GTP Cool Wall: 2013+ BMW 420d

[MatskiMonk]

And?

And.. your point holds no water?

 

[Venari]

Cars are not made by accountants, you know this.

Actually, in absolute terms, this is untrue. Programme teams dream up a new model, they put together a proposal, and if the model doesn't pay for itself on paper, it has a real tough time selling on its merits.

I could quote you dozens of vehicle programmes which I have worked on, which got cancelled anywhen from before they even got to a drawing board, until having fully working pre-production prototypes. Invariably it was because someone somewhere suddenly said "hey guys, we can't afford this (anymore.)"

Carmakers are businesses first and car producers second.

Sorry, blah, blah, twas ever thus again, et cetera.

If there's data to support this I'll accept it, but I'd be surprised. These days customisation and getting things "just-so" seems to be more popular than ever.

Yeah. Niche filling. People love new things. BMW love money, but are horribly conservative. They are astonishly well organised at developing the right thing and not really changing the stuff that works much.* It actually made me quite mad because they could afford to subsidise something awesome and/or fun like a new Z1, Z8 or even M1... but they don't. BMW are now the Toyota of Europe, and if that wasn't damning enough for you, I don't know what is.

And for further proof of the conservative/accounting thing, many years ago BMW took the ex-Rover designers' largely developed new MINI, and decided yes, okay, it could be put in production, but wasn't going to sell much and they should skimp on the tooling and capacity requirements because of it. I'd seen the cars and helped develop them as a supplier, I was gobsmacked they had such little faith in such an obvious winner, explained carefully that if they didn't do it our suggested way we'd have to charge them a massive premium later if the required volume went through the roof. Boy was my gaffer pleased when they came back to us cap-in-hand. The early runaway success of the new MINI cost BMW a lot of money initially (with many suppliers), but their accountants/marketeers got away with it because long-term, they had a successful product for milking.

* Perhaps this is one of the reasons that 90% of the people who inhabit the Munich HQ appeared to be basically doing nothing but drink coffee and eat danish pastries. I never really figured that one out. However, they do manage to sell what are actually very inexpensive cars to the general public at a premium price - but the market supports them so they keep the sticker up there to match the Audis and Mercs.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Actually, in absolute terms, this is untrue. Programme teams dream up a new model, they put together a proposal, and if the model doesn't pay for itself on paper, it has a real tough time selling on its merits.

So, let me get this straight...people with no qualifications in engineering designed this car? All the CAD was done by people who's experience is with balancing the books...

Sorry,.. but ********.

Carmakers are businesses first and car producers second.

I agree.. is this unique to BMW, or is this tue of every car maker that is still of a going concern.

Yeah. Niche filling. People love new things. BMW love money, but are horribly conservative. They are astonishly well organised at developing the right thing and not really changing the stuff that works much.* It actually made me quite mad because they could afford to subsidise something awesome and/or fun like a new Z1, Z8 or even M1... but they don't. BMW are now the Toyota of Europe, and if that wasn't damning enough for you, I don't know what is.

Yeah cus the Z1, Z8 and M1 wouldn't be niche cars???????????

And for further proof of the conservative/accounting thing, many years ago BMW took the ex-Rover designers' largely developed new MINI, and decided yes, okay, it could be put in production, but wasn't going to sell much and they should skimp on the tooling and capacity requirements because of it. I'd seen the cars and helped develop them as a supplier, I was gobsmacked they had such little faith in such an obvious winner, explained carefully that if they didn't do it our suggested way we'd have to charge them a massive premium later if the required volume went through the roof. Boy was my gaffer pleased when they came back to us cap-in-hand. The early runaway success of the new MINI cost BMW a lot of money initially (with many suppliers), but their accountants/marketeers got away with it because long-term, they had a successful product for milking.

Mini had to pay for itself in the third generation, it is. What's the problem?

* Perhaps this is one of the reasons that 90% of the people who inhabit the Munich HQ appeared to be basically doing nothing but drink coffee and eat danish pastries. I never really figured that one out. However, they do manage to sell what are actually very inexpensive cars to the general public at a premium price - but the market supports them so they keep the sticker up there to match the Audis and Mercs.

Please post evidence of BMW manufacturing costs being less than Audi or Mercedes by any noticeable margin, and also please describe how production efficiencies negate differences in the value proposition of these cars.

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

The 2 door coupe version is a rather good looking thing but that's about it, 2.0 Diesel is yawn.

The 4 door version is just, no. No.

Meh.

 

[TheCracker]

Default transport for a regional sales manager of a vending machine supplier. Uncool.

 

[Famine]

Cars are not made by accountants, you know this.

No, they're made by robots and a few people on a relatively low wage - but that's not helpful to the topic.

When we use the term "cars made by accountants", we mean "cars where the impetus for their creation comes from the accountancy department, requiring the engineers to make compromises in order to create what the accountants want", as opposed to "cars where the impetus for their creation comes from the engineering department, requiring the accountants to make compromises in order to sell what the engineers want". Most cars are a mix of both, especially when they're replacements for existing models. The accountants want a new "x", the engineers make a new "x", the accountants say "that's too expensive, make it cheaper", the engineers remake "x" and eventually everyone's happy.

The 4 Series is a little more accountant than engineer. I suspect that the engineers were in on the ground floor to make the platform fit coupe, convertible, saloon and estate - as with previous 3 Series models - but I doubt that if the engineers were given free reign to make a coupe of that size, it'd turn out to be a 3 Series underneath. It's simply cheaper that way. That's fine.

The 4GC is a lot more accountant than engineer. You tell an engineer that you need a 4 door on the 3 Series platform with a 480 litre boot and they'll say "That's the 3 Series, numbnuts.". The accountant will say "Yes, but it needs to be a 4 Series". The engineer will point out that the 4 has less rear headroom than the 3... and so on. It's not a car an engineer would make because it already exists... and better.

If there's data to support this I'll accept it, but I'd be surprised.

It's something reasonably well-known. Glass's publishes a report of this ilk semi-regularly and Google has got into the act recently, suggesting that its analytics reveal that online car configurators with 'too much choice' lead to consumer frustration and users are more likely to quit than complete.

These days customisation and getting things "just-so" seems to be more popular than ever.

Oh sure, in car guy circles. Outside of it, people don't give a crap. They want "x" trim level, with "y" toys in it. They might pick a package or get a Union Flag on the roof if you're lucky.

Also, can you provide a source for the sales breakdowns? I was monitoring this very closely until BMW decided to cease publishing sales by bodystyle, and I'd love to update my spreadsheets.

In its last monthly report, BMW said it'd sold 5,997 4GCs worldwide. It's a little more difficult lifting territory data out of that - particularly with China getting the 3 Lange - but out of platform (3 & 4) sales that month it makes for 8% of the loading.

4GC is a 5 door, a "fast back" in Rover speak, it's a different proposition to an F30, with a different demographic. The 5 series saloon is closer to the 3 series saloon than the 4GC.

Except it literally is an F30, just one with worse rear head room and a smaller engine range. As I said, even the boot space is identical. So is the options list. I'm not sure how the demographic is different, especially on 20d models, where the demographic will be 75% fleet.

The 5 Series saloon is bigger outside, bigger inside and an actually different car.

it works, people like it.. wheres the problem?

Well, I'm contending that two of those two things aren't true.

And that's a bad thing? at some stage someone had to decide that a Ford GT was a different thing to a Ford Focus, and therefore needed a different name...

That'll largely be because they are different things. Notice how, other than having four wheels and an handful of the same switchgear, they share nothing. A better example would have been how Ford decided to call the 3 door Focus hatchback something different from the 5 door Focus hatchback. You know, if they had.


The 3 Series and 4 Series share a lot. A lot of a lot. In previous generations, the two cars would have shared the same name - that's how similar they are. They're only named different things because BMW has decided that it wants a new convention for naming things. That's still fine.

Again, money plays a pivotal role at BMW just as it does in every single other major manufacturer, to be fair I wouldn't deny that, but the cars are made by engineers, because that's how the real world works, and they are bought by people who have a preference to one thing over another... I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

Well, you've just had someone who was an engineer at BMW tell you a slightly different story...

Personally, I've got nothing against the 4 Series - or even the 4GC - but a lot of people do. I explained why that is - it seems like a cynical and pointless niche-filling exercise by accounts.

 

[homeforsummer]

So, let me get this straight...people with no qualifications in engineering designed this car? All the CAD was done by people who's experience is with balancing the books...

You're deliberately missing the point.

Do you think an engineer within BMW, having worked on the 3-series (and Touring) and the 4-series (and 4er convertible) decided to make a 3-series GT and a 4-series GC? Or do you think those decisions were made by accountants and marketeers?

Did an engineer within BMW choose to make the 2-series Gran Tourer, or do you think that decision was made by accountants and marketeers, who figured they could make a few more bucks from people who might otherwise have bought a B-class?

Is there really some talented drivetrain engineer within BMW whose dream it was to make a front-wheel drive MPV, or do you think that decision was made by the guy holding the cash?

I've spoken to designers and engineers at BMW on various product launches. They're amazingly talented people. The guy who recently facelifted the 1-series is younger than me, fairly fresh out of university, and was overjoyed that his stylistic decisions were the ones put into production and will be seen on the road for years to come. That's what people like that get into the industry for.

But ultimately, designers and engineers can only design and engineer what those holding the money tell them to. That designer did nice work on the 1-series, but I suspect deep down he'd prefer to design the next M1 or i8 than he would putting different headlights on hatchbacks.

I quite like the 4GC, but it's virtually the definition of a car created to spin a little extra cash from an existing platform. Some very talented people have scribbled its shape and adjusted its suspension geometry, but they were not the people who decided it should exist in the first place.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's not a car an engineer would make because it already exists... and better.

An engineer would quantify what "better" was... and if that wasn't rear headroom, I guess they wouldn't have a problem with the 4GC, with it's larger expandable cargo area featuring a larger access aperture.

It's something reasonably well-known. Glass's publishes a report of this ilk semi-regularly and Google has got into the act recently, suggesting that its analytics reveal that online car configurators with 'too much choice' lead to consumer frustration and users are more likely to quit than complete.

That's interesting, it might harm sales but I wouldn't be too sad in principle if BMW didn't cater to stupid people.

In its last monthly report, BMW said it'd sold 5,997 4GCs worldwide. It's a little more difficult lifting territory data out of that - particularly with China getting the 3 Lange - but out of platform (3 & 4) sales that month it makes for 8% of the loading.

Indeed, but it's a niche product and therefore the volumes themselves are are expected to be lower. Also this was mentioned in the text of the last press release and consistent data still seems to be no longer available. It never was in the monthlies but it was in the quarterlies and yearlies. Lol.

Except it literally is an F30, just one with worse rear head room and a smaller engine range. As I said, even the boot space is identical. So is the options list. I'm not sure how the demographic is different, especially on 20d models, where the demographic will be 75% fleet.

No, it is literally an F36... but in your opinion it is a 3 series with less headroom. The demographic varies because some people want something more exclusive, don't need much rear headroom, and like the idea of a decent sized, extendable, hatch accessible, boot.

The 3 Series and 4 Series share a lot. A lot of a lot. In previous generations, the two cars would have shared the same name - that's how similar they are. They're only named different things because BMW has decided that it wants a new convention for naming things. That's still fine.

There's quite a lot more to this, and a 4-er was on the cards prior to the E46, and nearly managed to explain why the E9x cars were so different... but you're right, that's all still fine.

Well, you've just had someone who was an engineer at BMW tell you a slightly different story...

It's an interesting story, but his attitude says his mind is fixed already, and it's the Anti-choice thing that I'm really raging against..

Personally, I've got nothing against the 4 Series - or even the 4GC - but a lot of people do. I explained why that is - it seems like a cynical and pointless niche-filling exercise by accounts.

Good, I've got nothing against people not liking it, or finding it uncool.. I object to the "pointless" argument with much enthusiasm though, and also that whole "accountants" thing, for reasons I'll indicate below.

You're deliberately missing the point.

You are deliberately over simplifying in order to jump on the I-fear-change bandwagon.

Do you think an engineer within BMW, having worked on the 3-series (and Touring) and the 4-series (and 4er convertible) decided to make a 3-series GT and a 4-series GC? Or do you think those decisions were made by accountants and marketeers?

Neither, I think need was determined by a product planning team.

Did an engineer within BMW choose to make the 2-series Gran Tourer, or do you think that decision was made by accountants and marketeers, who figured they could make a few more bucks from people who might otherwise have bought a B-class?

Neither, I think need was determined by a product planning team. (though I do want to punch whoever called a 2-er instead of a 1-er in the neck)

Is there really some talented drivetrain engineer within BMW whose dream it was to make a front-wheel drive MPV, or do you think that decision was made by the guy holding the cash?

Neither, I think need was determined by a product planning team.

Do you really think the product planning team holds the purse-strings at BMW?

I've spoken to designers and engineers at BMW on various product launches. They're amazingly talented people. The guy who recently facelifted the 1-series is younger than me, fairly fresh out of university, and was overjoyed that his stylistic decisions were the ones put into production and will be seen on the road for years to come. That's what people like that get into the industry for.

But ultimately, designers and engineers can only design and engineer what those holding the money tell them to. That designer did nice work on the 1-series, but I suspect deep down he'd prefer to design the next M1 or i8 than he would putting different headlights on hatchbacks.

I quite like the 4GC, but it's virtually the definition of a car created to spin a little extra cash from an existing platform. Some very talented people have scribbled its shape and adjusted its suspension geometry, but they were not the people who decided it should exist in the first place.

As a BMW enthusiast I am entirely familiar with the idea that there has to be a "business case" for a car to be made, I can only wonder at what's been cancelled because there wasn't a suitable business case for it (@Venari was the E8x saloon mule a photoshop?). But how this is different at any other company I'm not so sure?

Here's how I see it..

Accountants want this...

but make this...

Designers make this...

Engineers make this...

and management assess what works, instruct people to combine them in a suitable fashion, and profit is made... and sometimes awesome things fall by the wayside.





I still don't understand why choice is a bad thing.

 

[Tornado]

And.. your point holds no water?

That's quite a trick when you haven't actually said anything to refute it. There is/was no complaining about how people called the E30 a two door sedan because it shared the decade with dozens of other conservative, boxy and upright two doors with rooflines lifted directly from the sedan versions and occasionally even the same interior space as the sedan equivalents which were also called two door sedans; to the extent that they likely outnumbered the swoopy long-low-wide cars that most people think of nowadays when they hear the word "coupe". Whether or not any of them actually were technically coupes, calling certain cars two door sedans and others two door coupes was a useful descriptor in a decade where this:

And this:

Were fundamentally the same car but both sold hundreds of thousands of each to different clientele, because in the 1980s those niches actually existed to be filled.

So what point were you hoping to prove with how people of the 1980s should have been more outraged at people for calling a boxy-upright-conservative two door version of a boxy-upright-conservative sedan... a two door sedan?

 

[Nessy]

I wonder whether the company bean counters, sit in on any of those product planning team meetings?...

 

[Famine]

Indeed, but it's a niche product and therefore the volumes themselves are are expected to be lower. Also this was mentioned in the text of the last press release and consistent data still seems to be no longer available. It never was in the monthlies but it was in the quarterlies and yearlies. Lol.

Actually that was BMW's own figure for November, from the monthly press release on December 10th. I don't think you need a special login to see this, but just in case you do:

Munich. The BMW Group has achieved new record sales for November with a total of 197,480 (+4.9%) vehicles delivered to customers worldwide. This brings the total number of vehicles sold by the company so far in 2015 to 2,033,948 (+6.9%). It’s the first time the company has sold over 2 million vehicles by this stage in the year.

“The steady sales growth we’ve shown throughout the year so far reflects the great new products we currently have on the market,” commented Dr Ian Robertson, member of the board of management of BMW AG responsible for sales and marketing BMW. “From the BMW 2 Series Active Tourer to the BMW X6 and the BMW i3, we are seeing a very positive customer response to a wide range of products, resulting in sustained sales momentum,” continued Robertson.

Sales of BMW brand vehicles in November were 5.6% higher than in the same month last year, with a total of 167,853 vehicles delivered to customers. In the year-to-date, 1,728,553 BMW vehicles were sold around the world, an increase of 5.8% on the same period last year.

Products throughout the BMW range achieved sales growth. Monthly deliveries of the BMW 2 Series Active Tourer, for example, are 55.8% up on November last year (6,088) while sales of the BMW 4 Series Gran Coupé are 36.7% higher than the same month last year (5,997). The BMW X Family continues to be a strong growth driver with sales of BMW X3 climbing 22.8% in November (14,115) while monthly sales of the BMW X6 more than doubled to total 4,209.

The 4GC wasn't specifically mentioned amongst the 11,575 4 Series for October 2015, but did make it into the September 2015 list, with:

Sales of the BMW 4 Series Gran Coupé almost doubled compared to September last year, with a total of 6,080 units delivered to customers (+90.8%).

Certainly seems to be in the monthlies. Lol.

No, it is literally an F36... but in your opinion it is a 3 series with less headroom.

That'll be because, as I said, it shares just about everything with a 3 Series saloon, save for a slightly different roofline. This includes the overwhelming majority of components - in fact the 4 Series as a whole is no further away from the 3 Series saloon than the 3 Series Touring is, and the 4GC a great deal less so.

In essence the 4GC is a 3 Saloon with less headroom.

The demographic varies because some people want something more exclusive, don't need much rear headroom, and like the idea of a decent sized, extendable, hatch accessible, boot.

That's not exactly a 'different' demographic. That's more 'the same people'.

The boots are, again, 480 litres each. The folding seats on the 3 Series are a £650 option, which makes it just as extendable as the £3,000 extra BMW charges for the 4GC. I'll grant you that the fact the glass goes up with the boot is different, but again we're not exactly talking about something that appeals to a 'different' demographic.

Oddly, AutoExpress says that the 4GC is less practical than the 'more versatile' 3 Saloon...

It's an interesting story, but his attitude says his mind is fixed already

Consider that if it had been fixed before he went to work for them, he wouldn't have left Aston Martin to go there. It's only since he worked there and quit with no other job to walk into...

 

[Stotty]

I really like the 4GC, and I'm seriously considering a 430/435d X-Drive next year - the lease on my company car expires in September, and I'll likely go cash for car this time.

Ideally, I'd have a 3 wagon, but my wife hates estates, and the saloon is just not practical - not the boot space itself, but the limited access. The GT is a bit of a hunchback.

To my eyes, the GC just looks better than either.

Somewhat depends what deals are around though - 4GC's are pretty cheap to lease at the moment, but maybe something else will be better when it's time to make the decision... hopefully there will be some 6GC deals around!

Not a cool car though.

 

[homeforsummer]

You are deliberately over simplifying in order to jump on the I-fear-change bandwagon.

That's absolutely laughable. I've basically dedicated my career to objectively assessing change. And I'm one of the major proponents on GTP of the most disruptive class of vehicles that has emerged over that time, alternative-fuel vehicles. If I didn't like change I wouldn't have spent so much time and effort in an attempt to help people realise that EVs aren't the anti-Christ.

What I'm not is too blinded by single-marque fanboyism to defend each and every product that comes from that manufacturer as some kind of innovative, dreamt-up-by-engineers miracle rather than good old-fashioned niche-filling to make a few more bucks.

The most laughable thing is that it's perfectly okay to admit such things. The Porsche Cayenne also exists for this reason, and even the most ardent of old-school curmudgeonly air-cooled 911-lovers would admit the Cayenne made great business sense for Porsche and made it more profitable than it ever was in the past.

Neither, I think need was determined by a product planning team.

Neither, I think need was determined by a product planning team.

Neither, I think need was determined by a product planning team.

Do you really think the product planning team holds the purse-strings at BMW?

Yes! Of course it does. If it didn't then there wouldn't be six different bodystyles on the 3-series platform and BMW wouldn't be making front-wheel drive MPVs as a way to spin more cash from the MINI platform.

It's not exclusive to BMW, of course. Bringing up the aforementioned Audi TT example, I suspect that in an engineer and designer's perfect world, the TT would be granted its very own underpinnings, be entirely constructed from aluminium, and not be powered by diesel engines. But ultimately things need to make sense for a company, which is why it's MQB-based, a mix of aluminium and steel and needs a 2.0 TDI in the range.

Or to put another way, Audi has already confirmed that the five-door TT Sportback concept that everyone thought looked great won't be going into production, but a crossover probably will. Crossovers, much as some are actually quite good (thanks to the efforts of designers and engineers) are not a class of car that would exist were product decisions not made by people holding the money.

The BMW X5 didn't spring into existence because it would enhance BMW's core reputation for the Ultimate Driving Machine, it sprang into existence because BMW realised that people would be willing to pay for a 5-series on stilts. It just also happened to drive well because BMW tends to make cars that drive well whatever class they are in.

Accountants want this...

but make this...

You're over-simplifying. Accountants don't just sit there creating spreadsheets and designers don't just sit there sketching supercars all day long. People are involved holistically in car companies - designers work with engineers to make sure what they're drawing is actually buildable, engineers work with bean-counters to see whether it's economically feasible to make things, bean-counters work with designers to ensure time is used productively on projects that will make the company money.

Again, I put it like this: Did the 1-series facelift designer I spoke to dream of putting new headlights on a hatchback that someone else had designed, when he was coming through design school? Or do you think he was working on projects similar to those you see on the RCA car design blog?

Ultimately all car companies are fairly risk-averse, and that's down to the pressure of making money. And it's not always a good thing - it means BMW is making front-drive MPVs and it's why Mercedes has spent the last ten years re-establishing the reputation for quality it lost during the previous ten years when it started upping volume at the expense of quality and reliability. It's why Mazda doesn't have a range full of rotary cars like it did in the 70s and it's why Volkswagen builds its US-market cars in Mexico rather than shipping higher-quality models over from Germany.

I still don't understand why choice is a bad thing.

It isn't, and I haven't claimed it is.

But choice also shouldn't simply be defended for its existence. If I'm going shopping for trousers I can choose between a nice pair of jeans, some chinos, something smarter... or I could buy some tartan golfing slacks. It's great to have the choice of some tartan golfing slacks, but ultimately I'd look like a bit of a berk if I chose them.

 

[Stotty]

The folding seats on the 3 Series are a £650 option, which makes it just as extendable as the £3,000 extra BMW charges for the 4GC.

Price difference between the 3 saloon and 4 GC is much closer than that (at least on the bigger engines - haven't checked lower down the scale)... GC gets pro nav and electric heated seats with memory standard... which would cost c.£2K on the Saloon.

Spec for spec, there's only around a £1k difference between a 430d X Drive GC and a 330d X Drive for example.

 

[Venari]

I think everyone else just about covered the points I'd make.

And no, I wouldn't provide financial evidence, because that would be unethical.

Just my 25 years of experience of an engineer and experience with other OEMs in Europe, Japan and the US telling me that BMW are 5 to 10 years behind cutting edge in manufacturing engineering, and their suspension systems are extremely simple, albeit refined down through 25 years of continual development (not in itself a bad thing.) Not bad engines - that's where their money goes.

I don't like BMWs because they're... well, a bit dull really, have been for fifteen years. Sure the hot ones can shovel, but they're nothing special. AFAIK there isn't a halo model at the moment, which speaks volumes for the management to me. It was interesting to join BMW and find the few people who really wanted to make cars well. A lot of the rest of them were average hangers on who found any excuse to prove that a 7er ActiveHybrid could pop 300km/h on the autobahn between Munich and Regensburg. I couldn't honestly tell you how that felt, because I was in the back, asleep. (True story.)

 

[homeforsummer]

Just my 25 years of experience of an engineer and experience with other OEMs in Europe, Japan and the US telling me that BMW are 5 to 10 years behind cutting edge in manufacturing engineering, and their suspension systems are extremely simple, albeit refined down through 25 years of continual development (not in itself a bad thing.) Not bad engines - that's where their money goes.

The continual development is perhaps the easiest thing to appreciate about BMWs.

A few months back I had the opportunity to drive the Jag XE 2.0D and the recently-facelifted 320d. The Jag is a good car. The BMW is a better one. The Jag is an excellent first attempt (if you ignore the X-Type, which most will). The BMW very definitely feels like a product with 40-years of making 3-series behind it. Engine is much better than the Jag. The transmission is better despite having pretty much the same hardware, because BMW seems to have a better handle on the software that makes it work.

I then drove the 335d M Sport Touring back from Spain, which was genuinely pleasant. Recently had a go in the Alpina version of it too, which is even nicer. Now there's a 4GC I'd really like to see - an Alpina version. But I suspect from them we'll just get a 3, a 3 Touring and a 4.

AFAIK there isn't a halo model at the moment, which speaks volumes for the management to me.

I think the i8 sort of serves as a halo model right now. From which people can draw their own conclusions. The BMW i cars are probably the most exciting models at the moment as they're the ones genuinely doing something new. With design, with materials, with tech.

If BMW made an i-branded, plug-in hybrid, rear-drive, pillarless saloon about the size of the recent Compact Sedan concept, with interior and exterior styling influenced by that of the i3 and i8, that's a niche I'd be all over.

 

[Sp3edst3r]

I like the style of the car but it's a Diesel and it's owners are mostly all tailgater's and loonies like Audi and Merc drivers..
Meh

 

[Venari]

I then drove the 335d M Sport Touring back from Spain, which was genuinely pleasant. Recently had a go in the Alpina version of it too, which is even nicer. Now there's a 4GC I'd really like to see - an Alpina version. But I suspect from them we'll just get a 3, a 3 Touring and a 4.

I'll concede Alpina wake them up. Jaguar need a couple of cycles to get the XE up to speed. I think the interior's a bit plain, but having driven many different variants of the chassis against the competition, the new 3er must have improved. The XE/XF were nimble beasts in comparison to the early F30.

I think the i8 sort of serves as a halo model right now. From which people can draw their own conclusions. The BMW i cars are probably the most exciting models at the moment as they're the ones genuinely doing something new. With design, with materials, with tech.

If BMW made an i-branded, plug-in hybrid, rear-drive, pillarless saloon about the size of the recent Compact Sedan concept, with interior and exterior styling influenced by that of the i3 and i8, that's a niche I'd be all over.

Both fair points. I look at the i8 on paper and see an inevitable near-future for many brands. The styling is a subjective thing, I think both i-cars are far too fussy, and the i3 is just awful - and the retro CSL they revealed was vomit-worthy. A 2002 reimagined properly could be a pretty, light, airy and well proportioned little 2-door.

For a company that really didn't make cars before, Tesla seem to be winning the 'next-generation' battle for personal vehicles.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll concede Alpina wake them up. Jaguar need a couple of cycles to get the XE up to speed. I think the interior's a bit plain, but having driven many different variants of the chassis against the competition, the new 3er must have improved. The XE/XF were nimble beasts in comparison to the early F30.

BMW has certainly improved the F30, but I'd actually say the Jaguar is the more nimble regardless. But for me at least that's a hit-and-miss dynamic trait. It's a nimbleness created by steering that has a faster rate of response on turn-in, rather than because it's lighter or better-damped.

Some people like fast steering, but I prefer the F30's consistency of response and weight. MINI has taken a similar approach with the current Cooper S, while the Fiesta ST is more like the BMW - not quite as darty, but easier to place the car in a single movement, rather than pointing the car and having to wind off some lock.

Admittedly, it's very much a personal taste thing. I still find assessing steering the hardest thing to get my head around. Requires a lot more brain power than assessing springs and dampers, or throttle response, or braking. I've a lot of respect for engineers working on steering and even more for those who've managed to deliver proper feel from electrically-assisted racks.

Both fair points. I look at the i8 on paper and see an inevitable near-future for many brands. The styling is a subjective thing, I think both i-cars are far too fussy, and the i3 is just awful - and the retro CSL they revealed was vomit-worthy. A 2002 reimagined properly could be a pretty, light, airy and well proportioned little 2-door.

For a company that really didn't make cars before, Tesla seem to be winning the 'next-generation' battle for personal vehicles.

I love the look of the i8 (and the i3, actually). Both feel like the sort of cars more manufacturers would be producing were they not reined in by worries that the public wouldn't "get" certain styling trends. I think old BMWs look great, but it took Bangle to knock the company out of its design complacency and stop building cars that looked like rounded-off versions of the things they'd been producing since the 1960s. Now we're more familiar with some of the models that looked shocking at the time, an E90 isn't that far removed from a late E46 (though one thing many miss is that Bangle was responsible for the E46, too...).

However, the i cars are definitely an acquired taste. And you're right, that CSL concept was pretty nasty, albeit better in BMW Motorsport colours than it was in bile yellow.

Tesla is doing a great job right now, though I'm still intrigued to follow the company longer-term. I believe they're not currently making a profit, so we'll have to see whether the investment in the Model X pays off. The X isn't the greatest-looking of vehicles either, so I'm hoping Tesla doesn't now paint itself into a corner design-wise by trying to make everything look like a variation of the Model S.