What have been the highs and lows of BMW's strategy?
Discussion
Hi all,
I'm doing a strategy project on BMW as part of my MBA, and thought I'd ask the experts what their opinions are on BMW's strategy. What have been the high points and low points between 1990 and 2010? Strategic success is measured by financial success (although sometimes I disagree), is there a pattern to its success? It's only their car making business which I'm looking at, excluding Mini, RR and their misadventures with Rover.
I reckon it stems from sticking (generally) to well balanced, RWD cars with a strong emphasis on driver appeal. This has been tamed somewhat in the last 20 years I'd say, but it still wins lots of customers who would potentially buy Mercs or Audis.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
AKA8
I'm doing a strategy project on BMW as part of my MBA, and thought I'd ask the experts what their opinions are on BMW's strategy. What have been the high points and low points between 1990 and 2010? Strategic success is measured by financial success (although sometimes I disagree), is there a pattern to its success? It's only their car making business which I'm looking at, excluding Mini, RR and their misadventures with Rover.
I reckon it stems from sticking (generally) to well balanced, RWD cars with a strong emphasis on driver appeal. This has been tamed somewhat in the last 20 years I'd say, but it still wins lots of customers who would potentially buy Mercs or Audis.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
AKA8
High points? E39 5-series is widely regarded as the best BMW ever. The M3 and M5 are probably up there although personally I hate the M3. Snatching the Rolls Royce name from under the nose of VW was a good move.
Low points? The X6 thing is disgusting. And the X3 is a pretty poor approximation of a Freelander IMHO.
As to why people buy. I doubt that many buyers these days are that fussed about a nicely balanced, rear wheel drive car. They are looking for residuals, build quality, but I would say the ultimate reason for BMW's success is the badge appeal. In real terms it was the abandonment of Cavaliers, Sierras, Mondeos and Vectras in favour of the 3-series that really put the money in the bank.
Low points? The X6 thing is disgusting. And the X3 is a pretty poor approximation of a Freelander IMHO.
As to why people buy. I doubt that many buyers these days are that fussed about a nicely balanced, rear wheel drive car. They are looking for residuals, build quality, but I would say the ultimate reason for BMW's success is the badge appeal. In real terms it was the abandonment of Cavaliers, Sierras, Mondeos and Vectras in favour of the 3-series that really put the money in the bank.
as a former BMW employee, I can give you some pointers.
However I don't see how you can complete a MBA on BMW's corporate strategy without including MINI or RR. Your MBA shouldn't really be a discussion on the benefits of RWD, but on 3 main themes.
1) Marketing strategy - things to consider, consistency, same ad agency in the Uk for 30 years, same strap line (ultimate driving machine) in all that time. Take a look at the other manufacturers who change their marketing every 5 mins. Consistency over the long term.
2) Engineering led products, again to back up the ultimate driving machine tag line. Engines are generally the best in class, all BMW's are designed to be good to drive.
3) Growth through product segmentation. BMW's sales are 60% reliant on 3 series iterations, hence new models into new niches, X6, X3, 1 series. Designed to increase sales of BMW product without flooding the roads with only 3 series. With this last point you then have to look at MINI and RR which is just an extension of product differentiation.
The increase in volume undermines BMW's prestige image, its now volume or volume prestige, with Porsche etc being super premium. So current BMW marketing thinking is to change premium to mean efficiency, rather than exclusivity.
A conundrum you could do well to analyse is the paradigm of volume v exclusivity. Are the two mutually exclusive if so what next for premium brands that want to grow...? and hence BMW's desire to redefine what premium means.
In summary, if you are serious about doing an MBA on BMW corporate strategy, you need to consider the 3 areas above, move away from talking about the semantics of RWD other than as a reinforcement of the ultimate driving machine and incorporate the whole product protfolio and its effect on strategy.
You have not picked a small subject matter that is for sure.
If you contact the BMW press office at Bracknell they may be able to help you with some corporate literature.
hth
However I don't see how you can complete a MBA on BMW's corporate strategy without including MINI or RR. Your MBA shouldn't really be a discussion on the benefits of RWD, but on 3 main themes.
1) Marketing strategy - things to consider, consistency, same ad agency in the Uk for 30 years, same strap line (ultimate driving machine) in all that time. Take a look at the other manufacturers who change their marketing every 5 mins. Consistency over the long term.
2) Engineering led products, again to back up the ultimate driving machine tag line. Engines are generally the best in class, all BMW's are designed to be good to drive.
3) Growth through product segmentation. BMW's sales are 60% reliant on 3 series iterations, hence new models into new niches, X6, X3, 1 series. Designed to increase sales of BMW product without flooding the roads with only 3 series. With this last point you then have to look at MINI and RR which is just an extension of product differentiation.
The increase in volume undermines BMW's prestige image, its now volume or volume prestige, with Porsche etc being super premium. So current BMW marketing thinking is to change premium to mean efficiency, rather than exclusivity.
A conundrum you could do well to analyse is the paradigm of volume v exclusivity. Are the two mutually exclusive if so what next for premium brands that want to grow...? and hence BMW's desire to redefine what premium means.
In summary, if you are serious about doing an MBA on BMW corporate strategy, you need to consider the 3 areas above, move away from talking about the semantics of RWD other than as a reinforcement of the ultimate driving machine and incorporate the whole product protfolio and its effect on strategy.
You have not picked a small subject matter that is for sure.
If you contact the BMW press office at Bracknell they may be able to help you with some corporate literature.
hth
stockhatcher said:
as a former BMW employee, I can give you some pointers.
However I don't see how you can complete a MBA on BMW's corporate strategy without including MINI or RR. Your MBA shouldn't really be a discussion on the benefits of RWD, but on 3 main themes.
1) Marketing strategy - things to consider, consistency, same ad agency in the Uk for 30 years, same strap line (ultimate driving machine) in all that time. Take a look at the other manufacturers who change their marketing every 5 mins. Consistency over the long term.
2) Engineering led products, again to back up the ultimate driving machine tag line. Engines are generally the best in class, all BMW's are designed to be good to drive.
3) Growth through product segmentation. BMW's sales are 60% reliant on 3 series iterations, hence new models into new niches, X6, X3, 1 series. Designed to increase sales of BMW product without flooding the roads with only 3 series. With this last point you then have to look at MINI and RR which is just an extension of product differentiation.
The increase in volume undermines BMW's prestige image, its now volume or volume prestige, with Porsche etc being super premium. So current BMW marketing thinking is to change premium to mean efficiency, rather than exclusivity.
A conundrum you could do well to analyse is the paradigm of volume v exclusivity. Are the two mutually exclusive if so what next for premium brands that want to grow...? and hence BMW's desire to redefine what premium means.
In summary, if you are serious about doing an MBA on BMW corporate strategy, you need to consider the 3 areas above, move away from talking about the semantics of RWD other than as a reinforcement of the ultimate driving machine and incorporate the whole product protfolio and its effect on strategy.
You have not picked a small subject matter that is for sure.
If you contact the BMW press office at Bracknell they may be able to help you with some corporate literature.
hth
That's really helpful, thank you. It's a small part of the MBA course (just one of 60 odd projects). I agree with all your points, the volume v exclusivity one is of particular interest. It has undoubtedly helped BMW's finances, and been a necessary response to the market. It has diminished the BMW brand to an extent (3 series), but BMW has managed to go downscale with Mini very successfully. However I don't see how you can complete a MBA on BMW's corporate strategy without including MINI or RR. Your MBA shouldn't really be a discussion on the benefits of RWD, but on 3 main themes.
1) Marketing strategy - things to consider, consistency, same ad agency in the Uk for 30 years, same strap line (ultimate driving machine) in all that time. Take a look at the other manufacturers who change their marketing every 5 mins. Consistency over the long term.
2) Engineering led products, again to back up the ultimate driving machine tag line. Engines are generally the best in class, all BMW's are designed to be good to drive.
3) Growth through product segmentation. BMW's sales are 60% reliant on 3 series iterations, hence new models into new niches, X6, X3, 1 series. Designed to increase sales of BMW product without flooding the roads with only 3 series. With this last point you then have to look at MINI and RR which is just an extension of product differentiation.
The increase in volume undermines BMW's prestige image, its now volume or volume prestige, with Porsche etc being super premium. So current BMW marketing thinking is to change premium to mean efficiency, rather than exclusivity.
A conundrum you could do well to analyse is the paradigm of volume v exclusivity. Are the two mutually exclusive if so what next for premium brands that want to grow...? and hence BMW's desire to redefine what premium means.
In summary, if you are serious about doing an MBA on BMW corporate strategy, you need to consider the 3 areas above, move away from talking about the semantics of RWD other than as a reinforcement of the ultimate driving machine and incorporate the whole product protfolio and its effect on strategy.
You have not picked a small subject matter that is for sure.
If you contact the BMW press office at Bracknell they may be able to help you with some corporate literature.
hth
Something I'm focussing on is their reduction in product differentiation, and how BMW's products now face far closer competition than they have historically (Lexus, Infinit, Merc AMG, Audi etc). Some of this must be due to BMW making a strategic decision to build cars which suited a wider audience, and thus be more mainstream, but it can also partly be explained by other manufacturers upping their game to take the fight to BMW. Would you agree?
Do any examples come to mind as to key successes for BMW?
Im no expert but surely the 3-series has to get big mention. The 3-series has been for many years 'The BMW' for 99% of the population, plus the 3 series is going the same way as the Landrover Defender becoming almost classless, drivers of the 3-series are from a huge array of backgrounds, the 3-series is still defined as a compact executive saloon but it outsells the Ford Mondeo.
The old saying BMW could sell a turd with the badge on it still holds true IMO.
The old saying BMW could sell a turd with the badge on it still holds true IMO.
depends what you mean by key successes. For the purposes of an MBA it can't mean the introduction of the M5 or such like. It could possibly mean the harnessing of the M power brand across the range through the M sport models but if you are talking about corporate strategy you could mention the cock up of the f1 team - they would still be in it if they were winning, but to take a kicking from Renault, whilst the big rival wins the championship etc, is not good for a brand that considers itself sporty.
othewise, you have to say that they used useful foresight to predict and react in time to changes in emmisions regulations and the introduction of efficient dynamics, however hybrid gets a better rap in the press and is seen as more green, even though BMW cars fitted with ED pollute less. So now BMW has to catch up with the likes of Honda and Toyota and use batteries. So that is possibly a failure.
The long term succes is the consistency of marketing, overlapping and supporting the core brand values of err, can't remember something to do with performance, engineering and some others. The message is consistent, supports the brand values and the products, and builds recognition year after year.
Take Ford for example, Brian May's everything I do etc, in the 90's to 'feel the difference' today. To much of a mish mash, to much change, marketing needs to be consistent and relevant and timely.
Again, Kia use the tag line 'the power to surprise' which is relevant for the product today, but will it be relevant in 5 years time. how do they take the product and the marketing to the next level once they've stopped suprising people. So again Kia will face the conundrum of rehashing the marketing to coincide with the brands next stage of development.
so to anwser your question, the success is down to the consistency of marketing, backed up with a product that is true to the company's brand values.
hth again.
othewise, you have to say that they used useful foresight to predict and react in time to changes in emmisions regulations and the introduction of efficient dynamics, however hybrid gets a better rap in the press and is seen as more green, even though BMW cars fitted with ED pollute less. So now BMW has to catch up with the likes of Honda and Toyota and use batteries. So that is possibly a failure.
The long term succes is the consistency of marketing, overlapping and supporting the core brand values of err, can't remember something to do with performance, engineering and some others. The message is consistent, supports the brand values and the products, and builds recognition year after year.
Take Ford for example, Brian May's everything I do etc, in the 90's to 'feel the difference' today. To much of a mish mash, to much change, marketing needs to be consistent and relevant and timely.
Again, Kia use the tag line 'the power to surprise' which is relevant for the product today, but will it be relevant in 5 years time. how do they take the product and the marketing to the next level once they've stopped suprising people. So again Kia will face the conundrum of rehashing the marketing to coincide with the brands next stage of development.
so to anwser your question, the success is down to the consistency of marketing, backed up with a product that is true to the company's brand values.
hth again.
a low, or possibly a high, it BMW's current model saturation.
for years it has been 3/5/7, matching Audi's a4/a6/a8, and Merc's C/E/S classes, but now they have exploded into overlapping models.
The 1 series as a hatchback, but is a 1 series coupe needed when there is a 3 series coupe already in that slot.
Where was the X3 planned to fit in, and for that matter the X6. And now, the 5 series GT.
Previous strategy was to herd people into buying specific models, and keeping them as separate as possible, but that has now3 been reversed, will it be a success and encourage new sales, or will it spread out the same sales over a wider variety of models, increasing R&D costs per unit.
for years it has been 3/5/7, matching Audi's a4/a6/a8, and Merc's C/E/S classes, but now they have exploded into overlapping models.
The 1 series as a hatchback, but is a 1 series coupe needed when there is a 3 series coupe already in that slot.
Where was the X3 planned to fit in, and for that matter the X6. And now, the 5 series GT.
Previous strategy was to herd people into buying specific models, and keeping them as separate as possible, but that has now3 been reversed, will it be a success and encourage new sales, or will it spread out the same sales over a wider variety of models, increasing R&D costs per unit.
stockhatcher said:
depends what you mean by key successes. For the purposes of an MBA it can't mean the introduction of the M5 or such like. It could possibly mean the harnessing of the M power brand across the range through the M sport models but if you are talking about corporate strategy you could mention the cock up of the f1 team - they would still be in it if they were winning, but to take a kicking from Renault, whilst the big rival wins the championship etc, is not good for a brand that considers itself sporty.
othewise, you have to say that they used useful foresight to predict and react in time to changes in emmisions regulations and the introduction of efficient dynamics, however hybrid gets a better rap in the press and is seen as more green, even though BMW cars fitted with ED pollute less. So now BMW has to catch up with the likes of Honda and Toyota and use batteries. So that is possibly a failure.
The long term succes is the consistency of marketing, overlapping and supporting the core brand values of err, can't remember something to do with performance, engineering and some others. The message is consistent, supports the brand values and the products, and builds recognition year after year.
Take Ford for example, Brian May's everything I do etc, in the 90's to 'feel the difference' today. To much of a mish mash, to much change, marketing needs to be consistent and relevant and timely.
Again, Kia use the tag line 'the power to surprise' which is relevant for the product today, but will it be relevant in 5 years time. how do they take the product and the marketing to the next level once they've stopped suprising people. So again Kia will face the conundrum of rehashing the marketing to coincide with the brands next stage of development.
so to anwser your question, the success is down to the consistency of marketing, backed up with a product that is true to the company's brand values.
hth again.
That's fantastic, thank you again. othewise, you have to say that they used useful foresight to predict and react in time to changes in emmisions regulations and the introduction of efficient dynamics, however hybrid gets a better rap in the press and is seen as more green, even though BMW cars fitted with ED pollute less. So now BMW has to catch up with the likes of Honda and Toyota and use batteries. So that is possibly a failure.
The long term succes is the consistency of marketing, overlapping and supporting the core brand values of err, can't remember something to do with performance, engineering and some others. The message is consistent, supports the brand values and the products, and builds recognition year after year.
Take Ford for example, Brian May's everything I do etc, in the 90's to 'feel the difference' today. To much of a mish mash, to much change, marketing needs to be consistent and relevant and timely.
Again, Kia use the tag line 'the power to surprise' which is relevant for the product today, but will it be relevant in 5 years time. how do they take the product and the marketing to the next level once they've stopped suprising people. So again Kia will face the conundrum of rehashing the marketing to coincide with the brands next stage of development.
so to anwser your question, the success is down to the consistency of marketing, backed up with a product that is true to the company's brand values.
hth again.
I am discussing the halo effect (not a term I like, it implies too much novelty in my opinion) of the M cars, the Z1, Z8 etc. It's only from 1990 to 2010, so no mention of the M1 for instance. The introduction of certain models is definitely a sign of corporate success in my eyes. For instance the E39, E60, E46 M3 etc were all very well received and sold well. I can't think of a dud model that BMW have produced, but I'd say some have been better than others. Investigation of financial performance will reveal whether they were as good for profitability as they were for the brand.
I take your point about marketing. The Ultimate Driving Machine has to be amongst the best advertising slogans made, and even if they've had to develop other products as part of a wider strategy, e.g. X3, X5 etc. they have made cars which have been consistently good to drive, have been engineering led etc; that must be their biggest competitive advantage.
as an alternative what about Fiat Group... I did it for a MBA assignment on corporate finance a good few years ago ... it is a basket case... and brings in some many aspects mentioned strategy, governance, the latin legal aspect, subsiduaries, brands, halo effect....etc etc etc. family interests Agnellies or in your case Quandts - throw in mergers options to buy with GM and now Chrysler.... FFS....
all credit to Sergio Marchionne and what is is trying to do / unravel.....
all the stuff was on the numerous websites, fiscals etc....
all credit to Sergio Marchionne and what is is trying to do / unravel.....
all the stuff was on the numerous websites, fiscals etc....
another thing you might want to consider is the change in buyer attitudes in the 90's from that'll do to wanting the best. Ford > BMW.
Also the base cost of producing a car on a production line is approximately the same whether it be a mondeo or a bmw 3 series. ( notwithstanding development costs) so if you are a Ford, then banging them out at cheap money effects your profitability, so the economic environment of the 1990's, the freeing up of financial regs, favoured the premium brands, as people could now afford the aspirational brand, and Ford were stuffed as they couldn't charge a premium for its products, even thought the cost to produce was approx the same. So a virtuous circle occurred for the premium manufacturers.
Also the base cost of producing a car on a production line is approximately the same whether it be a mondeo or a bmw 3 series. ( notwithstanding development costs) so if you are a Ford, then banging them out at cheap money effects your profitability, so the economic environment of the 1990's, the freeing up of financial regs, favoured the premium brands, as people could now afford the aspirational brand, and Ford were stuffed as they couldn't charge a premium for its products, even thought the cost to produce was approx the same. So a virtuous circle occurred for the premium manufacturers.
in 1990 bmw's brand centre of gravity was something like a 525i, and they didn't sell very many. 1990's beazer home man had an orion, or cavalier if he was lucky.
Now the bmw centre of gravity is a 320d, they sell 100,000 a year and every beazer home man drives one.
In: lots of cash.
Out: lots of cachet.
Now the bmw centre of gravity is a 320d, they sell 100,000 a year and every beazer home man drives one.
In: lots of cash.
Out: lots of cachet.
Edited by BarnatosGhost on Friday 26th February 00:10
stockhatcher said:
the success is down to the consistency of marketing, backed up with a product that is true to the company's brand values.
Minor quibble: I don't think the product is the backup - it's the product, it's the main thing the customer buys.
Secondary are things like dealership network,
head office support etc.
I'd place the consistency of the marketing nearly last
in importance.
For me, I don't know and I don't care what BMW's
brand values are.
From a customer perspective, bought an E38 740i 1999 - IMHO the best proportioned BMW ever built. An absolute delight in every way. Was looking for a newer one a few years later, but Bangle intervened. Decided to keep my E38 (still got it) and bought a D3 2005 Audi A8 instead (as well?). Won't go back to BMW while they look like they do.
In a nutshell and purely my opinion.
- mid 90's diluted the brand (went from being aspirational to every tom, dick and harry but very sucessful from the coffers point of view)
- currently diluting the "M" brand with X5/6M's being launched. (again, maximising the brand for profit)
- designing cars that actually take a few years before they look good (z4 for example)
concentrated on decent drivers cars and had a product for each market without overlapping hardly at all. Ford for example had, escort, orion, sierra and granada that were only very slightly different in size and targeting the same market whereas the 3,5 and 7 had their own target market.
you could argue that they sold their soul but from a business point of view it has made massive sense.
- mid 90's diluted the brand (went from being aspirational to every tom, dick and harry but very sucessful from the coffers point of view)
- currently diluting the "M" brand with X5/6M's being launched. (again, maximising the brand for profit)
- designing cars that actually take a few years before they look good (z4 for example)
concentrated on decent drivers cars and had a product for each market without overlapping hardly at all. Ford for example had, escort, orion, sierra and granada that were only very slightly different in size and targeting the same market whereas the 3,5 and 7 had their own target market.
you could argue that they sold their soul but from a business point of view it has made massive sense.
paulpsz008 said:
They've pulled off a very clever trick.
They've created/presented a brand which is low volume, high quality product.
Yet no-one seems to have noticed that they are actually common as muck.
Careful. They started off doing 3/5/7 series at inflated pricesThey've created/presented a brand which is low volume, high quality product.
Yet no-one seems to have noticed that they are actually common as muck.
and high quality. Few folks bought them.
As UK plc has got richer, it has been able to afford far
more 3 series, enough to outsell mainstream brands like Ford
and VW.
The 3 series is now one of the top ten sellers in the UK.
The 5 and the 7 remain relatively exclusive.
What I like is the table of engine sizes versus body sizes.
Very German, and very clever.
Everything from the lowly 316 to the mighty 760, with the
730 and the 335 along the way.
One body size with an array of engines, one engine with
an array of body sizes. Add in touring, coupe, softtop variants
all available with SE or Sports suspension
and it is clear there is a myriad of possibilities
and so a BMW for everyone.
I agree that their success is down to consistent development of the brand image as a quality driver's car from quality company.
The only mention of Bangle has been negative. I think that all the Bangle designed cars outsold their predecessors - design has to have been a major success factor in your period. It is interesting that the post Bangle designs are more bland - why have they changed strategy?
I suggest a few questions:
What made UK plc expand their user chooser car lists from Vauxhall/Ford/Peugeot/Rover? The brand image was developed largely because BMW used not to be on user chooser lists. Then the fleets became more flexible, and every middle manager chose a low spec BM instead of a high spec Ford - entirely for reasons of image. And then taxation forced UK plc to buy managers out of company cars, and they bought BM's for themselves.
Was iDrive a strategic move? Personally, I guess that it was; they stuck with an awful system in the face of intense criticism because they thought it helped a deliberately techy image. If so, was it successful? I don't know. Ironically, they have finally made it a good system, and many others (particularly Merc and Audi) now use similar systems.
4WD - in the UK Audi is associated with 4WD, not BMW. In some countries BMW sell as many 4WD regular cars as Audi. Has it been a good decision not to do so here?
The only mention of Bangle has been negative. I think that all the Bangle designed cars outsold their predecessors - design has to have been a major success factor in your period. It is interesting that the post Bangle designs are more bland - why have they changed strategy?
I suggest a few questions:
What made UK plc expand their user chooser car lists from Vauxhall/Ford/Peugeot/Rover? The brand image was developed largely because BMW used not to be on user chooser lists. Then the fleets became more flexible, and every middle manager chose a low spec BM instead of a high spec Ford - entirely for reasons of image. And then taxation forced UK plc to buy managers out of company cars, and they bought BM's for themselves.
Was iDrive a strategic move? Personally, I guess that it was; they stuck with an awful system in the face of intense criticism because they thought it helped a deliberately techy image. If so, was it successful? I don't know. Ironically, they have finally made it a good system, and many others (particularly Merc and Audi) now use similar systems.
4WD - in the UK Audi is associated with 4WD, not BMW. In some countries BMW sell as many 4WD regular cars as Audi. Has it been a good decision not to do so here?
waremark said:
The only mention of Bangle has been negative. I think that all the Bangle designed cars outsold their predecessors - design has to have been a major success factor in your period. It is interesting that the post Bangle designs are more bland - why have they changed strategy?
I'm going to state what someone above has said, BMW could sell a turd with it's logo on. Judging by Bangle's designs, they have done just that.Also, any car person (or at least I'm assuming here) would surely choose a Ford Mondeo ST220 or similar over a budget spec 318/20 (in this case comparing the E46 with the ST220) which I'm also guessing would be a similar price? While BMW have stuck with their RWD, front engine, 50/50 weight distribution I feel they've lost that with the newer designs and have decided to try and cater to a larger market who aren't necessarily bothered about that. If you look back to something like the E30 318is even though it was at the lower range of the scale it was still a fantastic car and had most things a car person would enjoy, even though it was nearer the lower end of things.
Just to back up my earlier point, I drove a 318(or 320, I forget) back when I was looking for a car and it was quite uninspiring. I then tried a 2 litre, bog spec Mondeo of a similar year and found it twice as good as the BMW ever was. I was then advised to look at a "proper" BMW being the 325/330s. Tried a 330 and that was the end of the search. Now if I compare that with the E30 318is I had, both drove great the only thing lacking was obviously the power. That aside it still delived a great drive.
I'll leave it at that for now as I'm probably spouting crap and beginning to repeat myself at 4am.
obscene said:
Also, any car person (or at least I'm assuming here) would surely choose a Ford Mondeo ST220 or similar over a budget spec 318/20 (in this case comparing the E46 with the ST220) which I'm also guessing would be a similar price? While BMW have stuck with their RWD, front engine, 50/50 weight distribution I feel they've lost that with the newer designs and have decided to try and cater to a larger market who aren't necessarily bothered about that. If you look back to something like the E30 318is even though it was at the lower range of the scale it was still a fantastic car and had most things a car person would enjoy, even though it was nearer the lower end of things.
The trouble is, the price differential is not what it used to be and as good as the Mondeo is, it's just not as nice a place to sit as a 3-series. ukdennis said:
From a customer perspective, bought an E38 740i 1999 - IMHO the best proportioned BMW ever built. An absolute delight in every way. Was looking for a newer one a few years later, but Bangle intervened. Decided to keep my E38 (still got it) and bought a D3 2005 Audi A8 instead (as well?). Won't go back to BMW while they look like they do.
BMW sales never declined during Bangle's design days - his designs actually helped the company overtake Mercedes as the market leader in premium car sales, and as such Bangle could be seen as a 'High' in BMW's strategy.Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff