RE: 2023 BMW XM | PH Review
Discussion
S600BSB said:
Where did it all go wrong for BMW.
It will vary for a lot of people. Many regard the E46 3, E39 5 and E38 7 series as peak BMW. I still think the later cars are nice, and have aged very well. They also still drove well and had great engines (E9x M3 and E6x M5 and M6 are possibly BMWs best M engines ever).In terms of going downhill there hasn't been an M engine since the E9x M3 that has made me think "wow". My dad had the V8 M6 back in 2012. Stonkingly fast and potent, but bland (in my opinion).
Styling is another matter. I think the current 3 and 5 series are really nice looking cars, I also like the 2 series. But the other cars are terrible. Their core cars have historically been the 3 and 5 series, they probably are less so now with the rise of the SUV, but these are still nice cars, and still, supposedly, class leading in terms of how they drive. I have seen a few M3s and M4s with "that grille" and, to be honest, I don't mind it. It looks better in the metal I think, but that doesn't mean I prefer it to some earlier cars.
Mother of sweet divine jaysus!!!!!!
Anyway, not much point me saying anything else, but I had to say something (what with this being PH, and thus feeling utterly compelled to). I didn't actually read the review because I couldn't be @rsed (what exactly was it going to tell me?), but I've read every single post here in the comments section, and by god did it not disappoint.
Funny old place is PH, where the comments section are pretty much guaranteed to be more entertaining than the actual article!!
Anyway, not much point me saying anything else, but I had to say something (what with this being PH, and thus feeling utterly compelled to). I didn't actually read the review because I couldn't be @rsed (what exactly was it going to tell me?), but I've read every single post here in the comments section, and by god did it not disappoint.
Funny old place is PH, where the comments section are pretty much guaranteed to be more entertaining than the actual article!!
Hereward said:
Being kind I could say this expresses similar monolithic brutalism to the Rolls Royce Cullinan at one third of the price. Tremendous value!
Very generous of you to find a point in favour of the XM. However, I counter that the Dacia Bigster looks like it will offer the same aesthetic for one fifth of its price (and a bargain one fifteenth of the Cullinan). 
TWPC said:
Hereward said:
Being kind I could say this expresses similar monolithic brutalism to the Rolls Royce Cullinan at one third of the price. Tremendous value!
Very generous of you to find a point in favour of the XM. However, I counter that the Dacia Bigster looks like it will offer the same aesthetic for one fifth of its price (and a bargain one fifteenth of the Cullinan). I find this car irredeemably ugly. However, I'd like to explain why, rather than just saying "the horror!".
The profile
The bonnet is too high.
The side profile is not too bad, but the gold signature line peters out in an odd way. I'd also question why the signature highlight is required in the first instance. Well styled cars don't use or need this.
I like the rising waistline, and the D pillar accent. So, not bad profile from the side - but not great either.
The squared off wheel arches look awkward; luckily, they are in black to disguise their clumsy application.
I like the dark blue metallic. It also works well with the gold signature stripe (in colour terms), and if you think that blue and gold don't work, don't visit a watch shop any time soon. It's a standard colour combination in the horological industry.
The front
I have several problems with this.
it's too blocky.
The grille is too large, and is not properly integrated with the rest of the front. It looks stuck on, like a bad photoshopped image.
The lights are disproportionately small, and are lost. Having two layers of lights doesn't really work, although it's fortunate that the lower layer is hidden in daylight / dark colours.
Acres of black will not work well with anything other than dark colours.
The rear
The rear valance looks like someone is gurning. Unless you're a frog, this is not known to be a good look.
The rear lights stick out into the airflow, and look clumsy as a result.
The gold highlighting of what pretends to be a diffuser (in a fat SUV?) just brings attention to a superfluous detail.
The polygonal exhausts have a shape that bears no resemblance to any other part of the body, other than perhaps the wheel arches or maybe the front grill, way ahead at the front (I'd say the sharp end, but that would be an offence under the Trades Description Act).
The surfacing
What can I say? Clumsy, discordant, and vulgar. To quote CAR's Anthony Ffrench-Constant's suggested description of the XM's "mini-me", the iX1, the "incoherent, shouty mishmash of slashes, creases, bulges and materials" might just as well apply to the XM.
And many are calling the Ferrari Roma convertible ugly? The mind boggles.
The interior
I like the terracotta and cream combination in principle, but I'd lose the shouty silver. It's at odds with the black dah and wheel (which looks as if it has been borrowed from another car) .I think also that the cream overwhelms the interior when combined with the silver. Having colour in a car helps elevate it above the black associated with more prosaic transport, but care is required to do it well. It's not done well here.
In summary, I think it is a clumsy childish overstyled mess, whose only redeeming visual feature is to accurately convey the utter mass of this vehicle. In one word, it's vulgar. Utterly vulgar (okay, that's two words..)
I have no doubt that this will make money for BMW, but then again, tastes have changed, and current trends are not where I want to be. I'll head off to look at the outgoing 6 Series and wonder why the virtues of elegance and grace have no place in so much automotive output.
(edited for typos and mistakes)
The profile
The bonnet is too high.
The side profile is not too bad, but the gold signature line peters out in an odd way. I'd also question why the signature highlight is required in the first instance. Well styled cars don't use or need this.
I like the rising waistline, and the D pillar accent. So, not bad profile from the side - but not great either.
The squared off wheel arches look awkward; luckily, they are in black to disguise their clumsy application.
I like the dark blue metallic. It also works well with the gold signature stripe (in colour terms), and if you think that blue and gold don't work, don't visit a watch shop any time soon. It's a standard colour combination in the horological industry.
The front
I have several problems with this.
it's too blocky.
The grille is too large, and is not properly integrated with the rest of the front. It looks stuck on, like a bad photoshopped image.
The lights are disproportionately small, and are lost. Having two layers of lights doesn't really work, although it's fortunate that the lower layer is hidden in daylight / dark colours.
Acres of black will not work well with anything other than dark colours.
The rear
The rear valance looks like someone is gurning. Unless you're a frog, this is not known to be a good look.
The rear lights stick out into the airflow, and look clumsy as a result.
The gold highlighting of what pretends to be a diffuser (in a fat SUV?) just brings attention to a superfluous detail.
The polygonal exhausts have a shape that bears no resemblance to any other part of the body, other than perhaps the wheel arches or maybe the front grill, way ahead at the front (I'd say the sharp end, but that would be an offence under the Trades Description Act).
The surfacing
What can I say? Clumsy, discordant, and vulgar. To quote CAR's Anthony Ffrench-Constant's suggested description of the XM's "mini-me", the iX1, the "incoherent, shouty mishmash of slashes, creases, bulges and materials" might just as well apply to the XM.
And many are calling the Ferrari Roma convertible ugly? The mind boggles.
The interior
I like the terracotta and cream combination in principle, but I'd lose the shouty silver. It's at odds with the black dah and wheel (which looks as if it has been borrowed from another car) .I think also that the cream overwhelms the interior when combined with the silver. Having colour in a car helps elevate it above the black associated with more prosaic transport, but care is required to do it well. It's not done well here.
In summary, I think it is a clumsy childish overstyled mess, whose only redeeming visual feature is to accurately convey the utter mass of this vehicle. In one word, it's vulgar. Utterly vulgar (okay, that's two words..)
I have no doubt that this will make money for BMW, but then again, tastes have changed, and current trends are not where I want to be. I'll head off to look at the outgoing 6 Series and wonder why the virtues of elegance and grace have no place in so much automotive output.
(edited for typos and mistakes)
Edited by Ray_Aber on Sunday 19th March 12:31
LunarOne said:
TWPC said:
Hereward said:
Being kind I could say this expresses similar monolithic brutalism to the Rolls Royce Cullinan at one third of the price. Tremendous value!
Very generous of you to find a point in favour of the XM. However, I counter that the Dacia Bigster looks like it will offer the same aesthetic for one fifth of its price (and a bargain one fifteenth of the Cullinan). Off topic, but I’m looking forward to seeing what the Bigster is like when it is released. Whereas I’ve pretty much given up on new BMWs (except perhaps the little Neue Klasse).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff