Has BMW lost its soul?

[Herbmiester 922]

Perhaps it should read has BMW lost its way? When the new M4 came out I was genuinely impressed and although I really like the E92, one of the most engaging cars I have driven, I thought well turbo is the way forward but it seems like the new M cars have lost a bit of whatever it is that made them special. Now I haven't driven the F80/82 so my comments are based on other's reviews. But as an BMW convert coming from muscle cars this review was a little surprising. Whats even more thought provoking is the Hot versions of the Camaro are yet to be released. Hmmm. maybe I should stick an LS1 in my e46.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/

Edited March 4, 2016 by Herbmiester

[M3AN 4016]

IMHO BMW(s) lost their soul in about 2004 when electronics became fundamentally more important than mechanics.

[KwS 2421]

not just BMW, but most manufacturers. Its just a race to who can have the most electronics.

Auto/DCT, electronic aids, self driving cars, etc etc, its all aimed at taking the driver out of the car.

[Herbmiester 922]

I have often thought my E46 represented the last of the real drivers BMWs and I still really like the e36 Chassis. But how does someone like GM who have made crap for decades get it right while BMW seems to have regressed?

[E36_Turbo 84]

I guess these luxury car manufacturers are going with the technological trend...they cater to the current and coming generation of drivers ( living and growing up with current tech ), most of whom probably would die without half the gadgets modern cars are fitted with, or...let the competition win them over? It wasn't long ago and the overall look and feel of a car was achieved in a rather simplistic form, design a great chassis, make an exterior that is pleasing to even none car-enthusiasts, and there you have a winner, with a strong performance package. Now when you look at most cars, post 2005- onward, it's just ridiculous IMO. But hey, i haven't driven these specific machines to even hint on hating them, just simply saying....Sometimes...Less is more? Slightly Robbing a vehicle of it's obvious potential for fun and enjoyment as a true M-machine, plus safety regulations may affect the way in which vehicles are carefully designed....anyway, they're still amazing cars regardless.

[FIAT 131R 223]

It's just not that they want to have the most electronics. They are a form of future income. The sensors crap out and have to be replaced. The manufacturers are cunning bastards and make sure none of the sensors are universal. That way they can get the car to go into limp mode if important sh*t like the screen washer bottle is only half full or a sensor to say your left foot should be 3.74 mm to the right. Cars are far more reliable mechanically because of advances made so they have to find other ways to stop them working and make money.

[coop 261]

2 valve clunking 6 litre V8 in 2016 really ? weight distribution is average technology is average give me the BMW any day. The Camaro behind the E36 in the technology and no where near the current M cars

What makes you think twin/quad cams are packing so much more technology. Both layout are 100 years old. The internal combustion engine is ancient and it is really laughable the gains if that, that have been made in the past 120years. It is even more laughable that some who drive 20 year old clapped out jappas or Euros claim the high horse techno bragging rights because they have three extra cam shafts and another 20 hp/liter that matters f**k all in reality. The people who knock GMs winning formula have their heads firmly up their arse quoting text book or magazine figures and are obvious to real world performance. Fact is the all alloy small block chev has been handing the Euro and other American dohc V8s their arse since the late 1990s. Don't even mention the ability to consistently pull 500k plus km with basic servicing. No weak heads, cooling systems, excess oil leaks or fragile timing/valve train issues to burn a hole in your wallet like a lot of so called more advanced Euro money pits.

[Neal 540]

I like the evolution of the BMW, refinement with performance comes to mind. I quite liked the f series 320i touring the dealer lent me. It actually reminded me more of my old e30 than the e36 & e46. Come to think of it I also set a faster slalom time in a f 320d than my e46 M3. I think BMW just gets better.

[gjm 3258]

The evolution of BMW is a predictable thing.

Mercedes went through something similar in the mid-90s when the accountants took over. Great cars up until then, with a reputation all-but destroyed by cost-cutting measures, 'economic' engineering and a massive drop in actual quality. The hewn from rock feeling old Mercedes had was lost, starting with the rust-prone W210. Some of that has been regained, but it'll be a long time before Mercedes are actually known for it again.

Newer BMWs, and newer cars generally, just don't grab my attention. Aside from the fact I'll struggle to work on them, there's monumental amounts of technology in them just waiting to go wrong (in my opinion). That tech isn't even used to it's limits - look at cars like the Koenigseggs now being produced... Even they are combining known working solutions, but to far greater effect.

BMW are about making money, of course. Sadly it seems (to me) that has become a predominant reason for manufacturing cars, rather than something they work toward as a result of the cars they have made. Makes economic sense, but ensures the amount of soul involved will be tiny, if it exists at all.

[Herbmiester 922]

2 valve clunking 6 litre V8 in 2016 really ? weight distribution is average technology is average give me the BMW any day. The Camaro behind the E36 in the technology and no where near the current M cars

Nothing wrong with a 6lr V8 that gets similar fuel economy to a 3lt turbo. As to technology in my books it's worth dick if it doesn't translate to real world gains. Look at VW/Audi's 5 valve engines; Yawn. Oh and tecnology is not just measured by the number of cams you have. Now Ron it's obvious you're a V8 hater, but from what I have just read BMWs premium driving car just got got equaled and subjectively beaten by a so called clunker. And that clunker is just a cooking version what will the Z28 or Z06 do? The last Z28 lapped willow springs faster than a Nissan GTR.

I have to say you are so misinformed about the LS engine series; they are so easy to extract power from and its very cheap especially in comparison to say an M54 where the only meaningful gains can be made with forced induction. The LS series are shorter, lower and weigh, a lot less than BMW's V8's. HP per cubic inch is one measure but what about HP per CC of engines external dimensions? Or HP per Dollar! I moved to BMW's for the chassis as I got tired of the average chassis that Holden and Ford offered (The VF is not too bad) but apart from the M motors I am a little underwhelmed by how expensive it is pull an HP out of the M50-54 series, and an S54 cost moon beams.

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

Inclined to agree, the LS engines make a lot of sence if you can get over the fact it's s non BMW engine up front. Big HP, simple, there is a reason it's one of the worlds most popular engines for tuning

[Olaf 3309]

point already made. I agree with Ron's argument about 'tech' - though all the tech in the world isn't worth much if the way it's wrapped together is not the equal - in practice - to a simpler solution.

I'll wait and see how well these new updated tractors are #; )

You won't see me bagging the LS, that's for sure. Meanwhile if I win Lotto this evening it's an e46 M3 and a 997 for me, thanks. And probably an X5 too.

And probably some ohlins suspension for my wagon too!

Edited March 5, 2016 by Olaf

[kwhelan 241]

Has BMW lost its soul?

hell no, they make a huge range of highly respected cars that most people would die for. most get rave reviews in auto mags and are held usually as a standard to judge others by

do they win every car of the year in every category,hell no

are there amazing cars built by other companies, of course plenty

have the new gms upped their game and built some great cars for a great price, definitely

this article is just one mags opinion and even they are obviously surprised by their results, which would they personally buy,they don't say but i suspect not gm

no backseat, poor air vents,steering too heavy

I would say the bmw would lose significant value far quicker

in the end does it matter, you buy the one you like ,not every model of a brand is going to be a winner,id love a new jag but would I buy an older one,hell no

bmw has not lost its soul and Ive seen plenty of articles over the years where bmw don't come out on top

certainly not affecting sales

[Palazzo 474]

I ran a two valve Alfa in the eighties, it was well passed its use by date then, the later 4 valve engines were SOOOOOOOOOOO much better , the Alfa twin cam went into production in 1952 and should have been replaced in the 70's

It's not just about the twin cams it is every thing else with the M BMW it is a highly refined well balanced total package that is light years ahead of the clunky old 2 valve large displacement sh*t that Americans have been churning out for years, they have had their heads up their arses and in the sand for decades so much so that they are a real non player the global auto market.

The basic format of the I.C. engine hasn't changed in a 100 years true, but performance , reliability and efficiency has , except when it comes to 2 valve clunkers .

50hp from a 7 litre 1910 engine , you can get that out of a 250cc motor bike,

Trotting out the same old subjective bullshit about American V8's doesn't make it true and have a decent read of the review the Camaro was a second a lap slower on a short track, or a lap behind after 15 laps hardly level pegging it totally subjective crap article blowing hot air up the arse of those who want to believe in fairy tales.

Have a decent read indeed Ron. It was just under 2 tenth of a second slower, half of which was made up by full tank vs half tank. How you'd lap a car on a 1.23 lap within 15 laps on a 1/10th of a second advantage is beyond my maths.

More tech doesn't automatically equal better, esp when you factor in price and servicing.

[Bandit 194]

Hmm not like me to chip in but here it goes

BMW S50 B32 first N/A engine to produce 100hp/litre and it just gets better. Look at the McLaren F1.....

Its all about function and the Teutonic engineers (and they are not all German) from Stuttgart and Munich just seem to get it RIGHT.

And lets not start on the efficiency of these engines compared to the North American units you have mentioned here.

And face it if we can use a chip to do the job we have function over form. Not a bad thing in my opinion.

Most of the engines from both continents (like the LS1 talked about here) are capable of producing phenomenal mileage in terms of distance travelled and we know that comes back to regular systemic maintenance.

Just my two cents.........

[kiwi328i 118]

I think they have lost a little soul. The M3, was once compared to everything as it was just so god damn good. It wasnt just good in it's category, it made it's own...and owned it till...recently. That M3/M4 is not the dominant car in it's category. The Caddy, the Camaro, the Audi, the Merc have all been better somewhere, and even beaten it overall, which never used to happen, it doesnt even get compared to cars outside it category like it used to because, it just isnt that dominant anymore. The Nissan GTR is now that car that gets compared to literally everything and only several years later is it coming up short, but then they throw it at literally everything that has 4 wheels on it.

The M5 likewise is not the best in its category either, its not the fastest or the lightest or the anything, they used to put the E39 M5 up against everything as well for the same reason.

The 1 series, does well, the 2, forget already, the 3, nope bettered by the Jag at the least, the 4, well its a coupe, the 5 nope more people are buying Mercs and Audi's now, the 6, nope Audi has that dicked too, the grand somethings are nice but peeps dont wanna pay and they came too late although I think they are awesome, the 7 looks really good but the S class looks like its sewn that up and they have a seriously good coupe as well which Bmw does not have.

The flippin X6M probably fights better in it's class than any other bmw...and I didnt see that coming...

[Ahmedsinc 414]

IMHO BMW(s) lost their soul in about 2004 when electronics became fundamentally more important than mechanics.

^^ This

All the tech in the worth ain't worth jack sh*t if the engine needs a total rebuild after 120,000km.

For me the journey stopped with the CSL E46 & the E39 M5. Only reason the E46 makes the list is the mechanical engineering overrides the electric wizardry.

Given the choice between the newest M3 (or is that M4. Or M3+1. Or M3v2.0??) and say, the Hellcat Dodge I'd probably go for the dinosaur Hemi. Probably not as nice to drive, but at least it'll run for more than 100,000km before needing a total rebuild

Edited March 5, 2016 by Ahmedsinc

[Herbmiester 922]

Another video that amazed me. An M3 slower than a front wheel drive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3n7zhb7aN8

And for a Ron; a Dinosaur Clunker lapping faster than a Nissan GTR a technological tour de force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkyWhVBSKU

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2132]

Yes you can dig out biased comparisons but look at the basics -- Bog standard 330i spits out 63kW per litre high performance Holden/ Chev spits out 50

kW doesn't tell the whole story though does it!

[Herbmiester 922]

Ron you crack me up you're so busy being biased you can't see the forest from the trees. Who cares about HP per litre it's only relevant in a race class that has a cc limit. What's important for an everyday car is the packaging. An LS weighs about the same as an S50/54 and sits further back due to the shorter OAL and even the older 5.7's can make 450 plus HP without it costing a fortune. Tuning an S motor costs a lot for very little gain say 360-375 HP, impressive for a 3.2l no doubt, but 375 is not 450 and you can slice and dice that anyway you want but figures dont lie and liars dont figure.

The new Camaro weighs 200 lbs more than the M4, and the M4 has bigger brakes and by the look of it better tyres, so how does the Camaro keep up? Must be the motor or perish the though the chassis.

Now just to clarify I would still prefer to own the M4, why? Well it looks better, it's bound to be nicer inside and to be frank anything with turbos can be tuned for more horsepower and if the E92 335i is any indication a lot more HP. My point is however that BMW are no longer the leaders and if a lowly Camaro can stay with it then it's time for BMW to rekindle the ultimate driving machine ethos, perhaps the M4 Competition Package will address that, problem is I won't be able to afford one.

[gjm 3258]

... same story silly amount of money thrown at a tired chassis to make a good handling car...

Sounds like a Porsche 911! Take an ill-handling car that'd kill a driver not on top of his game, and spend years making it work!

A triumph of stubborness over physics. Take the two most significant (in weight terms) parts of a car, hang them over or behind the back axle, and then make it go 'round corners.

I really admire the technical capability of a lot of newly-developed cars, 911s included. I wonder though how we'll get on with repairing them in 20-30 years time? That said, many main franchised dealers seem to struggle to look after any car more than 20 years old anyway.

The brute force approach does have this to be said for it - it'll probably be repairable down the line. Smaller engines making big and economical power are remarkable, and while electronically and computer controlled everything giving infinite variability is great use of technology, is it actually robust?

That sense of strength is a contributing factor to character. Maybe I'm a dinosaur. Maybe young people today think 4-pot screamers have character too.

[Herbmiester 922]

Seriously, brakes and tyres make a huge difference on a track. I believe you said that yourself.

[Herbmiester 922]

A lot of genetalisations there Ron. The GM alpha platform is very well regarded and the LS series of engies is far from clunky, they are light years away from the old small block chevy, light, compact, with a linear power delivery. As already mentioned I would take the m3, but I would not dismiss the Camaro.

[kiwi328i 118]

The 'soul' aspect of a car is a funny one because everyone justifies what that is for their own arguments then goes about defending it. I do think though to draw a line somewhere is that it is pretty subjective. Whether you have more cams, or valves or aluminium this and that, or magnesium this and that probably wont mean anything to someone who thinks their TR6 is the bees knees and has more soul in its windshield than your entire E92.

Blokes who drive big chevy camaros, shelby mustangs and hellcats probably wont give two whatevers to your carbon fibre composite monocoque construction, your perpex windows, or leather headliners. They probably know full well their machinery is well outdated and that probably adds to their love affair with their vehicles.

You can tell people what you want, but you cannot tell people whether their car or their brand of car has soul, certainly not based on some idea that technology somehow comes into the equation. Some people, actually lots of people simply do not give a rats.

Does a musclecar like the Camaro have less soul than an M4, its a silly question, but I would hate to put my money on the M4 because of some superiority complex.

I might put it this way. The Camaro has come a long way in the last few years and is being recognised as being a decent car, so decent it is getting compared to vehicles it may not have had as rivals not that long ago. The M3/M4 has not been dominant as it once was, and what technological advantages it may have had simply are not enough to overcome the comparisons with "lesser machinery".

[Herbmiester 922]

Ok Ron as you cant get past OHV V8's what's your take on this comparison: http://www.motortrend.com/news/bmw-m3-vs-cadillac-ats-v-sedan-vs-mercedes-amg-c63-s-comparison/ To me it seems that GM Alpha platform might just be OK. They have the same tyres this time but yet again the BMW runs bigger brakes. I am not panning the M3; again it would be my choice especially in that blue, but it does seem like the facts contradict you.

“For better or worse, it seems that Cadillac engineered the ATS-V to be sport sedan first and a luxury car second.”