BMW F20 1 Series revealed.. ummm, yeah..

[FT-1]

A front-drive M140i might be excellent - BMW makes MINIs of course, and MINIs handle pretty well - but I actually doubt BMW's ability to make a front-drive hot hatch as good as say, Volkswagen can. Or Honda, or Renault, or a bunch of other brands they never really had to compete with before because they were the one company sticking with rear-drive...

But the next M140i doesn't have to be front wheel drive, right? Basing the 1-Series on the UKL platform opens the door for an xDrive configuration to be used on high performance models.

 

[Clark]

One thing for sure is that the performance version of this supposedly front wheel driver 1er will almost definitely not have a six cylinder engine

 

[Outspacer]

I'm in two minds about this.

On the one hand, basic 1-series, and even 3/4-series, are nothing special to drive. They barely feel rear-wheel drive in the first place and aren't even close in terms of fun or response to some of the decent front-drive stuff available at the moment.

However.

I'm more concerned that the brand's ethos is being diluted. However good (or bad) the application, making rear-wheel drive cars, and all the technical and emotional baggage that comes with that, is a statement of intent, and shows that the people developing the cars are enthusiasts even if the people buying them aren't. And it does result in inherently decent balance, nice proportions from a styling perspective, and the prospect of some fun if you're prepared to spend a bit extra on a decent engine.

There is obviously good business sense in building a front-drive 1-series, as most owners wouldn't know rear-drive if it gave them an accidental spike of oversteer on an icy roundabout, and it'll be cheaper to build for BMW, which is good for profits.

But it does raise the threshold for access to the kind of models that rear-drive gives access too, like the M140i, which are actually jolly good fun and fairly unique in offering the experience they do for the price they do. A front-drive M140i might be excellent - BMW makes MINIs of course, and MINIs handle pretty well - but I actually doubt BMW's ability to make a front-drive hot hatch as good as say, Volkswagen can. Or Honda, or Renault, or a bunch of other brands they never really had to compete with before because they were the one company sticking with rear-drive...

Well of course, my comment was flippantly reacting to what is essentially a u-turn in BMW's mission statement

There's good business sense, presumably, in BMW building another FWD car beyond the Mini (which isn't viewed by most people as a 'proper' BMW, IYSWIM). But is it wise to do it in the main line of models? Might a name be better, leaving the 1 (and 2) alone or only dropping the dullest engine options? Even that I'm not sure of - people buy those lowest models to have a BMW and all that stands for, and BMW have just changed part of what 'BMW' stands for.

Cheaper to build implies either cheaper to buy or a rip-off, and it's a very competitive market. I'd wager there's only extra profit if they could sell in reasonably increased numbers, and I'm not sure they could - judging by how many 1s I see around, they aren't doing badly. Perhaps they're at saturation point for those who have to settle for the 1, regardless of drivetrain

 

[Tornado]

But the next M140i doesn't have to be front wheel drive, right? Basing the 1-Series on the UKL platform opens the door for an xDrive configuration to be used on high performance models.

There are also plenty of front biased AWD hot hatches that BMW has significantly less experience building than other manufacturers who already do so.

 

[homeforsummer]

Even that I'm not sure of - people buy those lowest models to have a BMW and all that stands for, and BMW have just changed part of what 'BMW' stands for.

I think you might be giving the average BMW buyer a little too much credit. I'd be interested to see a straw poll of 1-series owners as to which wheels they think are driven - and even what difference they think that might make. Buyers might, at a very basic level, be able to explain the benefits of all-wheel drive, but rear-drive?

I also think you might be underestimating BMW's ability to squeeze a profit out of the car. To the average consumer you could sell a front-drive 116d for an identical price to a rear-drive 116d and few would bat an eyelid - not least because they'll surely be able to put some nice "extra interior space" photos in the brochure, which is the sort of thing that many consumers will respond to. I'd be very surprised if there isn't better economies of scale (and therefore cost savings) in it for BMW, all other things being equal - otherwise I doubt they'd bother.

But the next M140i doesn't have to be front wheel drive, right? Basing the 1-Series on the UKL platform opens the door for an xDrive configuration to be used on high performance models.

There are also plenty of front biased AWD hot hatches that BMW has significantly less experience building than other manufacturers who already do so.

To be fair, BMW's lesser experience in all-wheel drive probably doesn't make that much difference - it's not like they're completely inept at it, and when I last drove an xDrive 1-series it was... well, fine. Almost precisely as fine as a quattro A3.

An all-wheel drive M140i doesn't really interest me though. There are several of those already; the appeal of the existing one is that it's neither all-wheel drive nor front-wheel drive. Even if (whisper it) it's not really as fun as about half a dozen of the front-wheel drives in the same segment.

One thing for sure is that the performance version of this supposedly front wheel driver 1er will almost definitely not have a six cylinder engine

That's probably more of an issue for me than the driven wheels, in reality. Individualism is slowly being sucked out of the class. It's a sad day when a brand as dull as Audi has the most interesting engine configuration in their hot hatchback...

 

[Outspacer]

I think you might be giving the average BMW buyer a little too much credit. I'd be interested to see a straw poll of 1-series owners as to which wheels they think are driven - and even what difference they think that might make. Buyers might, at a very basic level, be able to explain the benefits of all-wheel drive, but rear-drive?

I disagree on that. The basic advantage of having the axles do one job each is pretty easy to grasp, and easier to justify than the extra complication and weight of 4WD (assuming they live somewhere that snow is fairly rare!). I agree that they might well generally not really understand it or know how to make best use of it, but if their friend or a reviewer says RWD is good, that sticks in their head. Likewise if they hear that the 1 isn't a 'proper' BMW.

I also think you might be underestimating BMW's ability to squeeze a profit out of the car. To the average consumer you could sell a front-drive 116d for an identical price to a rear-drive 116d and few would bat an eyelid - not least because they'll surely be able to put some nice "extra interior space" photos in the brochure, which is the sort of thing that many consumers will respond to. I'd be very surprised if there isn't better economies of scale (and therefore cost savings) in it for BMW, all other things being equal - otherwise I doubt they'd bother.

Here you're underestimating the "average" consumer, massively. There's no such thing. But if there is, they've been buying Polos, Golfs, etc. Most people just want a reliable commodity car that's comfortable and drives reasonably well... for a commodity price.

If any car isn't priced right, then it won't sell well. People aren't mugs (or if they are, then not for long).

If there are economies of scale then that's because my point about increased numbers is correct, surely?

Anyway, I don't know, you don't know, even BMW don't know... they just think it's a good bet. I can't help but think that losing the brand-identifying characteristic of RWD makes it risky.

 

[05XR8]

I disagree on that. The basic advantage of having the axles do one job each is pretty easy to grasp, and easier to justify than the extra complication and weight of 4WD (assuming they live somewhere that snow is fairly rare!). I agree that they might well generally not really understand it or know how to make best use of it, but if their friend or a reviewer says RWD is good, that sticks in their head. Likewise if they hear that the 1 isn't a 'proper' BMW.



Here you're underestimating the "average" consumer, massively. There's no such thing. But if there is, they've been buying Polos, Golfs, etc. Most people just want a reliable commodity car that's comfortable and drives reasonably well... for a commodity price.

If any car isn't priced right, then it won't sell well. People aren't mugs (or if they are, then not for long).

If there are economies of scale then that's because my point about increased numbers is correct, surely?

Anyway, I don't know, you don't know, even BMW don't know... they just think it's a good bet. I can't help but think that losing the brand-identifying characteristic of RWD makes it risky.

Only thing I can say about this argument is, the MINI. Will a MINI owner step sideways into a fwd BMW? I don't know, but a MINI owner could care less which wheels are driven. Same for a new or current BMW owner. It'll be about, "How good do I look in it?", "It's the new thing.", " Will it hold its value.", "Should fit in the garage next to the Range Rover."

It's like that A or B-class Mercedes. It was fwd, slow and had the three-pointed star. That's all that mattered.

 

[Outspacer]

It's like that A or B-class Mercedes. It was fwd, slow and had the three-pointed star. That's all that mattered.

Do they sell well? I know it's only a straw poll, but I see more 1-series around. Maybe I just notice them more.

 

[05XR8]

Do they sell well? I know it's only a straw poll, but I see more 1-series around. Maybe I just notice them more.

In Australia, I've seen plenty of the mid-2000 models and still driving around.

The current A-class are all over the place here.

 

[Outspacer]

In Australia, I've seen plenty of the mid-2000 models and still driving around.

The current A-class are all over the place here.

Hmm, ok, Europe-wide it seems the A class is a bit ahead, having jumped 19% in 2016 (so just behind the 1-series before that)...

http://carsalesbase.com/european-sales-2016-premium-compact-segment/

Or should we add the 2 to the 1 and the B to the A? Then Merc takes it, no question. But the 2 is more niche than the B, so not apples-to-apples.

OK I'll concede that about 70% (including Audi A3) of people buy slow fwd cars in this segment... even when there's a better handling and performing rwd for about the same price. The Merc is a better looker, though.

So BMW would likely gain some of those, while losing those who wanted RWD. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[homeforsummer]

I disagree on that. The basic advantage of having the axles do one job each is pretty easy to grasp, and easier to justify than the extra complication and weight of 4WD (assuming they live somewhere that snow is fairly rare!). I agree that they might well generally not really understand it or know how to make best use of it, but if their friend or a reviewer says RWD is good, that sticks in their head. Likewise if they hear that the 1 isn't a 'proper' BMW.

I think this argument assumes that the majority of BMW consumers buy into the "ultimate driving machine" thing, rather than just the "premium German brand" thing. Some will of course buy into the former, and they'll be more bothered than most that the car is going FWD. Many will see the BMW badge on the bonnet, and some vaguely sporty styling, and won't care either way that the "wrong" wheels are being driven.

I still think you're giving the average car buyer too much credit though. I didn't want to stereotype, but I'll have to to illustrate my point:

You see a lot of middle-aged women driving 1-series. Are these buyers going to know the benefits of separating drive and steering duties? Are they going to know the benefits of 50:50 weight distribution? Will they even have accelerated hard enough to experience the traction advantages of rear-wheel drive?

If you asked Average Joe or Average Jane on the street, the sort of person who knows very little about cars but knows that BMW (or Audi, or Mercedes) is a desirable brand and one they'd want on their driveway, would they know any of the answers to the questions above either?

The last BMW I drove was a current-gen 320i, and it was on a circuit. Given the way it drove - with plenty of understeer, poor throttle response, barely any steering feel - it barely felt rear-drive even at its limits (and a 320i makes what, 180bhp now? That should be enough...), so expecting someone commuting in a diesel 1-series to know or care seems a bit optimistic.

In contrast, I'd say all-wheel drive is a much easier sell. Adverts of soft-roaders climbing snowy mountains or Audis negotiating slippery corners worry-free plant that seed pretty easily - and again, would the mass car-buying public really know (or care) about the extra complication (little to zero impact when you're buying/leasing a new car every three years) or weight (how many drivers could detect this on their commute?) of an all-wheel drive system? In pure marketing terms the benefits outweigh the negatives of all-wheel drive, but marketing rear-drive to consumers who haven't a clue what power oversteer is is a bit more difficult.

Here you're underestimating the "average" consumer, massively. There's no such thing.

Of course there is! The average consumer is the wide band of people that actually make up the vast majority of sales - including those on fleets - rather than the slim band of enthusiasts that sits at the extreme end of the market gritting their teeth about FWD BMWs. Or four-cylinder BMWs - did the brand's sales start tailing off when it started swapping six-cylinder engines for turbocharged four-pots?

Quite a few GTPers work in car dealerships. I'd be interested to hear from them what kind of knowledge their customers come in with. I suspect it's very little, and while BMW might have had a larger enthusiast base back in maybe the 1980s, it now generates far higher sales and with that comes a far less focused customer base.

It's the old, "3-series outsells Mondeo" thing. Do you think in 2017 we have a much higher number of car enthusiasts who all crave rear-wheel drive, which is why BMW sells more 3ers than Ford does Mondeos, or do you think it's more likely that tempting lease deals have made it easier to put a flash badge on the driveway?...

But if there is, they've been buying Polos, Golfs, etc. Most people just want a reliable commodity car that's comfortable and drives reasonably well... for a commodity price.

If any car isn't priced right, then it won't sell well. People aren't mugs (or if they are, then not for long).

If there are economies of scale then that's because my point about increased numbers is correct, surely?

I think there may be crossed wires between us here somewhere.

My theory is that the FWD car will be cheaper to build (which I'd expect is the case, otherwise BMW probably wouldn't be doing it), but BMW will likely sell it for a price roughly equal to the current model. Is this the part you disagree with? Or do we actually agree on this? Do you think BMW is likely to sell the FWD 1-series for more, or for less?

In my view consumers will happily pay a roughly-equal price, because as above, I'd expect the majority of consumers don't care, and probably don't even know what wheels are being driven, so there's no "negative" aspect to the car going front-drive. All most will see is a healthy equipment list with all the new infotainment BMW can squeeze in, and a better-packaged interior and boot space thanks to it being FWD.

 

[Outspacer]

I think this argument assumes that the majority of BMW consumers buy into the "ultimate driving machine" thing, rather than just the "premium German brand" thing. Some will of course buy into the former, and they'll be more bothered than most that the car is going FWD. Many will see the BMW badge on the bonnet, and some vaguely sporty styling, and won't care either way that the "wrong" wheels are being driven.

I still think you're giving the average car buyer too much credit though. I didn't want to stereotype, but I'll have to to illustrate my point:

You see a lot of middle-aged women driving 1-series. Are these buyers going to know the benefits of separating drive and steering duties? Are they going to know the benefits of 50:50 weight distribution? Will they even have accelerated hard enough to experience the traction advantages of rear-wheel drive?

If you asked Average Joe or Average Jane on the street, the sort of person who knows very little about cars but knows that BMW (or Audi, or Mercedes) is a desirable brand and one they'd want on their driveway, would they know any of the answers to the questions above either?

The last BMW I drove was a current-gen 320i, and it was on a circuit. Given the way it drove - with plenty of understeer, poor throttle response, barely any steering feel - it barely felt rear-drive even at its limits (and a 320i makes what, 180bhp now? That should be enough...), so expecting someone commuting in a diesel 1-series to know or care seems a bit optimistic.

In contrast, I'd say all-wheel drive is a much easier sell. Adverts of soft-roaders climbing snowy mountains or Audis negotiating slippery corners worry-free plant that seed pretty easily - and again, would the mass car-buying public really know (or care) about the extra complication (little to zero impact when you're buying/leasing a new car every three years) or weight (how many drivers could detect this on their commute?) of an all-wheel drive system? In pure marketing terms the benefits outweigh the negatives of all-wheel drive, but marketing rear-drive to consumers who haven't a clue what power oversteer is is a bit more difficult.

Of course there is! The average consumer is the wide band of people that actually make up the vast majority of sales - including those on fleets - rather than the slim band of enthusiasts that sits at the extreme end of the market gritting their teeth about FWD BMWs. Or four-cylinder BMWs - did the brand's sales start tailing off when it started swapping six-cylinder engines for turbocharged four-pots?

Quite a few GTPers work in car dealerships. I'd be interested to hear from them what kind of knowledge their customers come in with. I suspect it's very little, and while BMW might have had a larger enthusiast base back in maybe the 1980s, it now generates far higher sales and with that comes a far less focused customer base.

It's the old, "3-series outsells Mondeo" thing. Do you think in 2017 we have a much higher number of car enthusiasts who all crave rear-wheel drive, which is why BMW sells more 3ers than Ford does Mondeos, or do you think it's more likely that tempting lease deals have made it easier to put a flash badge on the driveway?...

I think there may be crossed wires between us here somewhere.

My theory is that the FWD car will be cheaper to build (which I'd expect is the case, otherwise BMW probably wouldn't be doing it), but BMW will likely sell it for a price roughly equal to the current model. Is this the part you disagree with? Or do we actually agree on this? Do you think BMW is likely to sell the FWD 1-series for more, or for less?

In my view consumers will happily pay a roughly-equal price, because as above, I'd expect the majority of consumers don't care, and probably don't even know what wheels are being driven, so there's no "negative" aspect to the car going front-drive. All most will see is a healthy equipment list with all the new infotainment BMW can squeeze in, and a better-packaged interior and boot space thanks to it being FWD.

Basically I think the 'average' consumer likes to think they spend their money wisely. They will spend quite a lot of time deciding which car to buy. Couples will talk to each other, people talk to their friends and workmates, they'll test drive, etc. They might not be generally good at analysing all the info, and they will have differing priorities, but they will try. I also think there is a general interest in cars - not to our level, of course, but still more than you give people credit for (particularly middle-aged women, lol, makes me suspect you are a young male! If we're stereotyping, why do so many of that demographic drive MX5s?).

Price - like I said first, if they can make it for less money and don't sell it for less, that's clearly not good value for the buyer. If they load it up with options as standard to balance it out then fine.

 

[homeforsummer]

Basically I think the 'average' consumer likes to think they spend their money wisely. They will spend quite a lot of time deciding which car to buy. Couples will talk to each other, people talk to their friends and workmates, they'll test drive, etc. They might not be generally good at analysing all the info, and they will have differing priorities, but they will try.

This also assumes their friends, relatives and co-workers will have a deep enough knowledge to know - in this instance - why a rear-drive car might be better than a front-drive one. And if they do know, whether they even care.

I also think there is a general interest in cars - not to our level, of course, but still more than you give people credit for

There is indeed, but I think it's a fairly superficial one. Look how many people - even on an enthusiast site like this one - think that Top Gear is the be-all and end-all of automotive verdicts, rather than just car-themed entertainment.

And consider that sites like What Car, Auto Express and Consumer Reports are some of the biggest review sites on the internet - sites which concentrate much more on sensible elements of cars than they do enthusiast ones.

(particularly middle-aged women, lol, makes me suspect you are a young male! If we're stereotyping, why do so many of that demographic drive MX5s?).

I am male. I'm 32 - I'll leave you to decide whether that is "young". Not sure what that has to do with it though, unless you think middle-aged women are a key demographic for rear-wheel drive cars. I was simply illustrating my point. And if it makes you feel better, I expect not a significantly higher proportion of middle-aged men are too much better-informed.

I also write for a national car magazine (a couple, in fact), so I do like to think I have an idea about the industry...

Why do so many of that demographic drive MX-5s? Probably because they're stylish and you can pop the roof down, and probably not because they're fun on a track day.

Price - like I said first, if they can make it for less money and don't sell it for less, that's clearly not good value for the buyer. If they load it up with options as standard to balance it out then fine.

The bolded section assumes the buyer is aware that the car costs less to produce in the first place, in order to decide they're getting less value for money. I very much doubt this is the case.

Incidentally, do you have answers to my light-hearted questions regarding 3-series vs Mondeo or six-cylinders vs four? I think the answers are quite important to this all making sense.

 

[Danoff]

I think this argument assumes that the majority of BMW consumers buy into the "ultimate driving machine" thing, rather than just the "premium German brand" thing.
...
You see a lot of middle-aged women driving 1-series.

Stereotype much? I happen to know a middle-aged woman who loves BMWs and is very much into weight distribution, drive wheels, and all the rest.

I think, actually, that you're missing a key element of how people buy high-end. You're right that there are two consumers of high end products - those who care, and those who just want the badge. The latter only exist because of the former. Paris Hilton doesn't drive a McLaren only because of the badge. It's because the badge means something to those who know.

Maybe Paris really knows and loves driving. Something tells me she doesn't really care, she just likes having her photo taken. Here's how that purchase goes... "what's the most super-desirable expensive flashy car? I want that one". The reason it's the most super-desirable and expensive is because they spent all that time trying to make it amazing on the track so that it has the chops to make a splash. Guy walks into a stereo store looking for a sound system. Clerk comes out and says "can I help you?". Guy says "I want the best sound system you've got". Clerk says "this one has blah blah features and blah blah".. guy: "I don't care about all that, it's the best right?".

It's lazy consumerism for people with extra money. Forget the research, others have done it for you, just buy the expensive one and assume that it comes with value. Paris might not care that her car is mid-engined, but someone does, and that's why she wants it, because it has all the stuff that people who actually care want it to have.

 

[Outspacer]

This also assumes their friends, relatives and co-workers will have a deep enough knowledge to know - in this instance - why a rear-drive car might be better than a front-drive one. And if they do know, whether they even care.

There is indeed, but I think it's a fairly superficial one. Look how many people - even on an enthusiast site like this one - think that Top Gear is the be-all and end-all of automotive verdicts, rather than just car-themed entertainment.

And consider that sites like What Car, Auto Express and Consumer Reports are some of the biggest review sites on the internet - sites which concentrate much more on sensible elements of cars than they do enthusiast ones.

I am male. I'm 32 - I'll leave you to decide whether that is "young". Not sure what that has to do with it though, unless you think middle-aged women are a key demographic for rear-wheel drive cars. I was simply illustrating my point. And if it makes you feel better, I expect not a significantly higher proportion of middle-aged men are too much better-informed.

I also write for a national car magazine (a couple, in fact), so I do like to think I have an idea about the industry...

Why do so many of that demographic drive MX-5s? Probably because they're stylish and you can pop the roof down, and probably not because they're fun on a track day.

The bolded section assumes the buyer is aware that the car costs less to produce in the first place, in order to decide they're getting less value for money. I very much doubt this is the case.

Incidentally, do you have answers to my light-hearted questions regarding 3-series vs Mondeo or six-cylinders vs four? I think the answers are quite important to this all making sense.

You talk as if it's only 1 in a 100 that know about RWD, maybe I exaggerate, but I do think your opinion of the 'average' is off. I'm a programmer. From my viewpoint, I could say the average person knows nothing about computers. I'd be wrong; it simply isn't that absolute. Perhaps you have a simliar blindspot from your viewpoint as a writer?

They certainly don't buy MX5s for the increased interior space!

Then again with the buyer not being "aware that the car costs less to produce" - that's something they'd hear from reviews on those biggest review sites you mention.

Sorry, I thought those questions were rhetorical. Chris Harris' review of the new Cayman focussed on the cylinder issue - basically saying its 4 cyl. is a great engine, makes the Cayman chassis come alive, but sounds boring. As for 3-series and Mondeos, I couldn't tell you why. I'd judge the 3 as the better car generally, but all those who switched probably had a variety of specific reasons.

 

[Danoff]

From my viewpoint, I could say the average person knows nothing about computers.

People do this even more with computers than cars. "This is the latest one right?". That's all they want to know. Maybe they'll never actually use half the features on it, and they're just using it for web browsing so they really could have gotten by with something from 10 years ago, but they just want to make sure that they're buying the latest-greatest model, and assume that it'll handle whatever they want it to handle because of that.

Researching computer parts is not for the faint of heart.

...but it will handle their web browsing with ease, because people who know and care did the research for them.

 

[Outspacer]

People do this even more with computers than cars. "This is the latest one right?". That's all they want to know. Maybe they'll never actually use half the features on it, and they're just using it for web browsing so they really could have gotten by with something from 10 years ago, but they just want to make sure that they're buying the latest-greatest model, and assume that it'll handle whatever they want it to handle because of that.

Researching computer parts is not for the faint of heart.

...but it will handle their web browsing with ease, because people who know and care did the research for them.

True. I was thinking of more than just the buying of them, actually, even if it's only that they edit videos and photos, format documents nicely, do finances, game, whatever. Thinking of it like that, most people will do a bit more than just web browsing and email. Not a lot, granted, but something that means it's risky to talk about a single 'average' demographic.

 

[Danoff]

True. I was thinking of more than just the buying of them, actually, even if it's only that they edit videos and photos, format documents nicely, do finances, game, whatever. Thinking of it like that, most people will do a bit more than just web browsing and email. Not a lot, granted, but something that means it's risky to talk about a single 'average' demographic.

Especially because the demographic can be so bifurcated with high-end luxury brands. Some people want a Rolls because they're James May and know everything about everything that went into it. And other people want a Rolls because people like James May want it. That's a huge difference in customer... how can you average across that?

I'm definitely not saying that high end brands will always deliver high quality because of this either. But the more quantifiable the difference, the more important that it is that the product have the chops to back up the price (at least to someone who is paying attention). Nobody wants to be the fool who spent money on nothing. If we're talking about expensive perfume, anyone can argue that one is better than another. Wine is like that too. So is everything fashion-related. But for things like cars, TVs, stereos, home appliances, bicycles, and even sunglasses, the differences can be measured more quantifiably, so a brand loses its credibility when it dilutes the market with a poor product.

 

[alonsof1fan91]

but I actually doubt BMW's ability to make a front-drive hot hatch as good as say, Volkswagen can.

And thats the point. Why should I buy a 1 seriers when an Audi A3 does almost everything better.
BMW wont fit a 6cyl engine in it either, so the next "140i" will be a turbo charged four pot fighting against Audis amazing 2.5L TFSi.

 

[05XR8]

And thats the point. Why should I buy a 1 seriers when an Audi A3 does almost everything better.
BMW wont fit a 6cyl engine in it either, so the next "140i" will be a turbo charged four pot fighting against Audis amazing 2.5L TFSi.

*cough* JCW*cough*

 

[homeforsummer]

Stereotype much?

I did open by saying it was a stereotype, so yes!

I happen to know a middle-aged woman who loves BMWs and is very much into weight distribution, drive wheels, and all the rest.

Would you assume the middle-aged woman in question to be in a majority? Or the average demographic?

Or are they more likely a minority who care about those attributes of BMWs?

I think, actually, that you're missing a key element of how people buy high-end. You're right that there are two consumers of high end products - those who care, and those who just want the badge. The latter only exist because of the former. Paris Hilton doesn't drive a McLaren only because of the badge. It's because the badge means something to those who know.

That's a good point - the reputation certain badges have is indeed built on solid foundations (mostly), and I agree with what you say re: sound systems/flashy cars etc. The reason the brands are desired in the first place is because something has made them desirable.

But in this particular scenario, and with the 1-series specifically (rather than say, an M5, or even picking out a particular model like the M140i, which is more of an enthusiast's car than a 116d), is that however that badge gained that reputation, many of the end users probably don't care - they just like that it has the right badge. In the case of BMW, I'm really not sure the reputation it has today is as strongly linked with RWD/50:50 etc as it might have been in the past - small minority of enthusiasts aside.

You talk as if it's only 1 in a 100 that know about RWD, maybe I exaggerate, but I do think your opinion of the 'average' is off. I'm a programmer. From my viewpoint, I could say the average person knows nothing about computers. I'd be wrong; it simply isn't that absolute. Perhaps you have a simliar blindspot from your viewpoint as a writer?

A couple of posts ago, I already expressed the importance of brand in the equation - even the least-informed consumer will be aware which brands are desirable and which aren't. So to a basic level, yes, they know something about cars. They might also know that diesels are economical - but not enough not to be surprised when studies come out saying they aren't actually that clean, as happened recently.

In the same way a consumer might find Apple desirable, without really knowing what makes (or doesn't make) an Apple better than another brand of computer. Does the average consumer buy an Apple because it better meets their specific needs (they're a designer or a music producer say), or do they buy one because it's fashionable, even if another product might be better value for money or have better technical specs?

They certainly don't buy MX5s for the increased interior space!

My point was explicit in my post: They're almost certainly buying it because they like the image, not because of its dynamics. Coincidentally (or maybe deliberately...) an exact parallel with this BMW situation...

Then again with the buyer not being "aware that the car costs less to produce" - that's something they'd hear from reviews on those biggest review sites you mention.

That kind of information is a little too industry-focused for the average consumer-biased review, and probably not a major point even in an enthusiast review - which would concentrate more, like most of us here would, on what you're missing (or gaining) dynamically.

What's more likely is that the potential buyer will read the review of the front-drive 1-series they're thinking of buying and find out it still drives great (there's a strong chance - given BMW's experience making dynamic front-drive cars with MINI), see it costs no more than the outgoing model and comes with extra toys, and decide to sign on the line.

Sorry, I thought those questions were rhetorical. Chris Harris' review of the new Cayman focussed on the cylinder issue - basically saying its 4 cyl. is a great engine, makes the Cayman chassis come alive, but sounds boring.

He's right - it is. However, that's not really the same scenario. BMW sells more and more 3-series every year, despite the car becoming - in theory - less desirable because they've chopped a couple of cylinders off. If customers cared about this, not dissimilar to a car becoming front-drive in terms of ethos, surely we'd have seen 3-series sales go down as the engines became less exotic?

I'd actually be interested to see what happens to Boxster/Cayman sales post-4cyl. These are the sort of cars more frequently (though not always) bought by enthusiasts, and I know a lot of people who actually have the money to spend on cars like these who will no longer do so because they aren't six-cylinder.

Priorities for things like this are much greater when you're spending £50k on a sports car, than if you're spending £20k on a diesel hatchback...

As for 3-series and Mondeos, I couldn't tell you why. I'd judge the 3 as the better car generally, but all those who switched probably had a variety of specific reasons.

Reasons like customers preferring a desirable badge over a non-desirable one...

I should point out, if it's not been clear so far, that I personally am not overly thrilled about the 1-series going front-wheel drive. I do, however, think that I along with others here, are in a fairly small minority of people who'll actually care.

 

[Danoff]

Would you assume the middle-aged woman in question to be in a majority? Or the average demographic?

Or are they more likely a minority who care about those attributes of BMWs?

I don't know. Most of the BMW owners I know personally (and this is already a biased sample), which I know well enough to answer that question, care a great deal about performance. Most of them I don't know well enough to answer the question though.

That's a good point - the reputation certain badges have is indeed built on solid foundations (mostly), and I agree with what you say re: sound systems/flashy cars etc. The reason the brands are desired in the first place is because something has made them desirable.

But in this particular scenario, and with the 1-series specifically (rather than say, an M5, or even picking out a particular model like the M140i, which is more of an enthusiast's car than a 116d), is that however that badge gained that reputation, many of the end users probably don't care - they just like that it has the right badge. In the case of BMW, I'm really not sure the reputation it has today is as strongly linked with RWD/50:50 etc as it might have been in the past - small minority of enthusiasts aside.

Yea that's probably true, but a company like BMW has to be careful about ruining its image with sub-par products or it will lose its reputation and therefore lose the customers who buy for reputation.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't know. Most of the BMW owners I know personally (and this is already a biased sample), which I know well enough to answer that question, care a great deal about performance. Most of them I don't know well enough to answer the question though.

My own sample is too biased to draw from (most middle-aged women I know are either car journalists or car PRs, so probably know more than the average customer too...) but I'd be very surprised if all the women I see driving around in diesel 1-series are intimately acquainted with the characteristics of rear-wheel drive cars. As I think I mentioned a few posts ago in the interests of balance, I expect many males of similar age probably didn't select a 120d from their company car list in order to do skids around tight corners...

Yea that's probably true, but a company like BMW has to be careful about ruining its image with sub-par products or it will lose its reputation and therefore lose the customers who buy for reputation.

I completely agree.

What I'm less sure about is whether anyone other than enthusiasts will consider a front-drive 1-series a sub-par product. Given BMW's batting average it'll probably be great - just less desirable to people like us. I think the internet echo chamber sometimes makes things like that seem a bigger deal than they actually are.

 

[Clark]

At least I can count myself as a 1er owner who knows it's RWD.

 

[homeforsummer]

At least I can count myself as a 1er owner who knows it's RWD.

Why, did you spin on your commute?

 

[Clark]

Why, did you spin on your commute?

I've never got close to spinning this car, the E30 however could really catch you by surprise.

I think RWD is still a good selling point, for me there it's still. More enjoyable to not have the front wheel so affected by putting the power down while cornering. Whether it's then scrabbling for grip or almost being wrenched from yours hands if you get to wheelspin over a bump.

It was only 118i but the F21 I drove stills felt RWD enjoyable and better for it.

 

[TheCracker]

What I'm less sure about is whether anyone other than enthusiasts will consider a front-drive 1-series a sub-par product. Given BMW's batting average it'll probably be great - just less desirable to people like us. I think the internet echo chamber sometimes makes things like that seem a bigger deal than they actually are.

Has anyone you know, or you yourself for that matter, driven the 2-series Active Tourer? That will surely be a marker towards how well a future 1-series will drive.

 

[niky]

Has anyone you know, or you yourself for that matter, driven the 2-series Active Tourer? That will surely be a marker towards how well a future 1-series will drive.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that one.

What you want to look at is the MINI Cooper. Since the X1 and Countryman share a platform, it's a fair bet the next 1-er will share a lot, dynamically, with the MINI hatchback.

I don't doubt BMW can get it right. The question, really, is whether they will.

My take is... for anything 200 hp and below, there won't be much of a difference people will notice in everyday driving. Your typical 120i buyer won't be complaining about the torque steer all that much, or that they can't do donuts. It's only when you get to something like a 130i or 140i (presumably also with the two liter twin-power, but boosted to hell and back... and/or supplemented with a rear wheel hybrid unit) that things will be noticeably different for most consumers.

(of course, for guys like us, even a 116i (or will it be 115i?) will feel quite different FWD to RWD)

 

[05XR8]

Its why I chimed with JCW. Why sell MINI and not take advantage that fwd technology, when they are building fwd BMWs?