[pegogetem]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

He's 100% spot on.

All I can say is that I'm glad I have my OG M2.

NOTHING IN THE WORLD IS 100% . You’re full of it.

[pegogetem]

Originally Posted by omasou

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJRrUPh2Bo&t=1s

Straight GARBAGE take!!!

[BimmerMat135]

Personally i find that Bmw lost their way from the transition between the E to F generation cars. After that everything was a bit numb all marketing oriented no more passion just pure capitalism.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by BimmerMat135

Personally i find that Bmw lost their way from the transition between the E to F generation cars. After that everything was a bit numb all marketing oriented no more passion just pure capitalism.

I was talking with the owner of my BMW dealership, when the first F30 models were in the showroom. He'd been with BMW since the beginning, also an enthusiast with track time. I asked him what he thought of the F30. I remember him stating the F30 showed the greatest improvements, moving from one generation to the next he'd ever witnessed.

As to marketing... think back to the introduction of the 'M', BMW Motorsport. The M1, although a fiasco, publicity was well managed by BMW, got maximum publicity and it had grabbed the public's attention.

BMW were looking for ways to capitalize on this, it was Jochen Neerspach, who headed up the Motorsport division, who suggested the M designation should be attached to a low production, high performance version of the 5-series. This was first accomplished with the M535i... the rest is history.

The M heritage... based on capitalization and marketing... back in 1979!

The history of the first M5, shows marketing had a big part to play. BMW were conscious of cost and the way the wealthy and notoriously fickle clientele would respond, if they got the specification wrong. The first M5 show car was to be discreet, very understated, even had steel wheels! The M535i was the extrovert, the M5 more subtle at launch, marketing had to get it right to capitalize on the M brand.

How different today, where 'bling' sells cars. Customers appear to want overstatement, (we see it everywhere), rather than the discreet Q-car.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by AndreM2

You could make good track-cars out of an E30 M3, E36 M3, E46 M3, 1m Coupe, M2 and M2c but the new m3 and M4 are to heavy so is the new M2. So it is done and dusted at BMW M!

Remember, we started out with base cars like the E30 323i, which weighed in at about 1120kgs, the M3 added about 45kgs.

It is not just BMW that has got bloated and heavier over the years. Take the VW golf GTI. The Mk1 was something like 830kgs, the latest model is around 1570kgs. Even the Polo GTi now weights over 1350kgs.

Back to BMW, and the F22 2-series development as an example. We see how adding higher output drivetrains add the kgs. The F87 M2 with all the tweaking, still comes in about 150kgs over the 220i MT. Also heavier than the M235i MT.

Takes a lot of engineering and costs are high, to shave the weight. Will the customers pay the price?

Keep in mind the same safety standards have to be met, base car, or M model. A key reason for added dimensions and extra weight. Something has to give!

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by BimmerMat135

Personally i find that Bmw lost their way from the transition between the E to F generation cars. After that everything was a bit numb all marketing oriented no more passion just pure capitalism.

Fun fact - F80 M3 is not only lighter than E92 M3 but is also far stiffer, has CF components, there was particular attention to special panels being lighter and M only... and there was no awkward marketing as everything was centered around technical discussions. It also had no subframe bushings as the subframe chassis was directly bolted to the body.

The G80 M3 got heavier, number and became FAR more luxurious... it was also introduced in Instagram posts with influencers.... the few technical IG videos didn't come until complaints from a few folks.

Take that info how you want.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by pegogetem

I beg to differ, most of the older men think this way, BMW is in the lead for one of the most innovative brands. Change is good and I love the direction they’re going.

Yeah. BMW really hasn't changed. They still offer M-cars that are class leading. They still offer a RWD, manual transmission M2 when the competition only offers FWD based AWD automatic only cars. The times have changed, the automotive landscape has changed as automakers focus on SUV's and electrification. C63 AMG's are 4 cylinder/hybrid for crying out loud.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by ASAP

The G80 M3 got heavier, number and became FAR more luxurious

...also with a better chassis, a more linear delivery of turbo power, and better track times.

So that makes for quite a combination of practicality, luxury, and performance. Yes, it's less raw, but they added a CS and a CSL for those who seek that. Hec, they even took out the back seats in the CSL.

... it was also introduced in Instagram posts with influencers.... the few technical IG videos didn't come until complaints from a few folks.

Take that info how you want.

That marketing strategy is simply a sign of the times of how many products are advertised and promoted in 2023. BMW can't afford to be stuck in the past, their shareholders won't allow it.

And BMW is indeed a lifestyle for many, which is why you see a lot of people wearing BMW clothes and walking around with BMW gadgets and such. BMW is simply catering to this audience as well, while also producing products that engage enthusiasts. Hec, why else would they make specialized versions like the CSL, it's not for the soccer mom.

[pegogetem]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

Yeah. BMW really hasn't changed. They still offer M-cars that are class leading. They still offer a RWD, manual transmission M2 when the competition only offers FWD based AWD automatic only cars. The times have changed, the automotive landscape has changed as automakers focus on SUV's and electrification. C63 AMG's are 4 cylinder/hybrid for crying out loud.

Well written and your point is exactly what I’m feeling about this.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

...also with a better chassis, a more linear delivery of turbo power, and better track times.

So that makes for quite a combination of practicality, luxury, and performance. Yes, it's less raw, but they added a CS and a CSL for those who seek that. Hec, they even took out the back seats in the CSL.



That marketing strategy is simply a sign of the times of how many products are advertised and promoted in 2023. BMW can't afford to be stuck in the past, their shareholders won't allow it.

And BMW is indeed a lifestyle for many, which is why you see a lot of people wearing BMW clothes and walking around with BMW gadgets and such. BMW is simply catering to this audience as well, while also producing products that engage enthusiasts. Hec, why else would they make specialized versions like the CSL, it's not for the soccer mom.

Yes, and what part of that makes the car more FUN and Exciting to drive over it's predecessor? The more linear power delivery and tq curve that doesn't feel like anything happens until 4k w a heavier body just makes it lug around that much more... that's great on a track, not really the street. As far as better chassis... yes I agree there 100%, it's much more composed... but again, arguably at the expense of fun on the street as the limits are so high.

[Obioban]

M died when they went turbo, EPS, and automatic. The XM is just a more extreme form of what they've been doing routinely for a decade+

I've owned 10+ M cars over the last 20 years, multiple of which were purchased new, and have zero desire for anything BMW has made since they transitioned to turbos/EPS.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Obioban

M died when they went turbo, EPS, and automatic. The XM is just a more extreme form of what they've been doing routinely for a decade+

I've owned 10+ M cars over the last 20 years, multiple of which were purchased new, and have zero desire for anything BMW has made since they transitioned to turbos/EPS.

Not going turbo was effectively not an option...they maxed the NA I6 w the E46, then they maxed the high revving V8 w the E92... the only option was to put in a bigger V8 but then it would have been even heavier at the front and would have ended up effectively like driving a Corvette.

A larger high revving V8 like a 4.5L wasn't in the cards at this price point... Ferrari doesn't even do that anymore... there was no design decision that made sense outside of turbo.

[Tacoma]

Originally Posted by heavyD^2

Yeah. BMW really hasn't changed. They still offer M-cars that are class leading. They still offer a RWD, manual transmission M2 when the competition only offers FWD based AWD automatic only cars. The times have changed, the automotive landscape has changed as automakers focus on SUV's and electrification. C63 AMG's are 4 cylinder/hybrid for crying out loud.

Not for long. MB realized its mistake with a game changing decision to do an about-face and future C63s will return with V8s - apparently the glorious M177 twin-turbo 4.0-liter V8!

Now if BMW can also do an about-face and nix that beaver grille face, that'd be a game changer too.

[heavyD^2]

Originally Posted by Tacoma

Not for long. MB realized its mistake with a game changing decision to do an about-face and future C63s will return with V8s - apparently the glorious M177 twin-turbo 4.0-liter V8!

Now if BMW can also do an about-face and nix that beaver grille face, that'd be a game changer too.

They probably had no choice seeing AMG buyers wanted no part of the 4-cylinder/hybrid and the poor reviews likely didn't help. BMW hasn't really had that problem as the G8x models have sold well.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Not going turbo was effectively not an option...they maxed the NA I6 w the E46, then they maxed the high revving V8 w the E92... the only option was to put in a bigger V8 but then it would have been even heavier at the front and would have ended up effectively like driving a Corvette.

Add in the EU Manufacturer's fuel consumption averages and turbo efficiency was essential to acheive targets.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Add in the EU Manufacturer's fuel consumption averages and turbo efficiency was essential to acheive targets.

i don't know if i believe that.. those are fleet averages... M3s are a tiny percentage of all sales... remember they still have a gas guzzling N63 that goes in a ton of 5, X5 and X7....

I think it was both cost prohibitive and it would have been tough to make a motor like that perform competitively when Benz had the TT V8 and all others were FI at this point.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Not going turbo was effectively not an option...they maxed the NA I6 w the E46, then they maxed the high revving V8 w the E92... the only option was to put in a bigger V8 but then it would have been even heavier at the front and would have ended up effectively like driving a Corvette.

A larger high revving V8 like a 4.5L wasn't in the cards at this price point... Ferrari doesn't even do that anymore... there was no design decision that made sense outside of turbo.

Albert Biermann said in an interview that the original plan was to have a 4.4L S65 in the following generation M3 and a 5.5L S85 in the following generation M5, but BMW corporate nixed it because they were tired of paying for bespoke M engines. At that point, to not squander the development dollars, they became the e92 M3 GTS and e60 M5 CSL engines-- with no meaningful weight penalty. So, right off the cuff, we know that is wrong that they couldn't have put more displacement in without making the front heavier.

Regarding corvette engine weight, the S85 weights 529 lbs, whereas the LT1 (current corvette engine) weights 465 lbs-- and is seemingly viable in a car produced today, emissions/efficiency wise.

There is nothing magical about after e9X/e6X for the cost matrix of high revving NA vs generic company engine with some tweaks. BMW just decided they no longer cared enough and would rather have more profit margin. Yay. While ferarri has moved to turbos, the far cheaper Porsches have retained NA engines in the GT cars-- and the GT cars used to be a reasonably close analog to M cars (e.g. the e46 CSL was often in comparison tests with, and beat, the 996 GT3).

All that said, it may have been a lost cause either way. M cars are highly dependent on the base cars under them being good/small/light, and that's just not what BMW makes anymore. Every single car BMW made from the 2002 to e46/e39/e38 drove well. Non M e9X and e6X drive well if you fix a couple things and spec them properly. After them, none of the base cars were "the ultimate driving machine"-- really undermines the M car starting point.

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by ASAP

i don't know if i believe that.. those are fleet averages... M3s are a tiny percentage of all sales... remember they still have a gas guzzling N63 that goes in a ton of 5, X5 and X7....

I think it was both cost prohibitive and it would have been tough to make a motor like that perform competitively when Benz had the TT V8 and all others were FI at this point.

Every time they sell an i electric they offset two or three of those. That’s the game now.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Albert Biermann said in an interview that the original plan was to have a 4.4L S65 in the following generation M3 and a 5.5L S85 in the following generation M5, but BMW corporate nixed it because they were tired of paying for bespoke M engines. At that point, to not squander the development dollars, they became the e92 M3 GTS and e60 M5 CSL engines-- with no meaningful weight penalty. So, right off the cuff, we know that is wrong that they couldn't have put more displacement in without making the front heavier.

Regarding corvette engine weight, the S85 weights 529 lbs, whereas the LT1 (current corvette engine) weights 465 lbs-- and is seemingly viable in a car produced today, emissions/efficiency wise.

There is nothing magical about after e9X/e6X for the cost matrix of high revving NA vs generic company engine with some tweaks. BMW just decided they no longer cared enough and would rather have more profit margin. Yay. While ferarri has moved to turbos, the far cheaper Porsches have retained NA engines in the GT cars-- and the GT cars used to be a reasonably close analog to M cars (e.g. the e46 CSL was often in comparison tests with, and beat, the 996 GT3).

All that said, it may have been a lost cause either way. M cars are highly dependent on the base cars under them being good/small/light, and that's just not what BMW makes anymore. Every single car BMW made from the 2002 to e46/e39/e38 drove well. Non M e9X and e6X drive well if you fix a couple things and spec them properly. After them, none of the base cars were "the ultimate driving machine"-- really undermines the M car starting point.

It's not fair to compare BMW M3 to Corvettes because one by default is meant to be a far more practical car with luxuries whereas the other is a lighter ground up sports car which is why I made that comparison.

Do you think the stroker S65 would have been a competitive motor in 2015?

Because as much as we don't think these are drag cars... ultimately that car would have lost every comparo to an C63s outside of feel... and that sadly won't sell cars.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by ASAP

It's not fair to compare BMW M3 to Corvettes because one by default is meant to be a far more practical car with luxuries whereas the other is a lighter ground up sports car which is why I made that comparison.

Do you think the stroker S65 would have been a competitive motor in 2015?

Because as much as we don't think these are drag cars... ultimately that car would have lost every comparo to an C63s outside of feel... and that sadly won't sell cars.

I think if acceleration times are how cars are evaluated, I've already lost interest. I already think my e60 M5 is too fast to be enjoyable (as in, it would be better to drive if it was slower).

I also think the cars that really put BMW on the map (2002 and e30 M3) weren't remotely fast accelerators compared to their contemporaries. So, if you want evidence BMW has changed...

I just mentioned the corvette because you called it out with regard to weight-- and it has a lighter engine than BMW was or is using (assuming you take all the turbo accessory crap as part of the weight of the engine).

Overall, though, maybe trying to sell M cars in volume is actually the problem. It forces a watered down product for the masses, forces a focus on acceleration, makes it harder to average out emissions targets with EVs, and forces them to focus on per unit profit. Porsche's GT cars are not high volume cars, but they sure make everyone love the company and look favorably upon the lower models.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Obioban

I think if acceleration times are how cars are evaluated, I've already lost interest. I already think my e60 M5 is too fast to be enjoyable (as in, it would be better to drive if it was slower).

I also think the cars that really put BMW on the map (2002 and e30 M3) weren't remotely fast accelerators compared to their contemporaries. So, if you want evidence BMW has changed...

I just mentioned the corvette because you called it out with regard to weight-- and it has a lighter engine than BMW was or is using (assuming you take all the turbo accessory crap as part of the weight of the engine).

Overall, though, maybe trying to sell M cars in volume is actually the problem. It forces a watered down product for the masses, forces a focus on acceleration, makes it harder to average out emissions targets with EVs, and forces them to focus on per unit profit. Porsche's GT cars are not high volume cars, but they sure make everyone love the company and look favorably upon the lower models.

I agree that all out acceleration is not a good metric for a fun performance car - that's why the G80x is a dead weight to me.

However, it is ultimately how cars can be compared objectively... and that's what will end up selling these cars vs the product entirely failing. This is why there needs to be a balance and the F80 IMHO met that balance really well... mixed excitement and feel with performance.

The M3 was a mass product since the E92 days... I would argue E46 wasn't... as BMW M was a small brand then that didn't diverge into SUVs etc yet and it was strictly for enthusiasts... but not turned 180 degrees around and made it as mass of a product as possible. Which is why now to get true feel - you will pay the piper and that piper is Porsche

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by ASAP

The M3 was a mass product since the E92 days... I would argue E46 wasn't... as BMW M was a small brand then that didn't diverge into SUVs etc yet

Just throwing this out there

https://www.carscoops.com/2021/03/fl...or-most-sales/