follow ft86club on our blog, twitter or facebook. Interested in the FT-1? Check out FT1Club
FT86CLUB
Ft86Club
Rexpeed
Register Garage Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Scion FR-S Forum | Subaru BRZ Forum | Toyota 86 GT 86 Forum | AS1 Forum - FT86CLUB > FT86CLUB Shared Forum > FR-S / BRZ vs....

FR-S / BRZ vs.... Area to discuss the FR-S/BRZ against its competitors [NO STREET RACING]


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2012, 06:44 PM   #35
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,584
Thanks: 103
Thanked 671 Times in 412 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTSHC View Post
BMW are excellent track cars, you just don't consider them as such.
Yes, the 1- and 3-series are good track cars. But 95% of BMW trackaholics would recommend an E36 over an E46 or E90/E92 for a track car. Lighter-weight, more reliable, much cheaper to operate.

Quote:
You can't sit there and tell me that you can put the words luxury, lightweight, and class leading five star safety in the same sentence. Go ahead, I dare you.
Not saying that at all. I'm suggesting that it would be GREAT if they would produce a smaller, lighter-weight, *less* luxury oriented line. The 1-series is way too close to the 3 in terms of size/weight/price. And *in my opinion* the 3 has gained far too much in terms of size/weight already.

Quote:
Why would you need one in the non-M models when they aren't tailored towards a harsher riding sporty driving feel.
My point was that they used to cater more to true enthusiasts, offering lsd in every model. Few can afford M-cars, it'd be great if you could buy a 128i with lsd.


Quote:
Quote:
[my quote]The E36 is really the last good BMW track car, IMO.
You're out of your mind. Period.
OK, overstatement on my part. But like I mentioned above, the E36 is greatly preferred by most reasonable BMW trackhounds over later models for a track car.

Quote:
You're playing two arguements now. So you're saying the current M3's aren't good track cars but they put up good numbers on the track .
Do you track your car(s) often? At all?
That might explain why you wouldn't understand how a Miata makes for a FANTASTIC track car, but a MUCH faster E90/E92, not so much...

Even the RICH BMW guys (18-wheeler shows up with car) I know prefer the E36 over later models for a track car.

Quote:
Smalelr light-weight cars aren't luxurious, which is what the BMW name stands for. Luxury, Performance, and Prestige.
They've build smaller more spartan cars before. A modern 2002 would be a brilliant thing, IMO.

Quote:
Guts =/= Intelligence. Maybe you forgot that Mini = BMW.
I didn't "forget" that at all, my reference to the Mini in a previous post was meant to emphasize the point that BMW *can* build small, lightweight cars, and that it wouldn't be a stretch for them to essentially do a rwd Mini.

Quote:
Maybe you also forgot BMW is a highline auto, they don't DO simple. A simple car with a BMW logo on the front would hurt the brand name.
No it would not. Not any more than the Bugatti Type 35 hurt the Royale. Or the 2002 hurt the 3.0 CS. Or the Cobalt hurt the Corvette.

Automakers too often fret about this, IMO overly so. I mean, the fantastic an beautiful 206 and 246 Dinos didn't get Ferrari badges, but they are LOVED by most Ferrari enthusiasts as much as or more than the bigger contemporary V12 cars.

There can be elegance in simplicity, and BMW is fully capable of doing it while *enhancing* rather than tarnishing its image.

Quote:
It doesn't have a thing to do with guts but rather public perception. In what universe did 3300lb's become considered "boat" worthy? IMO 3300lbs that includes luxury, safety, enough computers to make a man from the 70's weep tears of blood, AND superb handling with more than reasonable horsepower is MORE than a compromise.
The BMW enthusiasts *I* know would be THRILLED for them to produce something smaller, lighter, and way less luxury-oriented.

Quote:
This is why you don't work in sales. You've such a narrow perception of what the automotive world should be like
Not at all. Any automaker would do well to have a diverse range that appeals to a broad spectrum.

Quote:
that were you ever to run the R&D side of an automotive company you'd be selling about as much cars as Lotus.
You have no idea...

*ALL* I'm suggesting is that there *is* a market for smaller/lighter-weight rwd sports/sporty cars, and that, in my OPINION, it wouldn't be a bad idea for BMW to tap into it. They've been there before and done very well!

Quote:
It was VERY NECESSARY for the M3 to evolve the way it did.
I don't think it was. Many BMW enthusiasts agree.

Quote:
People that drive BMW's like to feel comfortable in their cars, people that drive BMW's like to have storage space in their cars, people in BMW's want cars with seats that grab you with lumbar support that turns with you and allows a hightened sense of confidence while cornering, people that drive BMW's like their I-Drive knob and central display, people that drive BMW's like their steering wheels heated and their backs massaged while they drive, people that drive BMW's like their dashboards NOT made of plastic, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT PURCHASE/LEASE BMW'S LIKE LUXURY AND YOU CAN'T FIT LUXURY AND LIGHTWEIGHT IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Of *course* "people that drive [current] BMW's" are pretty happy with what BMW's have become! Your argument is pretty much "people who like this kind of thing will find that this is the kind of thing they like."

That doesn't mean that there isn't a market for a modern 2002.

Quote:
Actually, yes you can; you'll just be paying an arm and a soul for a car made entirely of carbon fibre.
Trying to "add on" light weight after the fact is a costly and mostly futile effort. Much better to design it in from the get-go.

Quote:
And looks at the specs for the e30, now look at the specs for the e92 or the e46. Clearly the added weight isn't negatively effecting the vehicles.
Driving an E30 is a very different experience from driving an E92 or E46. There's more to driving enjoyment than "specs".

Quote:
If you want to play the "time period doesn't matter" game, then we'll play. An e92 would smack an e30 all around a track regardless of how an e30 feels. See how stupid that was?
There's a LOT more to driving enjoyment than track times. A 747 is a helluva lot faster than a Pitt's Special....

If one were going for track times, an E92 wouldn't be the best way to spend $62k+, anyway...


Quote:
Now tell me how the size and weight of a vehicle produce two decades ago is supposed to have any bearing on a vehicle produced in the present. Must be all those computers and safety equipment that they chose not to put in back in the late 80's (/sarcasm).
Utter b.s. Modern materials, analysis techniques, manufacturing techniques allow you to hold the line on weight while meeting more stringent safety requirements and adding in "all those computers" (which are not terribly heavy). *If the will is there*. For BMW, the will wasn't there, and the urge to build ever-larger more massive luxury vehicles was.

A modern Corvette weighs pretty much exactly what a Corvette from 1968, 1988, 1998, 2008 weighed. While being at pretty much exactly the same place in relative price and performance.

A 2012 FR-S/BRZ weighs pretty much exactly what a 1989-1991 S13 240SX weighs, likewise as the same relative price and performance points.

If they *wanted* to, BMW *could* build a modern rwd car in the 2800-3200 lb. range, at the same relative price points (or cheaper even) than the E30.

Quote:
BMW brought back Mini. How much more recognition do you need?
Wrong wheel drive..

Quote:
They AREN'T going to put their emblem on a minimalist vehicle.
I know they aren't. But they should...

Quote:
The $$$ that goes into the R&D for a niche performance vehicle that won't sell a large number of units per year would do nothing but create an intentional fiscal hemorrhage. Why would anyone with even half a brain do that to their own company?
Ask Toyota/Subaru.

Quote:
Cheap isn't BMW's concern, that's why they're a highline auto and Toyota isn't. That's what toyota has Lexus for, and you let me know when Toyota creates a Lexus version of the FRS for an "affordable" price.
Beside the point. Toyota builds the FRS (w/ Subaru), they also build the LFA.

It'd be fine w/ me if BMW made a "sub" brand, but I don't think they would need to or should to do a modern 2002 or E30.

Quote:
"Here's hoping a blue collar minimalist sports car has any bearing on highline auto manufactuers whose main concern is luxury/performance not simplistic low cost performance."
You're asking for 90 degree weather with a bit of snow.
Not at all. I just think it'd be pretty cool if BMW got back into the business of building cool small lightweight sporty rwd cars in addition to the fleet of barges.

That's all...

Last edited by ZDan; 02-14-2012 at 07:07 PM.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post:
amram (05-02-2014)
Old 02-15-2012, 11:39 AM   #36
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 266
Thanked 392 Times in 207 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
BMW has no incentive to build another lightweight, modestly powered driver's car. They've built a brand image on balancing dynamic performance with luxury. 3ers, 5ers, and X5s practically sell themselves. The cost of developing a new car, tooling for manufacturing, marketing... not worth it when their other cars are carrying their weight in sales. Especially for such a small market. There is a big difference between people who say they will buy a car on the internet and people who will actually walk into a dealership to buy one.

Toyota is a brand whose image is boredom. That's not very compelling That is why the GT86 made sense in the home market. They sold, for the last 8 years, 12 different beige cars. Scion is a brand aimed directly at young car enthusiasts. That's why the FR-S makes sense here. Subaru has sold compelling, affordable, lightweight cars for years. That's why the BRZ makes sense.

A 2002? Where does that slot in? Under the 1er? BMW dealerships have an air of snobbery around them. That's part of what they sell. Exclusivity. They've carefully cultivated that image for the last 20 years. I can guarantee that most will dealers will cringe at the thought of putting a 28k 2002 next to a 90k 7er on the showroom floor. Even more so at the thought of having 22-25 year olds with mediocre credit coming into their store daily looking to finance the new affordable BMW.




Long story short, it makes absolutely no financial sense for BMW to do so, and BMW is first and foremost a business.
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros - Koni Yellows, Boss 302 Front Springs, Route 66 55D Rear Springs Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, Energy Suspension Shifter Bushing), 2014 IS350AWD
Gone - 2011 IS350AWD, 2010 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2007 RX350, 2006 GTO, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:04 PM   #37
Itgb
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2003 BMW M3, 2006 Scion xB
Location: San Diego
Posts: 49
Thanks: 3
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I own an E46 M3 convertible, and it is heavy. Coupes are lighter, but still heavy relative to E30 M3s. In order to please consumers who constantly want more power, more luxury, more technology, BMW has gone that route with all of their cars. The only good thing is that this has left a gaping hole at the bottom of their lineup to bring something smaller, lighter, RWD, and fun to drive to the masses.

A 128i starts at 3200lbs and $32k, so it's not far off the mark. Maybe the next generation 2-series coupe will bring us closer to the E30 weight and fun factor that we all wish for.
__________________
2003 BMW M3 | 2010 Audi A4 Avant | 2006 Scion xB | PAST - 1986 MB 190E 2.3-16, 2005 Volvo S60 2.5T
Itgb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:09 PM   #38
SUB-FT86
86 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 2013 Toyota 86 (Asphalt)
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 2,889
Thanks: 90
Thanked 372 Times in 213 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
That is a ugly BMW right there.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:30 PM   #39
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,392
Thanks: 355
Thanked 2,445 Times in 1,248 Posts
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
actually i was driving next to a 128i for 20 minutes the other day, stuck in traffic. It was nice and clean, but i just couldn't fall in love with it. Also if it's indeed 3200 pounds then by gosh it either has a ridiculously thick carcass or it has every known creature comfort and airbag known to man, cuz that car is small.
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 02:52 PM   #40
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 266
Thanked 392 Times in 207 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
actually i was driving next to a 128i for 20 minutes the other day, stuck in traffic. It was nice and clean, but i just couldn't fall in love with it. Also if it's indeed 3200 pounds then by gosh it either has a ridiculously thick carcass or it has every known creature comfort and airbag known to man, cuz that car is small.

Side impact reinforcement, crash beams, front, side curtain, side impact airbags, and sound deadening.

The C6 weighs 3100-3300 lbs. Certainly doesn't drive like it's "too heavy."
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros - Koni Yellows, Boss 302 Front Springs, Route 66 55D Rear Springs Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, Energy Suspension Shifter Bushing), 2014 IS350AWD
Gone - 2011 IS350AWD, 2010 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2007 RX350, 2006 GTO, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 03:18 PM   #41
7thgear
i'm sorry, what?
 
7thgear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: Canada
Location: I rock a beat harder than you can beat it with rocks
Posts: 4,392
Thanks: 355
Thanked 2,445 Times in 1,248 Posts
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSxJunkie View Post
Side impact reinforcement, crash beams, front, side curtain, side impact airbags, and sound deadening.

The C6 weighs 3100-3300 lbs. Certainly doesn't drive like it's "too heavy."

heavy is relative

i have driven shotgun in a C6 at mosport international raceway and yes.. the car is freakishly fast, there is no denying.

i have also had the privilege of driving a Lotus Elise around the track (and spinning out twice!).

if you ever get a chance to drive something like an Elise then even miatas will feel like pigs to you. It's hard to explain.

With light weight comes the need for bigger balls going into corners at a faster speed. Heavier cars with gobs of power can mask a persons fear of going into a corner 100%. They will brake a little longer, coast a little more, and when they step on the gas there is little chance of them losing it because the car already slowed down to a safe level.

but since you got like 400 HP pushing you then that difference in time will be eliminated rather quickly

a lighter car needs to keep momentum, and momentum is scary, esp if weight goes down and tire grip goes up.
__________________
don't you think if I was wrong, I'd know it?
7thgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 04:00 PM   #42
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 266
Thanked 392 Times in 207 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
heavy is relative

i have driven shotgun in a C6 at mosport international raceway and yes.. the car is freakishly fast, there is no denying.

i have also had the privilege of driving a Lotus Elise around the track (and spinning out twice!).

if you ever get a chance to drive something like an Elise then even miatas will feel like pigs to you. It's hard to explain.

With light weight comes the need for bigger balls going into corners at a faster speed. Heavier cars with gobs of power can mask a persons fear of going into a corner 100%. They will brake a little longer, coast a little more, and when they step on the gas there is little chance of them losing it because the car already slowed down to a safe level.

but since you got like 400 HP pushing you then that difference in time will be eliminated rather quickly

a lighter car needs to keep momentum, and momentum is scary, esp if weight goes down and tire grip goes up.
Agreed on all points except one. There is most certainly a chance of losing it when you get back to the gas. You've got to be smooth with gobs of torque.

And with C6s, Vipers, most of those mid-sized sports cars, the thresholds are just higher. You've got more grip, more brake, more power, and everything happens faster. 9/10ths is 9/10ths, no matter what kind of car you're in. You just lose it in a bigger way when you do lose it.
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros - Koni Yellows, Boss 302 Front Springs, Route 66 55D Rear Springs Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, Energy Suspension Shifter Bushing), 2014 IS350AWD
Gone - 2011 IS350AWD, 2010 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2007 RX350, 2006 GTO, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 05:45 PM   #43
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,584
Thanks: 103
Thanked 671 Times in 412 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thgear View Post
Also if it's indeed 3200 pounds then by gosh it either has a ridiculously thick carcass or it has every known creature comfort and airbag known to man, cuz that car is small.
The 128i isn't that small. It looks to me like it's only slightly narrower and less long vs. the 3-series, but same height (or taller even). It will absolutely engulf an FRS:



The 1-series is pretty much 95% of a 3-series in terms of size/mass.

Last edited by ZDan; 02-15-2012 at 05:55 PM.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ZDan For This Useful Post:
amram (05-02-2014)
Old 02-15-2012, 06:27 PM   #44
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,584
Thanks: 103
Thanked 671 Times in 412 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itgb View Post
I own an E46 M3 convertible, and it is heavy. Coupes are lighter, but still heavy relative to E30 M3s. In order to please consumers who constantly want more power, more luxury, more technology, BMW has gone that route with all of their cars. The only good thing is that this has left a gaping hole at the bottom of their lineup to bring something smaller, lighter, RWD, and fun to drive to the masses.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and YES.

Quote:
A 128i starts at 3200lbs and $32k, so it's not far off the mark. Maybe the next generation 2-series coupe will bring us closer to the E30 weight and fun factor that we all wish for.
I think the next 1- and 2-series are 4cylinder-only models, so it *would* have been possible for them to be smaller and lighter-weight. But the word is that the new 1 is going to be BIGGER! wtf...

At least they're still going to be rwd, reaction from the enthusiast BMW community turned their fwd plan around, at least for the moment...
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 07:49 PM   #45
SVTSHC
(ノಥ益ಥ)ノ
 
SVTSHC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Drives: 2015 Series Blue BRZ
Location: Bronx
Posts: 1,393
Thanks: 930
Thanked 622 Times in 366 Posts
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSxJunkie View Post
BMW has no incentive to build another lightweight, modestly powered driver's car. They've built a brand image on balancing dynamic performance with luxury. 3ers, 5ers, and X5s practically sell themselves. The cost of developing a new car, tooling for manufacturing, marketing... not worth it when their other cars are carrying their weight in sales. Especially for such a small market. There is a big difference between people who say they will buy a car on the internet and people who will actually walk into a dealership to buy one.

Toyota is a brand whose image is boredom. That's not very compelling That is why the GT86 made sense in the home market. They sold, for the last 8 years, 12 different beige cars. Scion is a brand aimed directly at young car enthusiasts. That's why the FR-S makes sense here. Subaru has sold compelling, affordable, lightweight cars for years. That's why the BRZ makes sense.

A 2002? Where does that slot in? Under the 1er? BMW dealerships have an air of snobbery around them. That's part of what they sell. Exclusivity. They've carefully cultivated that image for the last 20 years. I can guarantee that most will dealers will cringe at the thought of putting a 28k 2002 next to a 90k 7er on the showroom floor. Even more so at the thought of having 22-25 year olds with mediocre credit coming into their store daily looking to finance the new affordable BMW.




Long story short, it makes absolutely no financial sense for BMW to do so, and BMW is first and foremost a business.
I agree with you 100%. I won't argue the point anymore with Zdan, it's like slamming my head into a wall over. Nothings getting done, nothing will get through and I'll just end up with a headache.


But on a sidenote Zdan, yes I've tracked my car. Many many times, I don't think the majority of people that bought an SVT Focus had any intention of "not" tracking the car. But have you ever worked in the business side of the automotive industry? You see it's easy to take your stand when you don't have experience dealing with target demographics and showing gains every fiscal year; but the industry is just what it is, an industry. Businesses do what is in a businesses best interest; spending money on R&D for a platform that isn't necessary and as a result won't move a large amount of units is wasted money. A LOT of wasted money.

Would it be nice if BMW made an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Sure, why wouldn't it.
Would it make sense for BMW to make an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Not in the slightest.
SVTSHC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2012, 08:40 PM   #46
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,584
Thanks: 103
Thanked 671 Times in 412 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVTSHC View Post
I won't argue the point anymore with Zdan, it's like slamming my head into a wall over. Nothings getting done, nothing will get through and I'll just end up with a headache.
I will never agree with the argument that "this is what brand X did, therefore this is what brand X *had* to do and what was BEST for them".

Corvette has held the line on size and weight over many MANY years.
Porsche has at least come close to holding the line over the past 15 or so years. (911 went from ~2800 lb. in the mid-80s to 3000+ in the mid-90s to ~3100 or so now for the lightest-weight variant), and it hasn't destroyed them.
The M3, however, went from ~2800 in the mid-80s to ~3200 in the mid-90s to 3400 in the 00's to 3700 lb. today. That's a pretty huge weight gain.

Quote:
But on a sidenote Zdan, yes I've tracked my car. Many many times, I don't think the majority of people that bought an SVT Focus had any intention of "not" tracking the car.
I would bet a 6-pack that over half have never been to the track. Not a dig, I'm sure the same is true for Miatas, S2000s, etc.

Quote:
But have you ever worked in the business side of the automotive industry?
I'm a stress/structural engineer, but I've developed 2- and 3-wheel electric vehicles (~25hp, 70mph) from the tires up and worked with marketing and design (styling) as well to make the vehicles as desirable as possible from a "normal" consumer's perspective, for their intended usage. Would I have rather designed/developed a cafe racer or race bike? Yes (and actually I did build one of my own), but that didn't prevent me from developing the bikes we DID produce for their intended market with the utmost enthusiasm.

Quote:
You see it's easy to take your stand when you don't have experience dealing with target demographics and showing gains every fiscal year; but the industry is just what it is, an industry. Businesses do what is in a businesses best interest; spending money on R&D for a platform that isn't necessary and as a result won't move a large amount of units is wasted money. A LOT of wasted money.
So of course BMW should be building big, heavy sedans and SUVs only...
Well, OK, but it also makes BMW less relevant to enthusiasts.
They can continue down the mainstream path, but the cost is that their vehicles will become more and more Buicks and less and less "BMW's", and over time the brand's "sport" cache will be degraded.

I hope the new 1-based 2-series will be a step in the right direction and come in below 3000 lb., but based on the continuous bulking up of their product line over the past couple of decades I doubt it.

Quote:
Would it be nice if BMW made an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Sure, why wouldn't it.
Would it make sense for BMW to make an ultra light, enthusiast tailored sports car? Not in the slightest.
Apart from them building an "ultra light" car, I think they could at least keep the 3-series at a realistic weight for the "small" (if no longer the smallEST) BMW. 3500+ lb. is a lot for a "compact" sport sedan! And 3200 lb. is a lot for their lightest-weight "sub-compact" 1-series.

If (and it *is* still a big "if" at this stage) Toyobaru can sell a significant number of 2700 lb. rwd coupes for $25k or so, I guarantee that BMW could do the same at $32k+, and make money doing it.

Would they take the risk? It certainly doesn't look like it. That doesn't mean it's not a risk worth taking.

Meanwhile, the Mercedes-Benzification of BMW continues...

For *some* of us, it's a shame
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 07:41 AM   #47
KeepGuessing
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Drives: e30 150 deville etc etc
Location: Arizona
Posts: 79
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
I will never agree with the argument that "this is what brand X did, therefore this is what brand X *had* to do and what was BEST for them".
This should be good..

Quote:
Corvette has held the line on size and weight over many MANY years.
The Corvette is a SINGLE model in the General Motors lineup..
A SINGLE model that turns profits on a very very very inconsequential scale.

Translation: The Corvette isn't a money maker, it's a marketing tool.

Quote:
Porsche has at least come close to holding the line over the past 15 or so years. (911 went from ~2800 lb. in the mid-80s to 3000+ in the mid-90s to ~3100 or so now for the lightest-weight variant), and it hasn't destroyed them.
Let's start by pointing out that "over the past 15 years" would be a qualifier for the time period of 1997-2012... So I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea why you would bring up "mid 80's" into the equation.

Now let's go into the brand itself.

You're going try and disallow BMW's need for model progression based on PORSCHE?? Are you kidding me?

Last year BMW sold 1,224,280 vehicles world wide.
Last year Porsche PRODUCED 41,949 vehicles total.

PORSCHE up until ~15 years ago, didn't have any other financially successful models...

Porshce up until 10 years ago, could for the life of them produce anything to turn a profit.

Of the ~42,000 vehicles PORSCHE produced last year...22,000 of them were Cayennes.

To try and say "Porsche doesn't change due to the market,etc so BMW has no rational excuse" is 150% preposterous. When Porsche becomes a company that actually has to make a decision based on Market demand, then you can make a long reach for the straw once more, but as is Porsche doesn't even compete on the same scale financially.

Porsche is kept afloat by using a borrowed vehicle with a jacked up MSRP.

You might as well bring Ariel into a conversation and question why Honda doesn't make Go-Karts.

Quote:
The M3, however, went from ~2800 in the mid-80s to ~3200 in the mid-90s to 3400 in the 00's to 3700 lb. today. That's a pretty huge weight gain.
Once again, you're forgetting quite a bit of hugely important factors.

1. The M3 is based on the 3 series, unlike the 911 which remains it's own model.

2. It being based on another car therein provides many restrictions/constraints on design alternatives...An M3 wouldn't be an M3 if it wasn't based on a 3 series, so if they just took headlights and redesigned it from the ground up we'd have a completely different car.

3. The M3 is HUGELY successful because it manages to be such a capable performer without having a 6 figure price tag.

4. Development costs money, exotic materials cost money...If you want a M3 that's "lightweight, smaller, etc etc" It is now YOUR job to find a way to take the standard e46, the standard e90 and standard F30 bmw 3 series coupe, sedan and convertible and make their dimensions smaller to suit your desires, now you must do so WITHOUT causing the price to skyrocket through the roof, because no one will buy a 320HP german coup that's 140,000 dollars.

The M3 also went from a cast iron 4 cylinder, to numerous versions of a cast iron i6, to a aluminum alloy v8.

The M3's primary competition also went from a 2800lb i5 Coupe, to a 3800lb direct injected V8.

So you complain about the M3 gaining wait, yet have yet to reference the success of the 3 series in the global market....

What is sounds like is you want BMW to make a couple thousand 325i's without the engine...at COST...

send them to the M division..have them develop a brand new engine for the car with the accompanying gearbox...have it meet all the regulator tests etc etc.....Then chop the car to bits to lighten it up and make it smaller reduce it's internal capacities shorten it's wheelbase thin out it's front and rear track to make it more like the "older M's that you're fond of"...put their brand new engine in, and slap a 59,000 dollar price tag on it AND turn a profit.....Sounds like someone doesn't know how the world works.

Quote:
I would bet a 6-pack that over half have never been to the track. Not a dig, I'm sure the same is true for Miatas, S2000s, etc.
I'm sure they haven't much like Ferrari's bugatti's etc etc etc. Since when does that matter?

[quote]
I'm a stress/structural engineer, but I've developed 2- and 3-wheel electric vehicles (~25hp, 70mph) from the tires up and worked with marketing and design (styling) as well to make the vehicles as desirable as possible from a "normal" consumer's perspective, for their intended usage. Would I have rather designed/developed a cafe racer or race bike? Yes (and actually I did build one of my own), but that didn't prevent me from developing the bikes we DID produce for their intended market with the utmost enthusiasm.
Quote:
So of course BMW should be building big, heavy sedans and SUVs only...
Well, OK, but it also makes BMW less relevant to enthusiasts.
I would thank you to not put a huge generalizing statement like that towards me, as i'm sure others wouldn't like that as well.

BMW is relevant to enthusiasts. If relevance is a numerical value associated directly with a vehicles race pedigree in correlation to their size increase over the years then you'd have an argument..But it isn't, so you don't.

Lamborghini's are nothing but tarted up Audi's....Are they no longer relevant to enthusiasts?

The lack of live rear axles in popular american "hot rods goes against their standards and practices, but are they no longer relevant to enthusiasts?

You're toting your obscenely naive opinion around on your jacket like it's the truth, when really it's so far from it it just makes you sound like you don't know whats going on. I can TELL you know the happenings of the automotive world by some of the information you bring to the discussion, however i can't help but feel your harboring some animosity towards SOME point in this argument which isn't allowing you to see the "intelligent and rational thinker" side to this "ZOMG BMWS IZ FAT AND NO FUN CUZ OLD M3'S ARE LIGHTWWWAIIT" argument.

Quote:
They can continue down the mainstream path, but the cost is that their knvehicles will become more and more Buicks and less and less "BMW's", and over time the brand's "sport" cache will be degraded.
Except they won't become more buicks, go drive an e90 m3.....
The F10 M5 is ONLY coming with a manual transmission in America..Why bother if it's intent on being a buick.

How many buicks have a DOT legal street slick as a tire option for their performance car?

How many car companies actually produce top tier engine after top tier engine year after year model after model JUST for their bread and butter performance vehicles?
KeepGuessing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:23 AM   #48
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,584
Thanks: 103
Thanked 671 Times in 412 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepGuessing View Post
Translation: The Corvette isn't a money maker, it's a marketing tool.
Wrong.

Quote:
Let's start by pointing out that "over the past 15 years" would be a qualifier for the time period of 1997-2012... So I haven't the SLIGHTEST idea why you would bring up "mid 80's" into the equation.
Pointing out that other manufacturers have held the line on weight for a LONG period of time. Sick of hearing how new cars HAVE to be heavier. They do not HAVE to be much, if any, heavier.

Quote:
You're going try and disallow BMW's need for model progression based on PORSCHE?? Are you kidding me?
The POINT remains the same. But I guess most BMW apologists are fine with BMW becoming ever more luxury and less true SPORT oriented.

Not going any further.

The POINT remains: BMW's have gotten much much bigger and heavier, and this was NOT necessary.

You don't care, that's fine. I think it sucks.

The End.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 08:42 AM   #49
ZDan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Drives: '71 240Z, '01 S2000, '94 RX-7 w/LS2
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 1,584
Thanks: 103
Thanked 671 Times in 412 Posts
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
I can assure you all that I had NO intention of derailing this thread. Thread was about comparing the FRS/BRZ with the E46, as it had been compared to the E30. The E30 M3 is actually a pretty similar car. The E46 is, well, NOT.

Anybody interested in E46-like cars should look at LSxJunkie's sig, there are some great ones in there! I was behind a 6.0 GTO on my way into work this AM, and all I could think was how much lower and sleeker it looked than the very box-like new Camaro.

But anyway, it's not like I HATE bigger/heavier cars, I've owned a few in fact. But it's a shame that there's next to NOTHING that's small/lightweight/rwd.

To me, I don't see why an E46 would be cross-shopped with an FR-S/BRZ. If you want a bigger/heavier car, there are plenty out there, new and used.
ZDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:06 AM   #50
SUB-FT86
86 Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Drives: 2013 Toyota 86 (Asphalt)
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 2,889
Thanks: 90
Thanked 372 Times in 213 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Zdan I don't think you derailed this thread at all. This thread was derailed on arrival because the comparison like most all the other comparison threads is pretty stupid IMHO.
SUB-FT86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2012, 09:08 AM   #51
LSxJunkie
Douchebag
 
LSxJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Drives: 2014 Mustang GT
Location: NY
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 266
Thanked 392 Times in 207 Posts
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
Wrong.

Pointing out that other manufacturers have held the line on weight for a LONG period of time. Sick of hearing how new cars HAVE to be heavier. They do not HAVE to be much, if any, heavier.

The POINT remains the same. But I guess most BMW apologists are fine with BMW becoming ever more luxury and less true SPORT oriented.

Not going any further.

The POINT remains: BMW's have gotten much much bigger and heavier, and this was NOT necessary.

You don't care, that's fine. I think it sucks.

The End.
The Corvette is certainly a marketing tool. It's one of 4 cars that GM has right now that is compelling to drive, and is currently the halo car. However, they certainly don't sell them in self sustaining volume.

2006: 36,518
2007: 33,685
2008: 26,971
2009: 13,934
2010: 12,624
2011: 13,164

That is a line that is internally subsidized by selling volume like 198,770 Malibus, 75,675 Tahoes (in the US), and 370,135 Silverados (in the US) in 2010.





And with worldwide safety regulations going the way they are, modern cars either have to be heavier (same stuff, plus mandated safety equipment), more expensive (same stuff, same weight, lightweight materials), or decontented (same price, same weight, less stuff).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan View Post
I can assure you all that I had NO intention of derailing this thread. Thread was about comparing the FRS/BRZ with the E46, as it had been compared to the E30. The E30 M3 is actually a pretty similar car. The E46 is, well, NOT.

Anybody interested in E46-like cars should look at LSxJunkie's sig, there are some great ones in there! I was behind a 6.0 GTO on my way into work this AM, and all I could think was how much lower and sleeker it looked than the very box-like new Camaro.

But anyway, it's not like I HATE bigger/heavier cars, I've owned a few in fact. But it's a shame that there's next to NOTHING that's small/lightweight/rwd.

To me, I don't see why an E46 would be cross-shopped with an FR-S/BRZ. If you want a bigger/heavier car, there are plenty out there, new and used.

I loved my GTOs. But they weighed 3700lbs and that was without heated seats, side impact airbags, or a sunroof. They were PIGS. And inside they were bigger than a new 6er. They also sit taller than the new Camaro and higher off the ground. Great grand tourer, but certainly not low and sleek.
__________________
Here - 2014 Mustang GT Track Package/Recaros - Koni Yellows, Boss 302 Front Springs, Route 66 55D Rear Springs Boss 302 Rear Sway Bar, Boss 302 Wheels, GT500 Quad Tip Axleback, Energy Suspension Shifter Bushing), 2014 IS350AWD
Gone - 2011 IS350AWD, 2010 RX350, 2008 IS250AWD, 2007 RX350, 2006 GTO, 2006 GTO, 2004 G35 6MT, 1992 SC400
LSxJunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Garage vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.