Old (early 911) vs new (M135i)
Discussion
We recently moved back to the UK after a long spell abroad and needed to purchase some cars (always a nice task). Wanted an everyday car to share with my wife and something fun for the weekend for me. Two cars we bought are at opposite ends of the performance car spectrum: a very modern M135i and a very old (1972) 911. I find the contrast between the two cars very interesting.
I didn't really intend to buy something as quick as a M135i. Criteria (as I was sharing with my wife) were: not too big (my wife thought that the 3 and 5 series I had previously were too large for her), 4/5 doors, estate or hatchback and automatic or automated manual (wife's preference). I know that buying new isn't good value but my wife and daughter were moving back to the UK first, by themselves whilst I finished my contract and it was just much easier buying new than trying to find a good second-hand car on weekend trips back. Initially I was thinking of a mid-range golf but got sucked into buying the BMW on the basis that it was only about £8k more expensive but offered so much more performance (and 6 cylinders and RWD).
I am a bit split on my opinion of the M135i. In many ways it is a brilliant car. It is the easiest car to drive we have ever had (my wife adores it). The 8-speed auto is smooth, the steering is light and direct, lots of power that is also well modulated so creeping in traffic and parking are no problem yet putting your foot down unleashes a torrent of torque: subjectively just as quick as my pervious E46 and E93 M3s. We think it looks okay (a bit of a sleeper in grey with no badges), is very comfortable on long journeys and seems well put together. It is mostly used around town and economy not that great (around 23 mpg overall).
Despite being very quick it doesn't excite me as a driver's car should. The steering is direct but there is no real feedback and if I am honest the car would be dangerous for many people without the electronic safety net: just a couple of days ago I was coming off a large roundabout onto a dual carriageway. Road was bone dry (although it wasn't that warm as early morning). I accelerated fairly hard but not near full throttle to pass some traffic and I could feel (and see via the flashing lights on the dash board) that the traction/stability control was cutting in. I think the problem is that with the turbo it has too much torque (and not enough weight over the rear wheels) - even at half throttle I find that it is easy to overwhelm the rear tyres (in winter it snapped sideways, despite accelerating in a straight line and despite being fitted with winter tyres). I am no sideways hero like Chris Harris but don't mind (in fact like) powerful rear drive cars...but I like more predictability/control.
Most telling facts about the BMW is that I rarely get it out of comfort mode, never bother using the paddles and have only got up early once to take it for a drive.
The 911 is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It has zero creature comforts (if you want ventilation - wind down the window!). No radio, no accessories, no power steering, no servo on the brakes, truculent gearbox that can't be rushed, very noisy (no sound deadening), no electric anything. Just a gutsy engine in the back, low weight and four wheels. It is not that uncomfortable, although the bucket seats are a tight fit and anyone with a BMI over 23 would struggle to get into them, and as long as you wear ear-plugs to cut out the worst of the noise can do long distances. I certainly wouldn't want to use it as an everyday car though.
On the flipside, it excites me as a driver's car in ways that the BMW doesn't know how. Top of the list is the steering. The feel is amazing. You know what is happening on the road because you are connected directly to what is going on. Whatever speed you are driving at there is fun to be had from the steering feedback. The sound of the engine is much better too, once extended. But best of all is the linearity of the power train: no sudden turbo surge. Power builds nicely with revs and because of the engine at the back you can accelerate hard and early out of bends. That is the car's best trick. Brake hard and early before the bend (enjoying the wonderful feel of the non-servoed brake pedal), get into gear, drive into the bend and try to get back on the power as soon as possible, feeling the front lift slightly, the tyres gripping at the back as you shoot out of the bend like a sling shot. Brilliant!
What is amazing is how quick the 911 is for a 40 year old car. In a drag race the BMW would leave it for dead but I think that is partly down to the gearboxes. In gear it might be a bit closer once the 911 is in its stride. Certainly when you think how slow the average car was 40 years ago then the 911 must have felt like a rocket ship. For me that is part of the problem of today's supercars. Yes they are massively faster than your average car but you only really notice the difference in acceleration at bonkers speeds, which encourages one to drive them too quickly for safety on the road, licence and liberty.
The key difference is that in the two weeks I've owned the 911 I have been out at the weekend at every opportunity (not so sure my neighbours enjoy being woken at 5:30.....) and have a 1000 mile trip to Wales planned for this week with some other early 911 enthusiasts.
Only time will tell whether the 911 is a bit too extreme/hard-core but I am enjoying it at the moment.
As a last point, looks are subjective but to my eyes the 911 is in another league. Of course, not fair to compare a proper sportscar (and icon) with a family hatchback.
I didn't really intend to buy something as quick as a M135i. Criteria (as I was sharing with my wife) were: not too big (my wife thought that the 3 and 5 series I had previously were too large for her), 4/5 doors, estate or hatchback and automatic or automated manual (wife's preference). I know that buying new isn't good value but my wife and daughter were moving back to the UK first, by themselves whilst I finished my contract and it was just much easier buying new than trying to find a good second-hand car on weekend trips back. Initially I was thinking of a mid-range golf but got sucked into buying the BMW on the basis that it was only about £8k more expensive but offered so much more performance (and 6 cylinders and RWD).
I am a bit split on my opinion of the M135i. In many ways it is a brilliant car. It is the easiest car to drive we have ever had (my wife adores it). The 8-speed auto is smooth, the steering is light and direct, lots of power that is also well modulated so creeping in traffic and parking are no problem yet putting your foot down unleashes a torrent of torque: subjectively just as quick as my pervious E46 and E93 M3s. We think it looks okay (a bit of a sleeper in grey with no badges), is very comfortable on long journeys and seems well put together. It is mostly used around town and economy not that great (around 23 mpg overall).
Despite being very quick it doesn't excite me as a driver's car should. The steering is direct but there is no real feedback and if I am honest the car would be dangerous for many people without the electronic safety net: just a couple of days ago I was coming off a large roundabout onto a dual carriageway. Road was bone dry (although it wasn't that warm as early morning). I accelerated fairly hard but not near full throttle to pass some traffic and I could feel (and see via the flashing lights on the dash board) that the traction/stability control was cutting in. I think the problem is that with the turbo it has too much torque (and not enough weight over the rear wheels) - even at half throttle I find that it is easy to overwhelm the rear tyres (in winter it snapped sideways, despite accelerating in a straight line and despite being fitted with winter tyres). I am no sideways hero like Chris Harris but don't mind (in fact like) powerful rear drive cars...but I like more predictability/control.
Most telling facts about the BMW is that I rarely get it out of comfort mode, never bother using the paddles and have only got up early once to take it for a drive.
The 911 is at the opposite end of the spectrum. It has zero creature comforts (if you want ventilation - wind down the window!). No radio, no accessories, no power steering, no servo on the brakes, truculent gearbox that can't be rushed, very noisy (no sound deadening), no electric anything. Just a gutsy engine in the back, low weight and four wheels. It is not that uncomfortable, although the bucket seats are a tight fit and anyone with a BMI over 23 would struggle to get into them, and as long as you wear ear-plugs to cut out the worst of the noise can do long distances. I certainly wouldn't want to use it as an everyday car though.
On the flipside, it excites me as a driver's car in ways that the BMW doesn't know how. Top of the list is the steering. The feel is amazing. You know what is happening on the road because you are connected directly to what is going on. Whatever speed you are driving at there is fun to be had from the steering feedback. The sound of the engine is much better too, once extended. But best of all is the linearity of the power train: no sudden turbo surge. Power builds nicely with revs and because of the engine at the back you can accelerate hard and early out of bends. That is the car's best trick. Brake hard and early before the bend (enjoying the wonderful feel of the non-servoed brake pedal), get into gear, drive into the bend and try to get back on the power as soon as possible, feeling the front lift slightly, the tyres gripping at the back as you shoot out of the bend like a sling shot. Brilliant!
What is amazing is how quick the 911 is for a 40 year old car. In a drag race the BMW would leave it for dead but I think that is partly down to the gearboxes. In gear it might be a bit closer once the 911 is in its stride. Certainly when you think how slow the average car was 40 years ago then the 911 must have felt like a rocket ship. For me that is part of the problem of today's supercars. Yes they are massively faster than your average car but you only really notice the difference in acceleration at bonkers speeds, which encourages one to drive them too quickly for safety on the road, licence and liberty.
The key difference is that in the two weeks I've owned the 911 I have been out at the weekend at every opportunity (not so sure my neighbours enjoy being woken at 5:30.....) and have a 1000 mile trip to Wales planned for this week with some other early 911 enthusiasts.
Only time will tell whether the 911 is a bit too extreme/hard-core but I am enjoying it at the moment.
As a last point, looks are subjective but to my eyes the 911 is in another league. Of course, not fair to compare a proper sportscar (and icon) with a family hatchback.
Schnellmann said:
For me that is part of the problem of today's supercars. Yes they are massively faster than your average car but you only really notice the difference in acceleration at bonkers speeds, which encourages one to drive them too quickly for safety on the road, licence and liberty.
If I had somewhere to put one, I'd have another old car in a heartbeat.
And that's a lovely 911 - perfect era for them IMHO.
Perfect choice of cars although I suspect over the next few months as you get less enjoyment out of the BMW than you would have expected the thought that you should have just bought a 120D may spring to mind.
I think for some of us, no matter how bloody fast a modern car is or how many gadgets it has the experience of driving it cannot ever come remotely close to the sheer pleasure of something like a 1972 911. I doubt any modern 911 could even.
Personally, I find the 130i auto that I bought for the exact same reasons as you to just be dull. It's a great car. It isn't slow. It's comfortable. It's only significant failing is that it is modern and does everything well enough.
If I was buying it again, having since driven a 120D, I'd just buy one of those and be done with the pretence of needing something punchier for the times I have to drive it.
I think for some of us, no matter how bloody fast a modern car is or how many gadgets it has the experience of driving it cannot ever come remotely close to the sheer pleasure of something like a 1972 911. I doubt any modern 911 could even.
Personally, I find the 130i auto that I bought for the exact same reasons as you to just be dull. It's a great car. It isn't slow. It's comfortable. It's only significant failing is that it is modern and does everything well enough.
If I was buying it again, having since driven a 120D, I'd just buy one of those and be done with the pretence of needing something punchier for the times I have to drive it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff