Which is something that the 335ci arguably has as well. From what I've read, the 135ci handles remarkably similar to the bigger, only vaguely more expensive and heavier and obviously far better looking car that the 135 borrowed the engine from.
Yes, the 335ci is great as well, but just because you can spend $35000 on a car, that doesn't mean an extra $5000 would make no difference to you. Styling is subjective (as always), and although I like the rear 3/4 of the E92, I don't think the front end will
ever sit right with me (which is making it difficult to like the new M3). Meanwhile, from the first time I saw the E82 I thought it was very well-proportioned, if not exactly beautiful, and the car's styling has done nothing but grow on me.
Until someone can find a 100% positive weight figure on the 135ci I'm not going to say much on the weight issue. Google is being annoyingly ambiguous.
You mean the faster and arguably far more driver-oriented (well, one of them at least) Japanese rally twins?
"Driver-oriented" is a bit subjective as well, but I find it a bit hard to believe you'd give the nod to an economy-car-based AWD sedan (rally homologated or not) but not a small, compromised FR coupe.
I'm not saying the Evo and STi aren't drivers' cars, but to say the 135ci isn't denies the very reason BMW built it and ignores the fact that it's likely good at what it does.
As for "faster," in Car and Driver's Lightning Lap comparisons for 2006 and 2007, the 335i (3'10"5) posted a better laptime than the Evo IX MR (3'13"5) at VIR. It's possible that the 135ci could be slower than the 335i, or that the Evo could have done better, or that the Evo X will do better, but to suggest that the Evo is miles away the faster car is simply not true. The fact that it was an Evo MR makes things a bit more interesting as well, considering those sell for about the same base price as the 135ci.
CaD didn't test the STi, but between the two the Evo tends to do better on dry pavement anyway.
What part of the BMW design philosophy stresses fuel mileage? That's like looking at the Porsche design philosophy and trying to say the Cayenne fits in because of its ability to pull trailers.
I never said the mileage was one of BMW's goals (although if I recall correctly, during the development of the N54 it actually was). I pointed out that part because it's something a significant number of people care about these days, and 30mpg isn't bad at all.
They are also cars in polar opposite spectrums, sold by two different companies, one of which is known to make ridiculous profits on every car they sell. It would be considerably different if one walked into a Aston Martin dealer with DB9 money and only be able to afford a V8 Vantage (The V8 Vantage being in roughly the same segment as the DB9). Which is the case here.
You fail to see my point, and I fail to see yours (if someone walks into a dealer "with DB9 money" but can't afford a DB9, then they didn't walk in "with DB9 money," did they...and what does this all have to do with someone
choosing the smaller car?).
My point was that value and interior space/practicality aren't locked together. Consumers defy that convention every day, and many times they aren't mocked for it like future 1-series owners already are here in this thread.
I can already hear the fanboy accusations, but I just think you guys are being unrealistic in your expectations.
The 128ci is a much better preposition, because that has E46-like properties without weighing as much as a Nissan Altima. But that has a problem with being too slow for how much it costs...
It's literally
impossible to be a fan of German cars and worry about one of them being slower than others in its price range. You'll get conflicted feelings over every single model and eventually be driven to insanity.
Overcoming this reservation is one of the rites of passage for a German car fan.
