[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

You need to calm down.

I'm curious what makes me seem not calm?

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by drakensoul

Talk about a digression about destiny.

Wooooooosh.

Again, making things weigh less doesn't necessarily have to do with density. It can, but not in your examples.

Again, decreasing heft (weight) increases performance and is a good thing. I was simply stating that attributing that to a decrease in footprint density is fallacious. Since density is a squared inverse function of footprint or volume, and linear in relation to mass.

And also, dense (smaller) cars have better centers of mass as opposed to a theoretically less dense (larger volume) version of themselves. I.e.: a less voluminous, more dense version of your E92 would likely handle better while at the same time performing exactly the same in a straight line.

Again, weight loss is not the same as a decrease in footprint density.

Again, equilibrating the footprint density of the 235 and a Camaro SS doesn't equilibrate their performance (by any stretch).

And also:

But okay.

When we're talking about cars of a particular size, in which case reducing the weight would reduce the density. So there's that. Otherwise, you've just built yourself a nice list of strawmen. I'm not making any of those arguments. I never have.

You're really hung up on the density thing. The footprint density measurement was simply a tool for illustrating a point: that the M240i is not particularly "light for its size". I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to relate that in an objective fashion. You've obviously got the toolset (reason & logic) for it.

Outside of that, I don't really care about the car's density. That is to say, I don't care if the car is larger or smaller, give or take a couple of inches. I never said I did. I only said that the M240i is not particularly light for its size, then presented some math to back that up. Your criticisms of the math are fair (footprint increases as a square, but weight does not).

I'd really love to see BMW produce a car about the size of the M240i, but 200 lbs less. I think I get your point, that in an ideal world, the car would be no larger than a bubble around the passengers, and weigh only what's necessary, but that's a little too far on the side of naval gazing for my interests.

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I'm curious what makes me seem not calm?

Originally Posted by bradleyland

...Why is everyone so certain that BMW can't make F22 based cars lighter without the price going up by some ridiculous sum of money? When did everyone decide they'd lay down and stop asking for more from automotive manufacturers. It's no wonder BMW doesn't make a small, lightweight sports coupé. There's an army of unpaid people willing to jump to their defense any time the topic comes up.

It's really confusing to me. There's clear evidence that it's possible to make cars much, much lighter, and at a similar price point, yet droves of people look at what's offered to them and swallow it whole.

A majority of cars are heavy now because of increased safety regulations.

Not going to see much weight reduction at this price point... !

Connectivity is the future, however at a huge price.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

A majority of cars are heavy now because of increased safety regulations.

Not going to see much weight reduction at this price point... !

Connectivity is the future, however at a huge price.

If that's the case, how do we explain the i3? It's very light weight, includes a heavy battery + petrol motor, and sells at a similar price point to the 2-series. The F22 chassis was in development before the i3 (I think). If not, there was some overlap in development timeline, so I think that probably explains it. Another possible explanation is that the i3 is subsidized in order to bring it to market at a certain price point. Does anyone know if that's the case? I'm curious.

BMW seem to have gotten the message recently. The weight reduction in the new M3/4 is a nice starting point. The G11 7-series really impressed. It would make me really happy to see BMW continue to make weight saving a focus.

Side note: I enjoy this kind of discussion. I hope no one thinks I'm over here raging at my keyboard. If I make an emphatic argument, it's because I want to get a point across. Besides, strong writing is good writing. No one likes lukewarm breakfast, and no one likes lukewarm writing

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

If that's the case, how do we explain the i3? It's very light weight, includes a heavy battery + petrol motor, and sells at a similar price point to the 2-series. The F22 chassis was in development before the i3 (I think). If not, there was some overlap in development timeline, so I think that probably explains it. Another possible explanation is that the i3 is subsidized in order to bring it to market at a certain price point. Does anyone know if that's the case? I'm curious.

BMW seem to have gotten the message recently. The weight reduction in the new M3/4 is a nice starting point. The G11 7-series really impressed. It would make me really happy to see BMW continue to make weight saving a focus.

Side note: I enjoy this kind of discussion. I hope no one thinks I'm over here raging at my keyboard. If I make an emphatic argument, it's because I want to get a point across. Besides, strong writing is good writing. No one likes lukewarm breakfast, and no one likes lukewarm writing

The i3 is not a money maker for BMW.

It is a serious write-off car.

[Nati0n]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

The i3 is not a money maker for BMW.

It is a serious write-off car.

Yep, helps them get product lineup consumption averages down, less fines from the US government under CAFE lol

[jamiey]

In many ways the i3 and i8 are proof of concepts for mass production of Carbon cars.

The trickle down has started with the 7 'er and will continue with next year's 5'er.

The main issue for mass is that people expect a certain kind of comfort in what could be their daily driver.

My Elise is 755KG (1665lbs) but that has wind up windows, no a/c, no airbags, no abs, two seats that are thinner than most sandwiches, no carpets and bare trim everywhere.

Jaguar use similar extruded Aluminium tech to make the XE and XF, but once all the equipment and safety kit is added then the mass increases to around 3 'er levels. Then you need to increase the power to get the "required" performance, which requires cooling so more mass... And So on.

[Devon K]

I had both feet in the "light is right" camp - until I test drove the new MX-5, which is the complete opposite of "vault-like". The way the whole chassis vibrated with the engine, and the visible dance the gearshift made while driving reminded me of an Acura Integra from 20 years ago. Some of that might be attributed to the lower rigidity inherent in any open-roof car, but another 50 lbs spent on structural bracing and materials rigidity would have mitigated the cheap feeling of the car.

The M235i is of course in a completely different weight category and could likely shed a few 100 lbs with no degradations along these lines (at some cost), but going too far could lead to unacceptable tradeoffs.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

The i3 is not a money maker for BMW.

It is a serious write-off car.

That's the opposite of what BMW have said though

From the Wall Street Journal:

Ian Robertson, BMW's global sales and marketing chief, said in London on Monday the company "would be profitable from day one on each vehicle it made."

[Dylan86]

Originally Posted by Devon K

The M235i is of course in a completely different weight category and could likely shed a few 100 lbs with no degradation along these lines (at some cost), but going too far could lead to an unacceptable trade-off.

This.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Devon K

The M235i is of course in a completely different weight category and could likely shed a few 100 lbs with no degradations along these lines (at some cost), but going too far could lead to unacceptable tradeoffs.

I somehow missed this. This is very close to how I feel. Everyone has a slightly different balance of refinement and luxury, but given what BMW has shown they're capable of in other places, I don't believe there isn't some weight savings to be had without sacrificing refinement and price point.

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

That's the opposite of what BMW have said though

From the Wall Street Journal:

Ian Robertson, BMW's global sales and marketing chief, said in London on Monday the company "would be profitable from day one on each vehicle it made."

Just because he says that does not make it so.

[bimmerfile]

Originally Posted by red-sauerkraut

Ian Robertson, BMW's global sales and marketing chief, said in London on Monday the company "would be profitable from day one on each vehicle it made."

Just because he says that does not make it so.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget that it's a sales/mktg guy saying that & their concept of Cost Accounting is ALWAYS based on incremental costs, not fully loaded and/or allocated costs.
And I fully expect that on an incremental cost basis, each car produced is profitable.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by bimmerfile

Just because he says that does not make it so.

Don't forget that it's a sales/mktg guy saying that & their concept of Cost Accounting is ALWAYS based on incremental costs, not fully loaded and/or allocated costs.
And I fully expect that on an incremental cost basis, each car produced is profitable. [/QUOTE]
That's why segment P&Ls are managed before allocations too.

[HeyMoe53]

So much for this thread. It's jumped off the tracks way more than any train wreck in memory. As a possible 2-series buyer in the next year or two, I was simply hoping for some credible info. That's what I get for hoping.

[Raptor01]

What Moe said.

[den_nem]

So just to confirm, there gonna be NO xDrive for 230i?
xDrive will be available ONLY for M240i?

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by bimmerfile

Just because he says that does not make it so.

Don't forget that it's a sales/mktg guy saying that & their concept of Cost Accounting is ALWAYS based on incremental costs, not fully loaded and/or allocated costs.
And I fully expect that on an incremental cost basis, each car produced is profitable. [/QUOTE]
Sure sure sure. I get it, however...

How the hell do you Calculate all the loss on Lease returns, considering a majority of them are Leased.

That is is where the un-calculated loss comes in !

[bimmerfile]

Originally Posted by den_nem

So just to confirm, there gonna be NO xDrive for 230i?
xDrive will be available ONLY for M240i?

XDrive is available on the 230i and on the M240i as per the Canadian BMW 2017 Ordering Guide (unless BMW is only making the xDrive 230i for Canadians):

http://www.2addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1267161

[BMHope]

Hi Guys

Long time lurker and BMW newbie (hoping to make an order next year)
Seeing as most posts have been focusing on the engine on the 240i and then slightly digressing from there, I was wondering whether anyone knew the technical differences between the 228i and the 230i engines.

Is it the same engine between the two just slightly updated or are the differences as stark as those between the engine in the 235 and 240i?

[siwo]

Although the M240i have been released, I'm still hoping that BMW will build my M235i for me instead. I much prefer the N55 motor based on history and if they force me to a M240 then I'd have no choice at that point. But right now I chose the M235i!!!

[boypaulkim]

if 230 and 240 goes into production in July, how soon can i get my hands on them? dealer seems to be of no help...