Next BMW Cabrio On the Horizon

[Slicks]

Video of the folding roof on the 3 Series.


Personally, I think it's going to be very leaky and expensive to fix down the road when the seals crack and dry up. The folding seatback, however, is a great idea.

 

[Dave A]

I'm beginning to get annoyed at your experiences with cars in London being disclosed as facts for everyone.

Well actually his comment about the number of BMW's in London could easilly be changed to the UK. they are all over the place, however I do not agree with his definition of this as a girls car, a posers car pehaps but not a girls car. You'd buy this to look good, not because the car is good, which it may or may not be. It's like the original Audi TT's, they wern't anything special, they were pretty poor as drivers cars, but they hit the mark as being trendy, so they sold to all the people that wanted a car to look good and not much else. Tbh I didn't think you looked that good in a TT anyway, but I see perhaps a dozen a day on average. Now defining a car as a girls car or not is highy subjective, yes there's cars that I can picture women driving and looking okay in but not men, but at the same time someone else may hold a different picture of who fits driving that car in their head. Also to definie a car as a posers car is not a definitive statement either, or rather it shouldn't be, becase while one car may be largly bought and driven by posers there may still be a few people who buy it because they like the interior, it's comfey, it's actually the best car they test drove, they got a really good deal on a second hand one ect.

 

[skip0110]

I wonder if the tail just looks long in pictures or is actually that long.

For example the C6 Vette convertible seems to have a long tail in pictures but is actually really well proportioned when you see it in person, top up or down.

 

[SagarisGTB]

In my opinion, almost all cabrios are for girls. This one is no exception.

The exceptions are the Mustang, Corvette, XK/XK8/XKR, 911s and all Ferraris, which are infact "retired old men cars".

If they produced a 300C cabrio, it would not only be bad, it would be "The B52's" car. Not a good thing.

The only good image for a cabrio I can see is the SL65 (other SLs are for old men, see Jeremy Clark...) but even then, id rather have the CL65.

Thats not to say I wouldnt buy a "girls car" if I was super rich. Id buy a SLK55 even though it is a "girls car".

 

[YSSMAN]

On the C70:

I like the C70, I think it is a pretty good looking car. It would seem to be one that would be fairly acceptable for both males and females to drive, but it is pretty questionable as to how many men would actually buy them to begin with. The looks are very lady-like, curvy, sexy, etc.

...But as noted before, I prefer the Eos. Atleast that has maintained some Germanic neutrality in look, a balance between male and female looks. I'd say it would be perfectly acceptable for a guy to drive one, as the car is rather good-looking, and it doesn't make you look like a massive tool.

(Of course my blind love of all-things Volkswagen may cause a bit of a problem there.)

(In another side-note, we've sold out of Eos' here in Grand Rapids. Waiting lists have been orgainized, and it looks like we are in it for about three months. The last one that I knew of was sold last week, but dealer-trades have been pretty big between the Eos and the GTI.)

More on the BMW:

I'm torn as to my liking of the car. It is a pretty good looking model from the front and side, but the view from behind is a bit dissapointing by comparison to the face. Its kinda like Lindsay Lohan or those Olson twins. Everything is good out front, but we aren't going to find Cameron Diaz (Eos) or J.Lo (C70) out back...

 

[niky]

You actually like JLo butts?

I was going to say the same thing about the C70, but it's actually well proportioned in the back... it's foreshortened nose that gets me, although I think the design works well overall.

Girl's cars... hmmmm...

That would include the Miata (aunt had one) and the Jeep Wrangler (must be, both my grand-aunt and Mom are obsessed with it)... wouldn't it?

Never mind that both are actually vehicles in which you could have lots of fun either on the track (Miata) or off-road (Jeep). And if fun = girl-ism... call me girly. Do Johnson wasn't afraid of wearing pink! Although, TBH, I am.

Poseur car, well, there's a plaint you can level at the BMW. While BMW prides itself on great handling, there are quite a number of people who buy them merely for the badge. Which is a sad thing, and really shouldn't detract from the worth of the cars themselves, as there are tons of enthusiasts who buy them anyway, despite the stigma.

 

[harrytuttle]

But unfortuntly I have to agree with Poverty with this rear-quarter view with the top up.

That's just a mess of lines. And is very, very, ugly.

With that image, I have been shown that the 3-Series convertible does not look as good as it could have been. The inclined rear gives the car much more of a Beetle-esque profile (generally arc-shaped, front-to-back), and makes it look like all the other CC's throughout Europe. Having said that, I still can't see it as a "girls' car", because although it doesn't look spectacular, it doesn't have that cutesy design that I associate with true "girls' cars". It's no longer masculine, and certainly not macho, but maybe asexual.

Regardless, I'd still watch out if I saw one of those headed my way. The brakes could fail at any moment under the stress of a 10-ton car like that.

You think 3,780 lbs. is heavy for a twin-turbo, all-wheel-drive convertible? The E46 M3 Convertible weighs 3,781 lbs, and the 2005 Audi S4 Cabriolet weighs 4,090 lbs. I think it's time the myth about the 3000GT's obesity is over and done with.

 

[Tornado]

You think 3,780 lbs. is heavy for a twin-turbo, all-wheel-drive convertible? The E46 M3 Convertible weighs 3,781 lbs, and the 2005 Audi S4 Cabriolet weighs 4,090 lbs. I think it's time the myth about the 3000GT's obesity is over and done with.

Some things:

1. The 3000GT and E46 you posted are more than 5 years apart.
2. The 3000GT weighed more than the E34 BMW M5.
3. The 3000GT weighed 100 kg more than the very similar Nissan GT-R R34 V-Spec.
4. The 3000GT didn't really benefit at all from all of the weight gained and technology like the GT-R did, and it was essentially an understeering dog.
5. The 3000GT weighed more than the '99 Mercedes E55 AMG.
6. The 3000GT weighs more than the slushbox equipped 911 Turbo.

 

[harrytuttle]

Some things:

The 3000GT and E46 you posted are more than 5 years apart.

Fine, but someone had referred to it during this discussion about the E90 3-Series, which is more than 10 years apart from the last VR-4 Spyder.

The 3000GT weighed more than the E34 BMW M5.

The M5 was not all-wheel drive, not twin-turbo, not all-wheel steering, and not a convertible.

The 3000GT weighed 100 kg more than the very similar Nissan GT-R R34 V-Spec.

The Skyline was not a convertible.

The 3000GT didn't really benefit at all from all of the weight gained and technology like the GT-R did, and it was essentially an understeering dog.

No argument that it's a highly overrated car, but the weight by itself had little to do with the poor performance. It was the poor execution of the features that was the cause for downfall. Mitsubishi had an excellent platform with the Eclipse on which to base a 2-seater, but chose to ditch the engine and modify the chassis way too much. Then it piled on features that it had little or no experience in.... It's a recipe for disaster, any angle you look at it.

The 3000GT weighed more than the '99 Mercedes E55 AMG.

The E55 was not all-wheel drive, not twin-turbo, not all-wheel steering, and not a convertible.

The 3000GT weighs more than the slushbox equipped 911 Turbo.

The 911 is a much smaller car, more than twice as expensive, no all-wheel steering. Not sure which 911 Turbo you're referring to, but in 1996 (last year of the VR-4 Spyder), there was no convertible. It was offered earlier, and much later, than 1996, and both were still lighter, but all were much more expensive, averaging by a factor of 2 to 1.

 

[Tornado]

The Skyline was not a convertible.

Which is why I used weight figures for the normal '99 3000GT VR-4 (the lightest of them all, barring NA models) and compared them to figures of a '99 Skyline R34 V-Spec. And it was still 120kg more, despite being shockingly similar features wise.

No argument that it's a highly overrated car, but the weight by itself had little to do with the poor performance. It was the poor execution of the features that was the cause for downfall.

Which in turn means that the added weight of the features of the car not only didn't help the car, but they also detracted from it.

The M5 was not all-wheel drive, not twin-turbo, not all-wheel steering, and not a convertible.
The E55 was not all-wheel drive, not twin-turbo, not all-wheel steering, and not a convertible.

They both were, however, much larger luxury performance sedans in every dimension barring width. With far more interior acruements than the 3000GT had. And they both weighed more than the Skyline GT-R.

The 911 is a much smaller car, more than twice as expensive, no all-wheel steering. Not sure which 911 Turbo you're referring to, but in 1996 (last year of the VR-4 Spyder), there was no convertible. It was offered earlier, and much later, than 1996, and both were still lighter, but all were much more expensive, averaging by a factor of 2 to 1.

What does price have to do with anything? And I was referring to the current Turbo Tiptronic, which is in fact a bigger car, only exceeded by length by the 3000GT.
And lest ye forget the 300ZX 2+2, which was twin-turboed, RWD and 4WS, not to mention coming with an extended wheelbase and that glass canopy. It's weight? 100kg less than the 3000GT. And you can't tell me that adding a transfer case would add 100kg. And the convertible 300ZX? Weighed less than the 2+2.

 

[YSSMAN]

If we want to talk slow convertables you could always drag out the old Cadillac El Dorado that tipped the scales around 5000 lbs, offered the largest production V8 sold in America (500ci, 8.2L), and was the last of the American convertables in the 1970s before the LeBaron showed up in the 1980s.

I belive that would not only be a boat, but would be better explained as a USS Enterprise (battleship, WWII) by comparisons to the USS Winston Churchill (destroyer, today). As the saying goes, "they don't build them like they used to, eh?"

 

[Tornado]

Come now YSSMAN. This car's father would like to argue Cadillac's advertising:

 

[GT4_Rule]

The 3 Cabrio is a hideous mash-up of lines. It's a very nice looking car top down, but with the top up you wouldn't want to be seen in it. Plus, BMW's are just status icons nowadays; nobody hardly even uses 1/10 of its capability. Of course there are exceptions but most people are just poseurs.

I'll take the XLR-V over any hardtop any day.

 

[Tornado]

The XLR-v is a hardtop.

 

[///M-Spec]

I belive that would not only be a boat, but would be better explained as a USS Enterprise (battleship, WWII)

The WWII era USS Enterprise (CV-6) was a Yorktown class aircraft carrier.

...but I catch your drift.

----------------

Anyone who likes to put down or dismiss a particular vehicle by calling it a 'girl's car' has insecurity issues. It is the functional equivalant of saying a car is great because it's a 'man's car', which does nothing except make you sound like a little boy looking for the rest of your wee-wee in an automobile.


M

 

[Race Idiot]

Anyone who likes to put down or dismiss a particular vehicle by calling it a 'girl's car' has insecurity issues. It is the functional equivalant of saying a car is great because it's a 'man's car', which does nothing except make you sound like a little boy looking for the rest of your wee-wee in an automobile.


M

You don't need rep but god damnit i'm giving you some anyway.

But anyway god the rear looks horrible, that gap between the boot and the rear panel looks ugh. Although to me it looks like a photoshop for some reason.

 

[socomplayer2]

that is such a graceful looking car... very cool

 

[TopHat]

Plus Rep for M-Spec.

When I saw the 3 Series, I saw a very well thought out cabrio, BUT... there are too many "seams" in the sheetmetal. When you look at the, lets say the Pontiac G6 Hardtop Convertible, you see a relativley clean rear deck, but with this new Beemer, it it a conglomerate of lines fighting for dominance in an already cluttered car.

Another point would be that the G6, being a much cheaper car than the 3-series, had to use less panels, but at a better looking, more streamlined product, much closer to the fixed roof coupe on which it shares its architecture. On the other hand, the 3-series has a vastly different roofline, less elegant and composed than that of the coupe. It has been over thought, thinking to make the best, most appealing car, and all the designers at BMW did was create an overstyled, under aprecciated, but still a good looking car.

 

[Tornado]

On the other hand, the Pontiac paid dearly for it's smooth hardtop roof in a way BMW probably wanted dearly to avoid: Top up? Practical car. Top down? No trunk.

 

[YSSMAN]

If we are going to discuss the G6, we should probably let our European friends know what it looks like...

...And she starts at only $29,000 USD!

It is a good way to demonstrate design over practicality, and it has worked out well in Pontiac's favor. I believe the car sold out quite quickly, and has been a recommended model by several American automotive magazines as a choice against the other convertible competition.

...But the shadow of the Eos looms overhead...

 

[harrytuttle]

Which is why I used weight figures for the normal '99 3000GT VR-4 (the lightest of them all, barring NA models) and compared them to figures of a '99 Skyline R34 V-Spec. And it was still 120kg more, despite being shockingly similar features wise.

I'm just trying to make a point about how weight by itself is not a factor in determining a car's ability or performance. A simple example:
2007 Audi S4 Sedan, 6M: 3,869 lbs.
2007 Audi RS4 Sedan, 6M: 3,957 lbs.

A difference of 88 lbs., yet while the RS4 is more powerful, it's said to be the superior handler, and by some margin. So here we have an example of adding weight and gaining agility. How did this happen? Proper application of whatever was added (or changed). The 3000GT could have been a good car at nearly 4,000 lbs., but because Mitsubishi had no clear direction on where to go with this project, they fumbled it like Earnest Byner.

Another example: The 2007 M5, at 4,017 lbs., is a stellar performer to most cars on the road, especially the 2007 550i (at 3,803 lbs.). In theory, the larger V10 & should have made the M5 more nose-heavy, but it turned out to be much better than the 550i, to no suprise to any M-Sport fan. Better materials, better engineering, better alignment, better all-sorts-of-stuff.

But the bottom line is: more weight is not mutually inclusive with poor performance.

 

[Tornado]

But the bottom line is: more weight is not mutually inclusive with poor performance.

I know. I'm just saying that in this particular case it was.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm just trying to make a point about how weight by itself is not a factor in determining a car's ability or performance.

Hmm. I thought the 3000GT VR-4 coupe was already close to 4000lbs, but I guess it isn't. In any case, I wasn't trying to poke fun at the 3000GT's capabilities -- only its weight.

The second-gen Eclipse GSX is another Mitsu porker that I like to make fun of.

 

[YSSMAN]

....And for some strange reason it is still based on the Gallant...

I often question that decision, as it would have made a lot more sense on the same platform as the Lancer/Caliber.

 

[McLaren]

In my opinion, almost all cabrios are for girls. This one is no exception.

The exceptions are the Mustang, Corvette, XK/XK8/XKR, 911s and all Ferraris, which are infact "retired old men cars".

If they produced a 300C cabrio, it would not only be bad, it would be "The B52's" car. Not a good thing.

The only good image for a cabrio I can see is the SL65 (other SLs are for old men, see Jeremy Clark...) but even then, id rather have the CL65.

Thats not to say I wouldnt buy a "girls car" if I was super rich. Id buy a SLK55 even though it is a "girls car".

Um, if you're going to categorize Mustangs as old retired men's cars, then you better include BMWs. Because I see more girls driving Mustang Conv. than any old men.

In truth, it is girls who drive the base model BMW cabriolets. The 330Ci like mine is mostly owned by retired men, esp. when it's equiped with the Performance PKG.

The 3 Cabrio is a hideous mash-up of lines. It's a very nice looking car top down, but with the top up you wouldn't want to be seen in it. Plus, BMW's are just status icons nowadays; nobody hardly even uses 1/10 of its capability. Of course there are exceptions but most people are just poseurs.

I'll take the XLR-V over any hardtop any day.

No offense to YSSMAN, or any GM fan here, but you have got to be kidding me. You're going to tell me that BMWs are just status icons that only 1/10 of the owners actually push them, and that you'd take a XLR-V over them?

I'm sorry, but THAT is too d*mn funny. Do you have any idea who the main buyers of XLR-Vs or XLRs in general are? I'll give you a hint. They spend their days attempting poetry.

That statement you made is just so contradictory, I can not see clearly.

Look, the only reason you can say a BMW is a status icon compared to a XLR-V is because the cheapest BMW cabrio is near $60,000 less than a XLR-V. That allows you to see more of them.

Put this into perspective.

Let's say for every XLR-V, there's 30 BMW cabrios made. According to your statement, only 1/10ths of BMW owners push their cars. Let's equal that XLR-V.

That means for every XLR-V owner, there's 3 other BMW cabrio owners that push their cars. Now, let's say every 1/10th XLR-V owner actually pushes the car.

10 XLR-Vs equal 300 BMW Cabrios. That means for every 1 XLR-V owner who pushes the car, there's 30 BMW Cabrio owners who push theirs.

By that mathematics, I'd say the XLR-V is more a status car than anything else, and the fact that Cadillac's main buyers for their higher dollar vehicles is mainly rappers or retired folks. That's further proof because there's probably only 1 out of every 50 rappers who actually push their cars.

So please, don't call the BMW a status icon, and say you'd take a XLR-V when the fact is that the majority of XLR owners are just using the cars to show their status just like those 911 Cabrio and Ferrari 360/F430 Spyder owners.

 

[YSSMAN]

(I'm not even going to defend the XLR-V here, as not only did I not bring it up, but it doesn't even compete with the 328 or 335 cabriolet.)

...Maybe instead of thinking about the XLR we should consider the fact that Cadillac is considering a vario-roof version of the next-gen CTS due for 2008 or 2009. That could make things interesting for BMW, especially if the next-gen CTS is as good as reports from GM show it to be.

 

[McLaren]

(I'm not even going to defend the XLR-V here, as not only did I not bring it up, but it doesn't even compete with the 328 or 335 cabriolet.)

...Maybe instead of thinking about the XLR we should consider the fact that Cadillac is considering a vario-roof version of the next-gen CTS due for 2008 or 2009. That could make things interesting for BMW, especially if the next-gen CTS is as good as reports from GM show it to be.

Well, I didn't say you did. I just didn't want to offend you.

I'm just stating how ridiculous it sounds that BMW cabrios are status cars because 1/10 of the owners push them while thinking the XLR-V is any better.

 

[YSSMAN]

Naw, I realize that and I understand where you're coming from. I still love the XLR, don't get me wrong, but with the new Jaguar XK on sale, that takes the cake as best GT on sale right now.

...But we're getting off-topic...

Quick! Quick!

So here is an interesting thought: Will BMW still do the M3 with the vario-roof, or will they stay away from a drop-top version all together?

 

[Tornado]

Ready for it? They will probably "drop" (yes!) the drop-top. I don't see an M3 soft-top fitting in with with the normal 3-series hard-top (for example, why would they buy the M3 cabrio when the 335Ci cab is a hard top and is nearly as fast?), and I can't see BMW using the hard-top due to it's high-weight when compared to good old cloth.

 

[harrytuttle]

Ready for it? They will probably "drop" (yes!) the drop-top. I don't see an M3 soft-top fitting in with with the normal 3-series hard-top (for example, why would they buy the M3 cabrio when the 335Ci cab is a hard top and is nearly as fast?), and I can't see BMW using the hard-top due to it's high-weight when compared to good old cloth.

I can't see that as a sure thing. Their competition is mixed: the S4/RS4 is available as a convertible, but the C55 isn't. Not that this kind of competition has ever really worried Munich before. BMW's history has been increasing sales of M3 convertibles year-on-year, as it's quite simply a great car. Why kill such a great seller? The only decision I see BMW worrying about is whether to use the hard top or soft top. I can't see BMW thinking the 335Ci is "enough", as there's always been a significant gap between the M and non-M models, drop-top or not.