BMW and the M...past, present, and future, what does it mean to you.

Typica BMW hater comment again?? And completely wrong too. BMW has been extremely successful in F1 since it's re-introduction. You thinking they would stop after one crappy year is fanboy talk. Priorities changed, it's as simple as that. They want to spend F1 money on something else, which is pretty logical for a small independent car maker. I'm sad they left F1, but something good may come out of it, it's way too early to say something about that...

Well that's exactly what they are doing now, aren't they?

Secondly I'm not a BMW hater.

Hmmm it seems that your and Scott's perception are contradiction. You guys should talk.


:t-cheers:

lol. Small in meaning there is no large mother company to back them up. Or in Mercedes' case, all their industrial trucks, busses, etc.

BMW is a mother company and has Mini and Rolls-Royce under their umbrella. They are not even remotely small.

These three things is all they do, and mentioning RR wasn't even necessary. They aren't overly big with just over a million cars a year.

AdvEvo, I 100% agree with you. My beef with the M-division is that they are compromising their principles for higher profits by marketing the X5/X6 as an M-division sanctioned car. The M-division unto itself is a haloed name. In fact, while I'm not against the idea of a halo sports car, I really don't think that BMW needs to produce a dedicated sports car, a la the M-B SLS or Audi R8. Instead producing a low-volume CSL versions of the M3 and M6 would be just as effective than having to invest capital into a new platform or architecture. By having the CSL versions this creates just as much buzz and credibility amongst the motor-going public than having their version of a supercar. Aside from the M1 and Z8, BMW hasn't produced a dedicated sports car. What I liked and respected of the M-division is that they were financed by BMW but were wholly independent in terms of engineering. At least that's how it seemed. They looked at a car that BMW was developing and then went back to their lair and tried to determine how to improve the car's performance and handling using parts that were bespoke to M. That provided exclusivity and cache that a halo supercar can produce. And the fact they did it on a more unassuming platform rather than a garish vanity project that most supercar projects are, made it more respectable and endearing...to my eyes, at least.

I think it'd be alright to offer a performance-enhanced version of a car, just don't call it an M. I'd rather they affix a "CSi" label. But please no convoluted label like the "Sdrive50i".... whoever thought of that ought to be shot or be taught the KISS principle ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!")...there are enough acronyms in a modern car to make you throw-up alphabet soup.

Here's a simple rule:
If it's a bespoke engine with enhanced handling bits, then call it an M.
If it's a massaged engine, such as the N63 engine in the X6 M, don't call it an M.

Also while I'm on the subject, I'm not a fan of turbocharging in an M, but I do see the necessity in order to be compliant to modern day regulations and BMW's own parameters set forth by Efficient Dynamics principles. I'm looking forward to see how engineers are going to challenge themselves and provide a solution that properly balances E.D. (that looks funny to me...Levitra anybody? :banana and the core M principles.

For the record, I like the R8 and am looking forward to the SLS. Looking at these projects from a fiscal point of view in this current economic clime, it's hard to justify though. The R8 has two things working for it 1) the concept, Le Mans, was introduced in 2003 during a much more vibrant economy so the wheels were in motion much longer ago, and 2) it shares some scale of economies with the Lamborghini Gallardo. The SLS does not. That project was approved about a 2-3 years ago, since Viper-bodied prototypes start popping up about 2 years ago. Also, it seems the SLS is on its own dedicated platform exclusive from any M-B product. Now halo cars and vanity projects definitely enhance the cache for a brand, but when a company is losing money hand over fist, how wise it to throw funds into such endeavors? In terms of F1, it does enhance the brand and thus provides revenue...that is if they are more victorious/competitive than not. BMW has not the past 4-5 years. Nobody can defend BMW's mediocrity. After a mediocre run it's time to allocate funds into something more worthwhile. This was a wise but belated decision on BMW's part. When times are tough, you tighten your belt to survive. It's simple as that. When sunnier times come back, and the cautious optimist that I am, they will, then there's no reason to not have a go at it again, especially if they do it in a measured manner. M-B has enjoyed some triumph, so it makes sense to do stay in. But, if they are losing credibility, i.e. when quality, an attribute that's synonymous with M-B, suffered (and are now just rebounding), and also when they are losing so much money even when outside investors will just keep them barely afloat, how much are those vanity projects worth? :t-hands:

Wow, I wrote alot, sometimes I feel I write more on this board than for my actual job....don't know what that says about me.

:t-cheers:

PS: AdvEvo, that 130i of yours looks like a monster...great blend of performance and understatement without any necessary doo-dads. Form following function.

That's fine and dandy, filling niches that have not already been exploited is essential for any company to prosper. Now if there's a M-version of the 5er GT, then you got another thing coming.

This is very exciting.

T, i think that's debatable. I think it has to do with BMW building considerable equity in its name in the 1990's as an acceptable alternate to the established brands. BMW's heritage is on par with M-B's, however, M-B was seem to be more the "straight-and-narrow" brand at that time. M-B were beginning to venture back into more performance with the proliferation of AMG-enhanced cars. BMW was marketed as a car that appealed to a younger generation...as Jay Leno said at the Jaguar XJ introduction, "You can get a get an old guy in to a young man's car, but you can't get a young guy in an old man's car."...or something to that effect. Now what I said is hard to measure empirically and may have ruffled some feathers with some of the M-B dedicated, but the next 2 reasons why BMW saw such growth.
1) in the late 1990's and 2000's, BMW saw it's line-up expand at a rate it has not seen in its brands history, and
2) the expansion of available capital in emerging economies, especially with an enormous population (Russia, China, India, the Middle East, etc.) and in the established financial powerhouses, provided a boom for Bimmers, Benzes, Audis, Rollers, Bentleys and, in general, all luxury goods.
So to say that the design may have been a large factor helped might be a bit of an overstatement. While I've grown to appreciate the Bangle's design and enthusiasm, I think Bangle could of produce something even more head-scratching and it would of sold realtively well.
:t-cheers:

If bmw want too of course they can create engine like the Mclaren. But how efficent is it against mother nature and is it a fuel efficient engine? (this is how BMW thinks, not me )

Well, in that case, every M car except E9x M3 and E60 M5 should not be called a "M". Every M before those including E30 M3, E46 M3 CSL and even M1 had "massaged" engines.

Exactly what it is now: great engines with superb characteristics (eg. in the future having better turbo engines than others - since all the rivals are going turbo as well) & superb driving dynamics ... topping the rival.

:t-cheers:

Good luck with that BMW!

They have all the resources & know-how to be successful. Just like they were in NA era. BMW excellent engine engineering is not naturally given by God - it's a hard work of BMW engineers. Do you really think BMW turbos will be inferior to other turbos? Not at all. BMW know-how is a guarantee they will do everything to make best turbo engines possible - and I'm not only talking about power / torque output here.

In the future in the (plug-in) hybrid & exted-EV more than the hardware (ICE, batteries, electromotors) the crucial components for the performnce will be software & electronics (processors & busses etc).

And here I think the cards will be remixed ... Therefore BMW are putting all resuorces in the future tech: to stay ahead of the rivals even after the tech change.

:t-cheers:

And that's more important than developing & offering a multi-100k Euro classic supercar today. Sure Toyota & VAG can afford that - since they are huge companies with enormous resources. While carmakers like BMW, Honda, MB etc HAVE TO prioritize in these crucial moments.

Where's 'our' SLS then?


Best regards,
south

I really hope they don't do that. I am not for sticking to tradition for the sake of it not change for the sake of it. Go with whatever is superior like when Porsche can dumped the air cooled engines.

SLS came with a price for Daimler AG owners: being forced to invite new investors (the Kuwaitis) do inject new capital to the company to save the net liquidity & avoid possible bankrupt ... and that means the share of existing owners decreased due to new shares being issued for the new investor.

BMW AG shareholders are not interested in such advantage.

That's a big exaggeration. You don't mean to tell us the SLS did cost 2 billion EUR, do you?


Best regards,
south