Styling. Have they got it right or wrong?
Discussion
After a few comments in the M3/M4 thread HERE about manufactures making their cooking spec cars look more like their much sportier models (or indeed watering down the latter). It got me thinking; is it a good or bad thing?
Now its not just BMW but take for example F10 520D M-sport:
Vs F10 M5:
Until the car has driven past and you count the exhausts (or read the badge if it's still there), there really isn't much at a glance to tell you which model it is. Especially not to your average Jo.
I personally like the idea of the cars potential being known to those who "get it" but being some what under the radar the rest of the time. I can also see the argument that if your spending £70/80/90 grand on a car, there are people that would want the world to know about it.
Which side of the fence are you on?
Now its not just BMW but take for example F10 520D M-sport:
Vs F10 M5:
Until the car has driven past and you count the exhausts (or read the badge if it's still there), there really isn't much at a glance to tell you which model it is. Especially not to your average Jo.
I personally like the idea of the cars potential being known to those who "get it" but being some what under the radar the rest of the time. I can also see the argument that if your spending £70/80/90 grand on a car, there are people that would want the world to know about it.
Which side of the fence are you on?
UK sales of M-Sport 5 series vs SE 5 series last year was at 80%.
Personally I don't like the look of the SE but really like the M-Sport, so if I couldn't have the M-Sport I wouldn't buy it, and I guess many are the same.
So for me it is more a case of 'Should the M5 be more blingy or should it stay more Q car and look like a regular M-Sport?'
I prefer and M car to be more subtle.
Personally I don't like the look of the SE but really like the M-Sport, so if I couldn't have the M-Sport I wouldn't buy it, and I guess many are the same.
So for me it is more a case of 'Should the M5 be more blingy or should it stay more Q car and look like a regular M-Sport?'
I prefer and M car to be more subtle.
I think they have it wrong personally. I saw an M5 on the motorway the other day and said to my colleague "look at that beast!" He couldn't see any appeal and said it just looked like any other 5 series. It got me thinking, if I spent all that money on a car a large part of me would want it to be a bit showy. I am sure a lot of people would think that also and would possibly choose something else that is. I've never really understood the understated thing, a fast car should look fast IMO.
ks about.8potdave said:
I think they have it wrong personally. I saw an M5 on the motorway the other day and said to my colleague "look at that beast!" He couldn't see any appeal and said it just looked like any other 5 series. It got me thinking, if I spent all that money on a car a large part of me would want it to be a bit showy. I am sure a lot of people would think that also and would possibly choose something else that is. I've never really understood the understated thing, a fast car should look fast IMO.
Very simple solution, don't buy an M5!I loved my E28 M5 mainly because it looked like a boggo 520. I never even thought about an M535. Things change though and peoples like/dislike is entirely subjective.
I would prefer a proper Q car rather than badges everywhere and simple twin exhausts rather than quad lums. That's just my opinion though
I would prefer a proper Q car rather than badges everywhere and simple twin exhausts rather than quad lums. That's just my opinion though
TheBALDpuma said:
I don't mind it this way when the M5 looks like a standard car. I don't really like what Mercedes have done with the a-class or slk for example, where a a180 has big sport wheels and big vents everywhere, twin exhausts etc and looks like it will do a gazillion mph.
yes I'm not keen either. I think under the umbrella of this thread there are two separate "issues"1)Tarting up cooking spec cars to look like the top models = Always bad in my opinion.
2)Watering down sporty models to look more subtle and slip under the radar = Good/bad depending on your taste.
M5 is in the latter and I approve.
I think some of this has to do with changing tastes and fashions. If we go back to the eighties it was more than possible to dress a car up in either sport or luxury guise as a means of flaunting the fact that you could afford better than base spec.
Trouble is a lot of the luxury features of the old school are either standard fit now, or considered bad taste. Recall the Mark Two Granada: in luxury trim it could have two tone paint, chrome wheel covers and a wood and velour lined interior. In sports guise it could have bumper extensions, fuel injection and alloys.
Fast forward and most people (me excepted) wouldn't roll in something that resembled Liberace's drawing room. Thus the old ideas of ostentatious luxury are somewhat out of fashion. On the outside anyway. Other things have just been accepted as standard fit now: fog lights, colour coding, flared wheel arches, alloys and so on. so sports flavour trumps luxury at the moment.
Consider, also, that crash tests have become more rigorous meaning that homologation of bumpers and stuff now takes a lot more work. It's a bit more difficult to vary stuff now.
So I think there's less choice if you want to be a little bit fabulous these days - a seventies or eighties dealer fit accessory catalogue would dwarf today's offerings. The car buyer who wants to show off, then, is left with an ever dwindling pool of accessories. What is left other than spurious exhaust pipe trim and blingy wheels? We seem to be moving towards ever more homogenous styling across model ranges.
Trouble is a lot of the luxury features of the old school are either standard fit now, or considered bad taste. Recall the Mark Two Granada: in luxury trim it could have two tone paint, chrome wheel covers and a wood and velour lined interior. In sports guise it could have bumper extensions, fuel injection and alloys.
Fast forward and most people (me excepted) wouldn't roll in something that resembled Liberace's drawing room. Thus the old ideas of ostentatious luxury are somewhat out of fashion. On the outside anyway. Other things have just been accepted as standard fit now: fog lights, colour coding, flared wheel arches, alloys and so on. so sports flavour trumps luxury at the moment.
Consider, also, that crash tests have become more rigorous meaning that homologation of bumpers and stuff now takes a lot more work. It's a bit more difficult to vary stuff now.
So I think there's less choice if you want to be a little bit fabulous these days - a seventies or eighties dealer fit accessory catalogue would dwarf today's offerings. The car buyer who wants to show off, then, is left with an ever dwindling pool of accessories. What is left other than spurious exhaust pipe trim and blingy wheels? We seem to be moving towards ever more homogenous styling across model ranges.
8potdave said:
I think they have it wrong personally. I saw an M5 on the motorway the other day and said to my colleague "look at that beast!" He couldn't see any appeal and said it just looked like any other 5 series. It got me thinking, if I spent all that money on a car a large part of me would want it to be a bit showy. I am sure a lot of people would think that also and would possibly choose something else that is. I've never really understood the understated thing, a fast car should look fast IMO.
The M5 has always been the walk softly, big stick approach. If you want something more showy, get a different car.It's more fun surprising non-car folk sitting on your bumper anyway.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff