[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Agreed, but I'd bet that's the case for most all non-M BMWs these days, either sedan, coupe, or SUV (doesn't BMW call them "SAV")?

Not all. Many of the sedans and coupes have an acceptable COG and corresponding polar moment, along with good weight distribution (near or at 50/50).

They will be sprung and damped softer than an M model, but at the limit they should behave quite well.

Stuff like this is why BMW's move to build ever more SUVs and front-wheel drive grocery getters is so unfortunate.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Not all. Many of the sedans and coupes have an acceptable COG and corresponding polar moment, along with good weight distribution (near or at 50/50).

They will be sprung and damped softer than an M model, but at the limit they should behave quite well.

Stuff like this is why BMW's move to build ever more SUVs and front-wheel drive grocery getters is so unfortunate.

The "limits" on a lot of those cars are also WAY lower.

I drove aoaner 330i a few times, and all that stuff about polar moments and CG... Doesn't mean a damn thing. It was slow, rode like crap, and it's limits were super low. You can try to justify it but reality is anything below an M340i, theimita are a joke because nobody would drive them intending to get to those limits. Just the same way that nobody would push an X5 M50i like mine to the limits, you couldn't even reach the limits of a modern fast car on the street anyways, and nobody is actually tracking an SUV.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Not all. Many of the sedans and coupes have an acceptable COG and corresponding polar moment, along with good weight distribution (near or at 50/50).

They will be sprung and damped softer than an M model, but at the limit they should behave quite well.

Stuff like this is why BMW's move to build ever more SUVs and front-wheel drive grocery getters is so unfortunate.

This is my point about CAD (computer aided driving). Back in the day BMW earned its handling reputation (at the limit) because of its engineering dictums of center of mass between the axles, low center of mass, 50/50 weight balance, suspension geometry, proper ergonomic placement of controls. Engineering detail even down to gauge graphics, type face, and color (to reduce eye strain), large greenhouses and correctly placed mirrors. All to make the car drive better and make the driver better. All BMWs followed these principles and the Series ranges were basically just small, medium, and large of the same design theme.

The rest of the industry pretty much sucked at this level of engineering or tried to chase it. It took Cadillac nearly 40 years to figure it out (too late IMO).

Now BMW is a full spectrum, chassis-sharing supplier, FWD econoboxes, SUV, and AWD (thanks Audi). The cars still handle good despite the bland chassis engineering and atrocious ergonomic design, all because computers now operate the control systems. Any manufacturer can make such automobiles.

[Slowphiveo]

Say what you want about BMW...but at least they have not gone full "bud light". RIP Jaguar.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is my point about CAD (computer aided driving). Back in the day BMW earned its handling reputation (at the limit) because of its engineering dictums of center of mass between the axles, low center of mass, 50/50 weight balance, suspension geometry, proper ergonomic placement of controls. Engineering detail even down to gauge graphics, type face, and color (to reduce eye strain), large greenhouses and correctly placed mirrors. All to make the car drive better and make the driver better. All BMWs followed these principles and the Series ranges were basically just small, medium, and large of the same design theme.

The rest of the industry pretty much sucked at this level of engineering or tried to chase it. It took Cadillac nearly 40 years to figure it out (too late IMO).

Now BMW is a full spectrum, chassis-sharing supplier, FWD econoboxes, SUV, and AWD (thanks Audi). The cars still handle good despite the bland chassis engineering and atrocious ergonomic design, all because computers now operate the control systems. Any manufacturer can make such automobiles.

They had to do SUVs and FWD to stay in business. What they did with the original 1 series was great, but they would have gon bankrupt if they didn't start making cars from econo-box chassis.

I blame Audi for that, too, TBH, because VAG's strategy is just to own the entire market here in Europe; they use multiple econobox chassis across four brands, which means anyone doing anything differently or even interesting is just going to be ground down by production costs for what will end up being an almost niche product.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

The "limits" on a lot of those cars are also WAY lower.

I drove aoaner 330i a few times, and all that stuff about polar moments and CG... Doesn't mean a damn thing. It was slow, rode like crap, and it's limits were super low. You can try to justify it but reality is anything below an M340i, theimita are a joke because nobody would drive them intending to get to those limits. Just the same way that nobody would push an X5 M50i like mine to the limits, you couldn't even reach the limits of a modern fast car on the street anyways, and nobody is actually tracking an SUV.

That ain't true. A simple damper change on a 330 M-Sport will turn it into a beast in the corners. My old S204 Merc with a simple AMG pack was one of the best handling cars I have owned (for the street) after I put a set of Bilsteins on it.

You vastly underestimate the engineering in these products. They are tuned a bit soft, but the fundamentals of good chassis design are there on the RWD-based products.

[Mavus]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

The "limits" on a lot of those cars are also WAY lower.

I drove aoaner 330i a few times, and all that stuff about polar moments and CG... Doesn't mean a damn thing. It was slow, rode like crap, and it's limits were super low. You can try to justify it but reality is anything below an M340i, theimita are a joke because nobody would drive them intending to get to those limits. Just the same way that nobody would push an X5 M50i like mine to the limits, you couldn't even reach the limits of a modern fast car on the street anyways, and nobody is actually tracking an SUV.

you’d be surprised what a rwd e30–f30 with a few simple mods can do. Never mind M cars. BMW tunes them differently to target diif market segments but they all can be easily upgraded. Steve Dinan has been doing just that for the last 30+ years. Even BMW sells oem suspensions, lsd etc for diff models to unlock their engineering. Also weight balance, cg, polar moment is real at least on this planet.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Mavus

you’d be surprised what a rwd e30–f30 with a few simple mods can do. Never mind M cars. BMW tunes them differently to target diif market segments but they all can be easily upgraded. Steve Dinan has been doing just that for the last 30+ years. Even BMW sells oem suspensions, lsd etc for diff models to unlock their engineering. Also weight balance, cg, polar moment is real at least on this planet.

Yes!

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Neusser

That ain't true. A simple damper change on a 330 M-Sport will turn it into a beast in the corners. My old S204 Merc with a simple AMG pack was one of the best handling cars I have owned (for the street) after I put a set of Bilsteins on it.

You vastly underestimate the engineering in these products. They are tuned a bit soft, but the fundamentals of good chassis design are there on the RWD-based products.

It may have the fundamentals but it didn't matter was my point. Having great fundamentals in a slow turd of a car is like having a great set of melons to go with your steak dinner. Sure melons are great and they might be expertly grown, but nobody eats fruit with their steak like that.

I get what you're saying, but what you're missing is that people don't care. People don't buy on fundamental design of the chassis. Most people aren't enthusiasts at all, they want people think they have money because they bought a fancy car. The fact that BMW still does as well as it does with fundamentals on their SUVs is a gift, they could be like every other automakers and put zero effort into it. The G05 is still damn near 50/50 weight distribution, the V8 is literally 50.8/49.2 F/R. The fact that they do that and go the extra mile with stuff like DHP and M Pro suspensions is a treat these days we should be thankful for. Reality is, if BMW has never started making SUVs, they'd likely be out of business by now.

[BlkGS]

Originally Posted by Mavus

you’d be surprised what a rwd e30–f30 with a few simple mods can do. Never mind M cars. BMW tunes them differently to target diif market segments but they all can be easily upgraded. Steve Dinan has been doing just that for the last 30+ years. Even BMW sells oem suspensions, lsd etc for diff models to unlock their engineering. Also weight balance, cg, polar moment is real at least on this planet.

I wouldn't be surprised, I raced against them at track days. They handled well for "larger cars" (ie not a 2 seater). But they also weren't rocket ships, and had a lot of reliability issues.

The 328i and 330i of the late 90s to late 00s was a pretty popular track rat car because of those fundamentals, and fairly low price. They didn't own the tracks by any means, but the guys who brought them and kept them running always seemed to have a good time.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

This is my point about CAD (computer aided driving). Back in the day BMW earned its handling reputation (at the limit) because of its engineering dictums of center of mass between the axles, low center of mass, 50/50 weight balance, suspension geometry, proper ergonomic placement of controls. Engineering detail even down to gauge graphics, type face, and color (to reduce eye strain), large greenhouses and correctly placed mirrors. All to make the car drive better and make the driver better. All BMWs followed these principles and the Series ranges were basically just small, medium, and large of the same design theme.

The rest of the industry pretty much sucked at this level of engineering or tried to chase it. It took Cadillac nearly 40 years to figure it out (too late IMO).

Now BMW is a full spectrum, chassis-sharing supplier, FWD econoboxes, SUV, and AWD (thanks Audi). The cars still handle good despite the bland chassis engineering and atrocious ergonomic design, all because computers now operate the control systems. Any manufacturer can make such automobiles.

This is probably the most well articulated statement about the past and current state of BMW I’ve seen anywhere.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

dick-measuring M3 money

lol what

[PunsGalore]

I just wish BMW’s drove, looked, and felt like they did back in the 80’s 90’s, and 2000’s.

[PunsGalore]

Originally Posted by Slowphiveo

Say what you want about BMW...but at least they have not gone full "bud light". RIP Jaguar.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by BlkGS

It may have the fundamentals but it didn't matter was my point. Having great fundamentals in a slow turd of a car is like having a great set of melons to go with your steak dinner. Sure melons are great and they might be expertly grown, but nobody eats fruit with their steak like that.

I get what you're saying, but what you're missing is that people don't care. People don't buy on fundamental design of the chassis. Most people aren't enthusiasts at all, they want people think they have money because they bought a fancy car. The fact that BMW still does as well as it does with fundamentals on their SUVs is a gift, they could be like every other automakers and put zero effort into it. The G05 is still damn near 50/50 weight distribution, the V8 is literally 50.8/49.2 F/R. The fact that they do that and go the extra mile with stuff like DHP and M Pro suspensions is a treat these days we should be thankful for. Reality is, if BMW has never started making SUVs, they'd likely be out of business by now.

The point you make here is not really the point you made in the previous post.

I loved my slow diesel C-Class after a shock change. It was truly good on Alpine backroads here. Cornering speeds and grip were immense considering what it was.

My 540 likewise is not my M2, but honestly, they both drive quite similarly if one forgets that one has lower limits than the other.


The fundamentals are what make a car good to drive. Power/performance is secondary. I live in Germany and don't even use the power in my 5er to much beyond 70% on any regular basis, never mind the M2.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Neusser

They had to do SUVs and FWD to stay in business. What they did with the original 1 series was great, but they would have gon bankrupt if they didn't start making cars from econo-box chassis.

I blame Audi for that, too, TBH, because VAG's strategy is just to own the entire market here in Europe; they use multiple econobox chassis across four brands, which means anyone doing anything differently or even interesting is just going to be ground down by production costs for what will end up being an almost niche product.

Agree with you regarding VW. The MQB concept pretty much killed segmented platforms within the industry and again proof that the chassis compromises are delt with via Computer Aided Driving technologies. And forced even BMW to compromise. But it's not like BMW didn't build econoboxes before the 1-series. The 1600, 2002, E21 320i, E30 318i, E36 just to name a few all were rear-drive economy cars, but with BMW DNA baked in. One of my favorites was the E36 318i Compact. The platform sharing came with the purchase of Mini and Rolls Royce Cars. BMW used to emphatically state (in print ads even) it did not platform share because it was an engineering compromise. Are we a long way from there now.

Branding. Ugh.

[PunsGalore]

Originally Posted by Neusser

The point you make here is not really the point you made in the previous post.

I loved my slow diesel C-Class after a shock change. It was truly good on Alpine backroads here. Cornering speeds and grip were immense considering what it was.

My 540 likewise is not my M2, but honestly, they both drive quite similarly if one forgets that one has lower limits than the other.


The fundamentals are what make a car good to drive. Power/performance is secondary. I live in Germany and don't even use the power in my 5er to much beyond 70% on any regular basis, never mind the M2.

Absolutely love the G30 540i. Looks better than the G20 in my opinion, perfect size for a modern luxury sedan

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Agree with you regarding VW. The MQB concept pretty much killed segmented platforms within the industry and again proof that the chassis compromises are delt with via Computer Aided Driving technologies. And forced even BMW to compromise. But it's not like BMW didn't build econoboxes before the 1-series. The 1600, 2002, E21 320i, E30 318i, E36 just to name a few all were rear-drive economy cars, but with BMW DNA baked in. One of my favorites was the E36 318i Compact. The platform sharing came with the purchase of Mini and Rolls Royce Cars. BMW used to emphatically state (in print ads even) it did not platform share because it was an engineering compromise. Are we a long way from there now.

Branding. Ugh.

Yeah, the only part I am not sure I agree on is calling the listed cars econoboxes. I mean, there were "economy" versions, but RWD platforms are more costly to produce, and these cars were available with leather upholstery and more.

https://www.classic-sterne.de/de/fah...-2002-tii.html

[chassis]

I haven't been too crazy about the mid-2000 teens until present BMW aesthetic, G01 being the exception. Hoping the Neue Klasse brings in fresh design language across the range.

[yousefnjr]

pick any era and you can find good/bad in each. Maybe we all have different perspectives. I happen to love cars in general, and look forward to new experiences, advancements in engineering, new technology etc. I like the old stuff too. Not sure what there is to be mad about here. Weird designs aren’t new.

[cooolone2]

The fact that there are those feeling the need to "defend" contemporary design choices by BMW is more telling than anything else... People will buy BMW just because... Like the iPhone culture waiting every year for the new release, hopefully wanting to be the first to show it off to their friends. The "name" BMW is all it's about. Brand loyalists, ok, got it! Performance base, ok too! But please oh please, stop defending the "looks" because it's indefensible! Junkers like the Genesis brand make better looking SUV's and they're not even trying hard! Many other brands as well. Sales no mbers don't matter either. Enjoy it if you got it, I'll wait until this illness on their design teams passes!

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by cooolone2

The fact that there are those feeling the need to "defend" contemporary design choices by BMW is more telling than anything else... People will buy BMW just because... Like the iPhone culture waiting every year for the new release, hopefully wanting to be the first to show it off to their friends. The "name" BMW is all it's about. Brand loyalists, ok, got it! Performance base, ok too! But please oh please, stop defending the "looks" because it's indefensible! Junkers like the Genesis brand make better looking SUV's and they're not even trying hard! Many other brands as well. Sales no mbers don't matter either. Enjoy it if you got it, I'll wait until this illness on their design teams passes!

BMW has always been a pioneer in design. There are many questionable designs from past eras, and some have aged quite well. Many hated the Bangle designs, and some of them have gone on to be celebrated.

Challenging designs are good, as they force you out of your box. Nothing worse than running with the crowd, taking no risks, etc.

Ofc, the above also describes about 90% of the population.