Thursday 9th June 2011

1-series M.Zip Files: The End Of The Road

Our 1M has gone, but how will we remember it?

---

Well folks, our year-in-a-fortnight with the 1-series M Coupe has come and gone alarmingly quickly (well, in a fortnight) and we are left bereft of the Valencia Orange monster.

But before we let it go back to BMW, we thought we'd better draw some conclusions about the newest and smallest M car.

Is it an E30 M3 for the 21st century? Was BMW right to go down the route of using the N54 twin-turbo engine? Has Munich pitched the looks and spec right? Is it, in short, any good?

To help us decide, we thought we'd draw upon the experience of a couple of tame PHers, Duncan and Pradip. We should probably admit up front that this is hardly an objective choice, as the two between them have owned more or less every M-shaped BMW out there, and Duncan has a 1M on order. Nevertheless, a brief test drive for both threw up some interesting points...

"The 1M is very much a 21st-century M car, especially compared with the E30 M3," reckons Pradip. "The car makes so many allowances for you, and that's a double-edged sword, both protecting you and wrapping you in cotton wool. It's almost got more in common with recent fast Audis than with the full-fat M cars of the past."

Which would perhaps be condemnation by association in the eyes of many, but we reckon he's right, in that the 1-series M is actually quite a road-focussed prospect, with relatively few hard edges - and that's no bad thing.

"The 1M is also sort of short and fat, not exactly the best dance partner but good for stability - the M3 feels better because it's longer, and those nine inches in the wheelbase matter," Pradip continues. "The car feels big and strong like a Tonka toy, but the power is not as addictive as I had expected.

He also has some criticism (with which we would heartily agree) about the step-like power delivery. "The turbo jump is almost like a kickdown and can catch you out; it's almost an on/off switch." When the power delivery in a 135i is so linear, it does seem odd that the 1M is so boosty - it makes you wonder if BMW deliberately engineered it that way to make it feel artificially fast.

Duncan is less equivocal. "It's fabulous. You can tell a lot in the first 100 yards. It's the steering weight for me. I remember thinking that the M3 steering was too light, whereas the 1M feels more solid and purposeful.

"The ride is also just right, better than the M3, and it feels just a fraction more compliant. It seemed to cope with rough roads in a more unruffled manner. Oh, and the gearchange feels faster.

"But the biggest 'yes!' moment was the cornering. The combination of steering and grip was perfect. There's a slip road off the A3 near New Malden that is about 200 metres long. It has a tight left-hander followed by a longer right-hander and you can learn a lot about a car from it. The 1M felt completely planted all the way around. Balanced and unruffled. It stopped dead at the end, too."

But while Duncan was taken with the ride, Pradip (like myself) have some reservations. He reckons the ride is a bit jiggly and that the 1M would benefit from BMW's EDC electronic damper control (first fitted, he points out, on the M3 way back in 1987).

Disagreement reigns with the interior, too. Duncan reckons the cabin is "definitely a notch or two up in quality from (his) 135i" while Pradip reckons it to be 'so-so'.

Smug smile of a man with a 1M on order...

Both Duncan and Pradip agree on the sound front, however, Duncan marking it down for seeming "a little too warbly and lacking in tonal range" while Pradip declares it merely to be "okay".

So what about the looks? These are inevitably subjective, and while yours truly finds the quasi-touring car styling appealing, I don't exactly find it the prettiest car in the world. Duncan, meanwhile, suggests that "the wheelarches and wheel size make it look cartoonish, but it looks fresh and contemporary. It looks...ready." We see what he means. Pradip takes a similar stance, likening the 1M to Angelina Jolie, in that it's "very powerful but lacking in charm and classic beauty. I prefer my cars to be more in the Grace Kelly mould." Parking it next to Pradip's delicately purposeful M3 for these pictures, you can see where he's coming from.

So after an all-too-brief time with the 1M, the collected wisdom of two tame PHers (and lots more 'wild' ones) and some extremely bad false beards (we mean natural hair growth) in an attempt to mark the passage of time, what do we think?

The face of a man looking forward to a shave...

Is it a proper M car? Nearly. It's certainly a fantastic performance car, but it's perhaps not the full-on E30 M3 revival that some might have hoped. But think of it as not a 'proper' fast BMW, kind of like an 'M3 Compact' and you'd be being unkind.

Pradip thinks that "the entry-level sport BMW should be under £30k, stripped of all gadgets and toys, with a four-cylinder engine, decent brakes, loudish exhaust and an LSD." We concur. But not being that car still doesn't prevent the 1M from turning out to be an epic fast Bee-Em.

"This is a car I want to take my time getting to know because it feels like it has a deep reserve of talent and character," says Duncan. "It feels like the first of a new breed of M car. It feels contemporary."

We couldn't agree more, Duncan. We just wish ours hadn't gone back to Bracknell in the back of a BMW UK delivery truck so soon...

1-series M zip files Part One
1-series M zip files Part Two
1-series M zip files Part Three
1-series M zip files Part Four
1-series M zip files Part Five

 

 

[custardkid]

"It's almost got more in common with recent fast Audis than with the full-fat M cars of the past."

.... nuff said

[GarryA]

Perhaps if they made it 4cyl, slower than 90% of todays hot hatches and threw in a free pair of rose tinted glasses then people might think it was an E30 M3.

[0836whimper]

So, it's very rapid, loads of grip and corners well, sounds 'okay' and has a VAG like low down torque curve to make it feel faster.

Most modern cars tick those boxes, where's the M part ?

[Prof Prolapse]

GarryA said:

Perhaps if they made it 4cyl, slower than 90% of todays hot hatches and threw in a free pair of rose tinted glasses then people might think it was an E30 M3.

It's under 5 seconds to 60 isn't it?

[Smike]

Here's Chris Harris review.....


http://www.evo.co.uk/videos/planetevovideos/268744...

I also remember Colin Goodwin's comparison on the last of the line E30 M3 vs the new E36 ( a Dakar Yellow one ) in Autocar when the E36 came out.

I think he decided likewise, the 'new' M-car wasn't an M-car liek the old one.....

Steve Soper liked the newer car as it was faster ( and he had a company BM at the time )

Here's the article

http://www.originalm3.info/?p=517

People seem to like the E36s now though.....

Edited by Smike on Thursday 9th June 08:48

[Agoogy]

This growing on me, but it's being damned by faint praise...
and this:


highlights SO many things...
Pedestrian safety legislation is ruining car design, I can see WHY it's needed of course, but the cars are just getting massiive and heavy..which is a little on the counter productive side in terms of resources and energy etc..
Those wheels too...just compare with the E30...cartoonish is right!

[braddo]

Agoogy said:

This growing on me, but it's being damned by faint praise...
and this:


highlights SO many things...
Pedestrian safety legislation is ruining car design, I can see WHY it's needed of course, but the cars are just getting massiive and heavy..which is a little on the counter productive side in terms of resources and energy etc..
Those wheels too...just compare with the E30...cartoonish is right!

100% agree.

[E21_Ross]

Prof Prolapse said:

GarryA said:

Perhaps if they made it 4cyl, slower than 90% of todays hot hatches and threw in a free pair of rose tinted glasses then people might think it was an E30 M3.

It's under 5 seconds to 60 isn't it?

the original E30 M3 was over 6.5 seconds to 60.

[Agoogy]

E21_Ross said:

Prof Prolapse said:

GarryA said:

Perhaps if they made it 4cyl, slower than 90% of todays hot hatches and threw in a free pair of rose tinted glasses then people might think it was an E30 M3.

It's under 5 seconds to 60 isn't it?

the original E30 M3 was over 6.5 seconds to 60.

Isn't that just delivery, engine management and massive rubber making a few hot hatches quicker??...21st century hot hatches vs E30 M3..
both circa 1300kg and both circa 200BHP....
Nothing in it...once you've got to 60 and beyond, feel is mroe important.. visibility (A illars) and character...rose tinted or not.... I'd wager 90% of PH's would choose the E30...no?

[E21_Ross]

Agoogy said:

E21_Ross said:

Prof Prolapse said:

GarryA said:

Perhaps if they made it 4cyl, slower than 90% of todays hot hatches and threw in a free pair of rose tinted glasses then people might think it was an E30 M3.

It's under 5 seconds to 60 isn't it?

the original E30 M3 was over 6.5 seconds to 60.

Isn't that just delivery, engine management and massive rubber making a few hot hatches quicker??...21st century hot hatches vs E30 M3..
both circa 1300kg and both circa 200BHP....
Nothing in it...once you've got to 60 and beyond, feel is mroe important.. visibility (A illars) and character...rose tinted or not.... I'd wager 90% of PH's would choose the E30...no?

i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm just saying it was slower than he said

visibility is hilariously bad in new cars. my E21 feels like a bloody green house!!

[Smike]

E21_Ross said:

Prof Prolapse said:

GarryA said:

Perhaps if they made it 4cyl, slower than 90% of todays hot hatches and threw in a free pair of rose tinted glasses then people might think it was an E30 M3.

It's under 5 seconds to 60 isn't it?

the original E30 M3 was over 6.5 seconds to 60.

I can remember when the E30 M3 came out it didn't go down that well amongst a lot of BMW diehards as it was 'only' a 4-cylinder and had a very extrovert bodykit...( even the E28 M5 was a bit more discrete than the M535i as most people didn't 'spec' the body addenda )

They thought it seemed 'wrong' that the range topper had an 'inferior' engine to the car below in the range ( 325i ).

We know why they went for the 4-cylinder but it was still interesting to see the comments of the reviewers in the E30 C2/E30 M3 article out in "Classic Cars" at the moment.

[Agoogy]

E21_Ross said:

i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm just saying it was slower than he said

visibility is hilariously bad in new cars. my E21 feels like a bloody green house!!

I was aiming the commentmore at Gary I spose... I drive a 91 CRX...again...'greenhouse' visibility...hasn't ruined the looks, just improves the interior IMO....light and space are luxuries.

[Mermaid]

Little & large.. the size/shape of things to come, sadly.

[zakelwe]

The E30 is such a lovely shape, I was going to say it has grown old gracefully, but it still looks fresh in those photo's.

Agree with

"Pradip thinks that "the entry-level sport BMW should be under £30k, stripped of all gadgets and toys, with a four-cylinder engine, decent brakes, loudish exhaust and an LSD." "

Though it should have a 3 cyl engine for more character. They are making these engines, there should be an M version of that engine in a small, "cheap" M car.

[kbee540]

Sadly, methinks we're unlikely to see the likes of the E30 M3 again. Times have changed. Crash regulations and the desire for more kit have made modern cars big and heavy. Start loading them down with electric motors, batteries, & hybrid drivetrains and it's only going to get worse.

So, perhaps the question of whether it's a 'proper' M-car is moot. It's an M-car because it has the badge, engineering, and intent. That it is different from those that went before is to be expected.

Funnily enough, nobody complains that a 458 isn't a 'real Ferrari like the 308GTS was. There's no chorus of disapproval that the new 911GTRSCarreraSportClassicTurboS isn't like the spit you off the road air-cooled 911s from the 70s/80s.

Different times - different cars....

[R66STU]

kbee540 said:

Sadly, methinks we're unlikely to see the likes of the E30 M3 again. Times have changed. Crash regulations and the desire for more kit have made modern cars big and heavy. Start loading them down with electric motors, batteries, & hybrid drivetrains and it's only going to get worse.

So, perhaps the question of whether it's a 'proper' M-car is moot. It's an M-car because it has the badge, engineering, and intent. That it is different from those that went before is to be expected.

Funnily enough, nobody complains that a 458 isn't a 'real Ferrari like the 308GTS was. There's no chorus of disapproval that the new 911GTRSCarreraSportClassicTurboS isn't like the spit you off the road air-cooled 911s from the 70s/80s.

Different times - different cars....

& Old VS New Golf GTI

[Johnboy Mac]

kbee540 said:

Different times - different cars....

Yep, that's exactly it in a nutshell but sometimes none the better for it.

This new 'M' car or the far less powerful E30 M3, no competition imo. M3 all the way. Actually I don't consider them to be comparable in any sense but I suppose it's a good marketing/good reading ploy and makes the 1M more interesting that it actually is considering a new and far better looking E92 M3 with a full on M engine (and not a turbo insight) is still available or even better a used one.

Edited by Johnboy Mac on Thursday 9th June 11:06

[muthaducka]

Agoogy said:

This growing on me, but it's being damned by faint praise...
and this:


highlights SO many things...
Pedestrian safety legislation is ruining car design, I can see WHY it's needed of course, but the cars are just getting massiive and heavy..which is a little on the counter productive side in terms of resources and energy etc..
Those wheels too...just compare with the E30...cartoonish is right!

Why do I / we keep getting drawn to older car design? If I look this photo square in the eye, I can only see the e30, like one of those magic images, the 1m is just invisible, even in orange!

[Agoogy]

kbee540 said:

Sadly, methinks we're unlikely to see the likes of the E30 M3 again. Times have changed. Crash regulations and the desire for more kit have made modern cars big and heavy. Start loading them down with electric motors, batteries, & hybrid drivetrains and it's only going to get worse.

So, perhaps the question of whether it's a 'proper' M-car is moot. It's an M-car because it has the badge, engineering, and intent. That it is different from those that went before is to be expected.

Funnily enough, nobody complains that a 458 isn't a 'real Ferrari like the 308GTS was. There's no chorus of disapproval that the new 911GTRSCarreraSportClassicTurboS isn't like the spit you off the road air-cooled 911s from the 70s/80s.

Different times - different cars....

Not arguing because most if not all of what you sya is fact, but the 911 isn't a great example..sure it's modernised and safer and heavier, but the 911 still occupies the same market sector, and if you overlay the profiles the dimensions haven't changed hugely... the fact that the Old 3 series is now dwarfed by a car that sits beneath the new 3 series is different altogether IMO...just saying...

[Faltz]

custardkid said:

"It's almost got more in common with recent fast Audis than with the full-fat M cars of the past."

.... nuff said

+1 probably a very good car as most rapid Audis are, but unlikely to ever be a great

E30 to 1M - Kathleen Turner then and now. Same same, but different....