If I were a new car buyer today and wanted a good sports saloon, I'd buy an Alfa Giulia. If I wanted a good saloon full-stop, I'd buy a C-class. Ask someone the same 5/10/15/20 years ago, I'd be surprised if the answer to both (ignoring brand preference, which of course plays a huge role in this class) wouldn't have been 3-series.
And yet there's
always been buyers that have shunned the 3 series in favour of competing products. 20 years ago the Lexus IS was the next big threat to the 3 series, the Alfa 156 was ticking all the boxes for some people, the Mercedes C Class was being the Mercedes C Class, and the threat from the Audi A4 was becoming more prominent. Did these cars really
only sell because of brand preference? Did the 3 series always sell because it was objectively the best? Or, is it simply not as black and white as that - or, more poignantly, as rose tinted as that? I appreciate you opinion will vary, but I've nearly always considered such cars as genuie threats, even if each was only a threat in a specific area.
If Kia is the new threat, so be it... The technological know how at this level isn't the key, it's about cost, profit and revenue, so I doubt BMW is concerned that Kia
can make a great car - I'm sure they
will be concerned if 3-er customers start migrating in droves.
For about as long as I've been a BMW enthusiast I can recall two things happening, 1. People saying how the new one is better than the old one. 2. People saying how the new one is not as good as the old one. Sometimes journo's are saying one thing, and the BMW community is saying the other, sometimes vice versa. I like that top brass has called it out as bull crap.