them for them to be any fun. I found the same when I test drove the R, very competent, but ultimately, a bit dull. I'd rather have a car I need to drive to make progress any day of the week, plus the R had one of the most unpleasant engine notes I have experienced in a while. I'd rather listen to our 15 year old Clio if I'm honest....

[PJZ7]

Cheers GroundEffect, AliT and Chrispmartha.

I really cant hear the sound from the speakers, but if it is actually there then it must be discreet enough.

was looking for options of how to turn up the volume on my e46 330Ci, not too keen on spending 600 quid on a carbon airbox or taking a black 'n' decker to the standard one.

[jrodzy]

bodhi said:

First of all top lurking! That has to be some sort of record surely?

Secondly your post has summed up the precise reason why I got bored of fast Golfs, is that because they are generally well composed down a country road, you have to drive the things like you've just stolen them for them to be any fun. I found the same when I test drove the R, very competent, but ultimately, a bit dull. I'd rather have a car I need to drive to make progress any day of the week, plus the R had one of the most unpleasant engine notes I have experienced in a while. I'd rather listen to our 15 year old Clio if I'm honest....

Quite right, I did wonder if anyone would notice!

I have had a similar experience to the one you mention in that having found my previous E92 M3 too difficult to enjoy without driving it somewhat 'antisocially' thus I opted for something that gives more options more of the time on public roads. The Golf R has so much grip that you really have to be going some for it to be near its limits. If you are looking for a car that will get you from A to B in the shortest time without breaking a sweat its very impressive.

[Hackney]

PunterCam said:

Still a horrid looking little car. Different shaped headlights isn't going to change anything. Headlights and bumpers aren't styling. A fat ugly hooker in a new pair of shoes is still a fat ugly hooker. It's a car for people who think they like cars.

I agree it's no looker, but "horrid little car"? Seriously?
Horrid little car to me is a 1litre auto Hyundai from 1998, no redeeming features at all.

Esceptico said:

Had ours for over 18 months. Mixed feelings about it. As an every day car it is very nice. Engine super smooth and very powerful. Comfortable. Practical. Wife loves it. Automatic gearbox makes it a very easy car to own and use.

However the alloys are really st. They don't look great and they stand so proud of the wheel that my wife has pretty much destroyed them all with parking (to be honest even I managed to ding one). In winter we swap the wheels and those have remained perfect so it is definitely the alloys as they give you no room for error.
[snip]

If it were my only peformance car I would not be happy.

It is my only performance car, it's my only car and I couldn't be happier with it.
Admittedly owning one car, performance or otherwise is an exercise in compromise: budget, seats, doors, boot size etc. I'd love a Caterham / Elise / Atom but where would I put the work paraphenalia, the wife, the kid?

I would have tried it in comparison to the Golf R and the AMG but they either weren't launched yet or were way over budget.

I've no idea how you keep damaging the alloys, after 20,000 miles I've one small scuff on mine.

[Esceptico]

jrodzy said:

I totally agree with Matt's comments above and find his assessment fair and accurate (and i'm a current owner of the pre LCI model!). My experience of the Golf R is far more composed on a bumpy B road especially in respect of pitch and roll and it seems to manage this whilst retaining a smoother ride over all which is confidence inspiring, drivers being equal the M135i would not keep up with the Golf R on a testing road, add in some wet weather and the gap increases.

Unless you are driving a Tarmac
rally with closed stages (and you have a navigator using stage notes) then speed across ground is determined by many other factors such as inability to see what is around the corner plus the need to hold onto your licence and liberty. Last weekend I was up in Scotland on a Hoon with fellow enthusiasts. I followed a couple of 991 GT3s driven enthusiastically (but not manically) and didn't have any problem keeping up although I had around 300 bhp less and was in a car 40 years older. At other times was in a small group with a Caterham, a 355 and a Boxster Spider and we all kept together. Therefore I don't think a 135i would have a problem keeping up with a Golf R given how close their performance is.

[ptopman]

kambites said:

Such a shame they don't seem capable of sorting the chassis out. We all know BMW are capable of setting suspension up properly, why can't they manage it with this car? It could be a great car rather than merely a good one.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 30th April 19:39

That's what you get when so many niches are defined and subsequently their existence justified. If the 1 series is made to ride as well as it can, fewer buyers would order optional suspension packages or go for a 3 or 4 for a better ride. Likewise for 5 vs. 7. Any way, as far as BMW is concerned if a potential 1 series buyer is looking for something that rides better, they should probably be steered into a 3 or 4 series. Each lower end model has to be slightly decontented or detuned to create one consistent story of more money, more car.

[Crafty_]

bodhi said:

First of all top lurking! That has to be some sort of record surely?

Secondly your post has summed up the precise reason why I got bored of fast Golfs, is that because they are generally well composed down a country road, you have to drive the things like you've just stolen them for them to be any fun. I found the same when I test drove the R, very competent, but ultimately, a bit dull. I'd rather have a car I need to drive to make progress any day of the week, plus the R had one of the most unpleasant engine notes I have experienced in a while. I'd rather listen to our 15 year old Clio if I'm honest....

I thought the golf was mind numbingly boring to be honest. You sit and watch a needle whizz round but there's no sense of speed, no engagement, no "seat of the pants" feel, at 280lb/ft it actually feels like 200lb/ft.
Its a quick version of a 1.4 shopping trolley and feels like it. I don't think anyone would really call it a drivers car. In super-duper-go-fast-mode mode I thought the steering was vague and too light, I didn't know where the wheels were pointing so had to wait and then put more inputs in as needed.
I buy a car for driving not getting from A to B whilst looking for the nearest starbucks on the touchscreen (which is a stupid idea) satnav.

The looks are, well, rubbish. simple, slab sided panels with a very mundane front end and a back end that looks like it ran in to halfords (imho the gti rear is better).

Along with various other things about the car I was disappointed, but not surprised.
I wanted to like it, but I got out, drove home in my tweaked astra vxr (the old one that everyone swears blind will kill you with torque steer) and hand on heart would take the astra every time. Torque delivery is proper good old school fun, much prefer the steering weight, no slightly irritating thud from gear changes.. on a b-road it would put a little grin on my face that the golf wouldn't do. Eons slower of course, who, honestly.. who cares ?

I found the BMW to be a nicer place to sit, more comfortable - best way I can describe it is in the golf you sat on the seat, in the BMW I felt I was sat in the seat, better view of controls/dash etc, no silly touchscreen. Didn't find issue with the steering (granted, I didn't get a chance to try all modes in either car) and honestly thought the auto box was better than the DSG. Torque delivery felt better, especially on dropping down the box and of course it sounds much nicer. Was put off by the engine capacity initially, but with owners reporting motorway cruising in the mid 30mpg region it doesn't seem an issue.

Its not perfect, but imho its a hell of a lot better than the golf, not least because it can be had for less than the golf and given the seemingly iffy residuals for the golfs (thanks to cheap lease deals) and the good performance over the past 3 years of the BMW (to the point I didn't think it was worth buying used...) it just seems to be a sensible decision. I think its a bit more grown up - one reason why I tired of the astra and I think the golf is headed the same way as that.

To be honest I've never really been in to BMWs, if you asked me to write down what format I wanted from a car I'd say 2 litre turbo 4wd - problem is it doesn't convert in the case of the golf.
The A45 would possibly be on the list, but its another £10k down the road, as is the RS3 that the BMW stood up very well against last time around.

Jury is still out how well I get on with the BMW, that journey starts tomorrow..

Matt Bird said:

Stuff

Wasn't having a pop at you Matt, but after a while of reading reviews you ultimately get so confused by the contradictions in the differing opinions of the journalists that it actually becomes very difficult to gain any useful information from the articles. Like I said, not specific to this review or PH.

[jrodzy]

Esceptico said:

Unless you are driving a Tarmac
rally with closed stages (and you have a navigator using stage notes) then speed across ground is determined by many other factors such as inability to see what is around the corner plus the need to hold onto your licence and liberty. Last weekend I was up in Scotland on a Hoon with fellow enthusiasts. I followed a couple of 991 GT3s driven enthusiastically (but not manically) and didn't have any problem keeping up although I had around 300 bhp less and was in a car 40 years older. At other times was in a small group with a Caterham, a 355 and a Boxster Spider and we all kept together. Therefore I don't think a 135i would have a problem keeping up with a Golf R given how close their performance is.

Sounds like a great road trip but without wishing to cause offence, I cant think of many cars of circa 40 years old and less than 200hp that could keep up with an enthusiastically driven GT3! What were you driving?

To illustrate my point, comparatively the driver of the M135 would be have to work at 10/10 to keep up with an R being driven at 9/10, and this would not be a very comfortable place to be! I acknowledge that on paper their performance is close but on the road the R has the edge and you would have take liberties in the M135 to keep up when driven in an "enthusiastic" manner. And that's where we might agree in that we don't want to be hitting tarmac rally stage speeds to enjoy ourselves.

[Esceptico]

jrodzy said:

Sounds like a great road trip but without wishing to cause offence, I cant think of many cars of circa 40 years old and less than 200hp that could keep up with an enthusiastically driven GT3! What were you driving?

To illustrate my point, comparatively the driver of the M135 would be have to work at 10/10 to keep up with an R being driven at 9/10, and this would not be a very comfortable place to be! I acknowledge that on paper their performance is close but on the road the R has the edge and you would have take liberties in the M135 to keep up when driven in an "enthusiastic" manner. And that's where we might agree in that we don't want to be hitting tarmac rally stage speeds to enjoy ourselves.

Difference wasn't quite 300 bhp as I had 220 bhp (but only around 1000 kg). It was an original 911. Stiffer suspension and later brakes but normal road tyres.

My point is that on the road no-one drives 10/10ths - if they do they should be stripped of their licence. On the track differences count because you can brake as late and hard as possible, corner on the edge of grip, accelerate at maximum until you have to brake again. None of that is possible on the road so small (or even large) differences don't really count. That at least is my experience of driving in groups with quite
different cars.