[HBspeed]

Hopefully this result will make BMW realize that real drivers and enthusiasts can't be fooled by hype. You can't just stick an off the shelf engine and a poorly tuned chassis utilizing M3 suspension bits into a 1 series and call it an M car.

This was BMW first experiment to see if people will pay for an M car that lacks the specialization and commitment to excellence that once defined the brand. BMW is testing if they can spend a small fraction of the resources that would have been needed for proper engineering instead on advertising and hype ... and seeing if a larger profit margin can be obtained.

Many are drinking the Kool-Aid, and that's what I would expect of the "fake" experts most auto-journalists are and the sheep most buyers are. I'm grateful Motor-trend had the balls to hire an actual professional who can come out and drop a dose of reality; that a pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

Hopefully this result will make BMW realize that real drivers and enthusiasts can't be fooled by hype. You can't just stick an off the shelf engine and a poorly tuned chassis utilizing M3 suspension bits into a 1 series and call it an M car.

This was BMW first experiment to see if people will pay for an M car that lacks the specialization and commitment to excellence that once defined the brand. BMW with the 1M is testing if they can spend a small fraction of resources on advertising and hype that would have been needed for proper engineering... and see if a larger profit margin can be obtained.

Many are drinking the Kool-Aid, and that's what I would expect of the "fake" experts most auto-journalists are and the sheep most buyers are. I'm grateful Motor-trend had the balls to hire an actual professional who can come out and drop a dose of reality; that a pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.

As someone who owns a US E36 M3, I find your posting of this opinion a little baffling. Given that the US car didn't have an M Motor or M brakes, and was certainly built to keep cost down. M hasn't been anything special since the last handbuilt E34 M5's.

[Sy546]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

That's just silly. Sort of akin to saying the space shuttle isn't cool because any jerk could take it into space. I agree that it's not the most rewarding thing to drive, but getting the most out of it still takes a huge amount of talent. Driving one faster than a slower car might not be that difficult, but driving one to its limit is still driving a car to its limit.

Of course responding at all to the 328i goober wasn't the smartest thing either.

Yeah responding to hi might have not been the smartest

I respect the GTR for what it is. But this comparo was suppose to be for "drivers" car. Which IMHO the GTR isn't. Ive test driven 09s extensiveley and it honestly was no fun. Id rather get an evo X or STI and mod the crap outta of than get a GTR. Than again if the GTR was available in manual it might be different since auto seriously bores me in any car. The GTR for me would be a nice DD lol.

[HBspeed]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

As someone who owns a US E36 M3, I find your posting of this opinion a little baffling. Given that the US car didn't have an M Motor or M brakes, and was certainly built to keep cost down. M hasn't been anything special since the last handbuilt E34 M5's.

I totally agree and it slipped my mind for the moment that the E36 M3 (and Z3M) saw the use of a less than M worth engine. This was somewhat a cost cutting measure at the time but was more due to the inability of the Euro version of the S50 and S52 to pass emissions testing in the US.

Regardless, the US S50 and S52 were still significantly upgraded over the respective N-series engines they were based on. As far as brakes, well to be honest M has never had much in terms of stock brakes. That's not so big of a deal really as aftermarket brake swaps are quite easy compared to aftermarket engine swaps.

[Sy546]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

Hopefully this result will make BMW realize that real drivers and enthusiasts can't be fooled by hype. You can't just stick an off the shelf engine and a poorly tuned chassis utilizing M3 suspension bits into a 1 series and call it an M car.

This was BMW first experiment to see if people will pay for an M car that lacks the specialization and commitment to excellence that once defined the brand. BMW is testing if they can spend a small fraction of the resources that would have been needed for proper engineering instead on advertising and hype ... and seeing if a larger profit margin can be obtained.

Many are drinking the Kool-Aid, and that's what I would expect of the "fake" experts most auto-journalists are and the sheep most buyers are. I'm grateful Motor-trend had the balls to hire an actual professional who can come out and drop a dose of reality; that a pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.

well bmw's "experiment" worked pretty well since every car is sold and many at big markups so I'm guessing everyone was just fooled :roll eyes:

and yes randy pobst is the only "expert" out there. The funny thing is in the videos of his reviews he only says good things about the car

[L8*Apex]

Originally Posted by HBspeed

Hopefully this result will make BMW realize that real drivers and enthusiasts can't be fooled by hype. You can't just stick an off the shelf engine and a poorly tuned chassis utilizing M3 suspension bits into a 1 series and call it an M car.

Actually, you can. They call it the 1 series M. I'd have to disagree with you abut the poorly tuned part but agree to disagree. I still can't figure out what all of the fuss is about "the real M car" BS. Particularly when it turns out only "true enthusiast" can recognize what a real M car is. Perhaps I don't really understand how BMW works but it appears that the M designation is in relation to their performance division. The M3 is still a 3 series with M parts on it. Granted it's a lot of parts but it's still a 3 series. I drive a 135i and it has a few labels here and there that say "M" on them. I understand that to be BMW's performance division and nothing more. Just as a Subaru STI is still just an Impreza with go fast bits or the old ford SVT label was just a mustang with SVT parts on it. Call it what you like but saying that the 1M is not a "true" M car is just silly. BMW put an "M" on it, it's an M.

[Rick Hunter]

///M arketing

[Crimson92]

Originally Posted by S.hasan546

335is?

Wow dude your really drinking that 3 series coolaid.

Do you even have an m3?

1M gimmicky and niche car? Yeah its designed to appeal to true enthusiasts. Not someone who cares only about the M badge for its name. The M3 is a legend. But not b.c of the e9x. The e30-e46 built that legend. 1M is the closest thing to the older gen. M3s.

the current M3 is more of a GT cruiser esp. with it's cute DCT tranny. That being said an e90 m3 would be the ideal DD for me. To me the m3 feels how a 550 feels to most other people. Comfy, big, and still not a true drivers car.

So I'm guessing by your ridiculous statement then Ferrari Mercedes and Nissan all thought that dct is just "cute".

[Jebus335]

I'm sure the Mustang fan boi's are gonna have a field day with this...

[scorcherjf]

Well the article is about the best DRIVER's car and as much as I like BMW I would be very surprised to find any BMW in the top few spots in stock form. All BMWs understeer like mad from the factory, the M cars a bit less but they're still no exception. Mostly it's due to the suspension geometry - struts up front lacking camber change in a corner. Some cars can be tuned to correct for this deficiency like Porsches but then again they have their weight in the back so it's not as much of an issue. It doesn't surprise me that the top few cars are all double-wishbone (or multilink) on all 4 corners which is how it should be considering a good driver's car should also turn very well.

The Ford I have to say is very surprising. It has struts up front and a live axle in the rear which, by historical analysis, doesn't seem to be the best setup. They must've tuned the hell out of that thing to make it handle the way it does with 55/45 F/R weight distribution. I'm guessing the shocks must be tuned very well to allow for this setup to handle like it did. American names are definitely stepping up their game in the handling department despite their less typical suspensions (leaf on the vette and live axle on stangs?).

[johanness]

Originally Posted by scorcherjf

All BMWs understeer like mad from the factory, the M cars a bit less but they're still no exception.

Generalize much? Come take a ride sometime.
However, I agree the M3 should have been tested with this group to keep it a bit more even-keeled

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by johanness

Generalize much? Come take a ride sometime.

No, your car understeers a lot. So does my Z3 M Coupe, so does every BMW, he had it right, even if yours understeers less than others. Try an EVO, a Boxster/Cayman or a Z06 for something without a terminal amount of understeer.

[Pangloss]

If it's "terminal", and nobody's "generalizing", then why doesn't everyone who drives a BMW immediately die?

[Red Bread]

Because understeer is safe? Honestly, driving a car that has natural oversteer is tiring. The first gen of S2000 is a blast on the track, but gets a little dicey if you're just trying to get home from work and shoot one freeway entrance at speed.

BMW errs on the side of caution, which is generally a good thing. The 135i takes it way too far though, even in city driving, the 1er is way too prone to understeer, and the stupid staggered tires just make it worse. But it's predictable and safe.

[johanness]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

No, your car understeers a lot. So does my Z3 M Coupe

a) don't compare the two
b) my camber (-2.5) takes care of whatever 'issue' u think I have

Newer BMW's have gained weight and may have more 'push' in the corners... but you sound like a fool generalizing with finite comments

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by johanness

a) don't compare the two
b) my camber (-2.5) takes care of whatever 'issue' u think I have

Newer BMW's have gained weight and may have more 'push' in the corners... but you sound like a fool generalizing with finite comments

Touchy? This is an internet forum. If you want to talk about fools, perhaps look into talking tough on one. This whole conversation has been about stock setups. So bully for you and your camber settings, but totally irrelevant to this discussion. I like 90% cocoa.

[Sy546]

Originally Posted by Crimson92

So I'm guessing by your ridiculous statement then Ferrari Mercedes and Nissan all thought that dct is just "cute".

I could care less what Nissan does, id never buy any of their cars except maybe the 370z. Mercedes Manual trannys have always sucked and their engines make way too much tq for average trannys, so i respect their AMG line. But every AMG always gets beat my eyes by manual M cars for the past 20 years (I'm not including the SLS).

Ferrari went to it b.c they are "race bred". Yes i totally agree F1 trannys are great for the track but 99% of you guys aren't race car drivers. that 5 seconds around the track is making no difference in your life. If all you do is track your car competitively than i understand. But most of you guys don't and never seen the track.

Sorry but just b.c a child can run low 11s in a GTR means shit to me. Thats the car driving not the driver. run low 11s in the Viper SRT 10, thats when your a "good" driver. Hey maybe my way of thinking is old school. Ill probably never own a new Ferrari since they don't want to make manual cars anymore.

Also most ferrari owners i know have HATED the F1 trannys. Way more expensive to replace, they suck at cruising or trying to get into reverse. But hey what do i know

[esqu1re]

I like to think of these newer cars as Eurofighters and the 1M as a WW2 or Korean War era fighter. Less fly by wire, less electronic intervention. Both have a limit that require amazing pilots to extract. I don't get all the hating about the GTR and the paddle shifting Ferrari. Sure, the computer is doing something for you, but it's doing that so you can focus on going that much faster than in a more "mechanical" car, like a 1M.


Faster cars require more electronic meddling because there's a limit to the human inside, both physically and mentally. A 500+ horsepower car with absolutely NO electronic safety net (no abs, no dsc, no power steering, no power brakes) is a horrible car to drive--sure, it might be fun for a day or two, but it's not "driver's car" as it tires out the driver's arms, legs, and mind. You're constantly having to baby the throttle and counter the slip, etc...C'mon, to say the GTR drives for you---it's not quite fair. I mean, all the cars here basically help you brake, steer, and measure the throttle input already. You're still in control as much as a pilot is in control of a supersonic fighter, even though everything he does goes through miles of wires and electronic nannies.

[eldamien]

Originally Posted by S.hasan546

GTR? 2nd place. Sorry its not a "drivers" car. Its a Car that just happens to have a driver. It drives for you. Any idiot can go fast in a GTR

This reminds me of the argument against digital SLR cameras, and look how that turned out.

[graider]

Originally Posted by shift@red

The key thing here is that Pobst is a very accomplished race driver rather than some two bit journalist with no racing/motorsports accomplishments or experience. Pobst actual gets to see what the car is made of while journalist tool around on a few windy roads not pushing a car nearly far enough or long enough to get a real reading of what its like and then doing a few drifts and burn outs.
I think you need to drive one to see if its for you, but Ill take what an accomplished racer says over some hack journalist anyday.

And its not about price either, because the cayman R was one of the cheapest cars there but the reviews of it were absolutely stellar (as always).

i found Pobst very boring and doesn't say much about the car while he trash it around the track.

chris harris love the 1m. are you saying he is sh1t reviewer now?

P.S. you always praised chris harris before because he said positive thing about porsche.

[E82tt6]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

No, your car understeers a lot. So does my Z3 M Coupe, so does every BMW, he had it right, even if yours understeers less than others. Try an EVO, a Boxster/Cayman or a Z06 for something without a terminal amount of understeer.

My Z4 M is far more neutral than my 986 S was. The only sports car I've owned that was better balanced from the factory was my S2K.

I thought their review of the 1 M was a bit odd, it's a pretty stark contrast to every other review I've seen. Maybe the car just does very poorly on the race track compared to the street? Given how well it keeps up with the E92 M3 around a track, that doesn't make much sense to me either.

That said, I do hope BMW gets more "back to basics" with the next 1 M. I love the newer M cars. The E92 M3 is a fantastic vehicle, but it doesn't have the same sort of raw, visceral feeling that some earlier M cars did. There's something to be said for a car that's a little rough around the edges. They may not be as good for GT duty, or as quick around a track in the hands of 90% of drivers, but they're very rewarding and very fun. I have generally found my S2K and Z4 M to be more fun than other sports cars that made me look like a far better driver than I actually am.

[Robert]

You guys should read this, autocar's best driver's car for UK


http://www.**************.com/intern...tml#post539017

Similar results, CR (cayman r) places at top of the heap and 1M rounds out the bottom. For enthusiasts like us 1M is good enough for all condition in everyday driving and CR's edge can't really be explored. I want a CR for its looks and design. Simply a sexier package with classic sports car lines and presence. The fact it's more of a driver's car is only icing on the cake to talk about convserations