4 Series (F32) [Official] BMW 4-Series Coupe

[Shakal]

Same answer as why BMW aren't offering all-LED tail lights or / and LED front blinkers on some cars: COST SAVING!

Nowdays LEDs are very cheap, so I guess all LED tail lights can't increase production costs for more than a few EUR. Nobody would notice higher car's price for that difference. When I buy a car, I want to be happy with everything. Despite similarities with F30, I like AW F32 with M-package and it should be the best choice for E92 replacement. But since my last three cars had all-LED tail lights, I know that regular bulbs on F32 will disturb me. We are very visual, so how it look is very important - many times we choose something we like, despite it isn't the most reasonable choice. LEDs looks much better than bulbs, so this is dissapointment on 4 series. All cars arround 4 series got LEDs - C Coupe, E Coupe, A5, even cheaper CLA etc. I would rather see 100 EUR higher price for 4 series with all LED tail lights, despite I guess LEDs can cost only a few EUR nowdays. My BMW dealer said about 2 - 3 years ago that all LED tail lights on E92 LCI provides better visibility for others, so it increases safety. Im wondering what he will told me now when they will try to sell F32.

 

[Kilcrohane]

Give examples of the others you speak of - I'm curious to know who they are and in which context...

- exactly. Lot of tosh being spoken here.

All aluminium = de facto 'lightweight' is patent nonsense. As mentioned before, a lot of these so-called 'lightweight' aluminium structures stem from the early 2000s, the likes of Ford PAG's cum Jaguar's 2002 'lightweight' X350 XJ, the 'lightweight' 2005 XK, the supposedly lightweight 2006 Audi R8, and a few others.

The advance in high strength steels, tailored blanks and so on in the last deacde, and the more recent ability to tumble the unit price of mass produced carbon parts, has radically altered the once received wisdom of all ally being the accepted road to take to light-weight nirvana.

A mere look at a 1,800 kg 'lightweight' all-ally 2 seater, or a 2.7 tonne all-ally 'lightweight' SUV, a 1.7 tonne 'lightweight' mid-engined sports car - the R8 - tells you all you need to know about the real world unmasking of these claims for light weight, for ally structures developed in the now materials technology-wise almost pre-historic early 2000s.

To answer Martin's question, the only real examples we have of true weight reduction - not the BS claims/lies from the usual suspects - is VW group's 'MQB' products, where real-world testing has shown up to 10% true weight reduction, on what was an already class-competitive platform, which represents a huge achievement in real engineering and state of the art use of mixed materials.

Likewise, the next major weight reduction we will see will again come from VW group, with the new MLB platform structure. For example, Audi will manage a true 10% reduction in the weight of the 2nd gen Q7, the 2014 A4/A5 and the 2014 TT(MQB).

VW group are head and shoulders above the competition in the productionising of mix-material lightweight structures for high volume manufacture. BMW is ahead with its know-how developed for the more niche 'i' marque, and we'll have to wait and see how it can transfer this economically or not to more mainstream products like the next 7-series.

 

[Kilcrohane]

BMW AG is rather a small automotive company

- maybe on Jupiter.

in no way or metric known to man is BMW 'a rather small auto company'.

It's on course this year to produce the better part of 2m units, excluding its bikes operation. 2014, with a fully up to speed new MINI range, first 'i' products, and new X5 and X4, will easily see it smash through 2m, world economic collapse excepting.

Those 2m units are equivalent to at least 4m units of a Toyota, Ford or Renault-Nissan, given their relative average selling prices.

On the sheer basis of a minimum 4m units a year auto company, BMW is in no way a small player.

It leads the global industry in engines, is a major player in bikes, it owns Rolls-Royce, is gambling on the first effective electric car(s), that could see it quantum leap above all others, and has an image, in key markets like the US and China, amongst the younger age demographics second to none.

BMW traditionally vies with VW's Audi in recent years for most admired auto brand/company amongst its peers.

In what sense is BMW a rather small company?

 

[bmwownage]

- maybe on Jupiter.

in no way or metric known to man is BMW 'a rather small auto company'.

It's on course this year to produce the better part of 2m units, excluding its bikes operation. 2014, with a fully up to speed new MINI range, first 'i' products, and new X5 and X4, will easily see it smash through 2m, world economic collapse excepting.

Those 2m units are equivalent to at least 4m units of a Toyota, Ford or Renault-Nissan, given their relative average selling prices.

On the sheer basis of a minimum 4m units a year auto company, BMW is in no way a small player.

It leads the global industry in engines, is a major player in bikes, it owns Rolls-Royce, is gambling on the first effective electric car(s), that could see it quantum leap above all others, and has an image, in key markets like the US and China, amongst the younger age demographics second to none.

BMW traditionally vies with VW's Audi in recent years for most admired auto brand/company amongst its peers.

In what sense is BMW a rather small company?

maybe he meant compared to VAG.

 

[klier]

^I am more excited about that chunky looking 2 .

Agreed 100% It looks better than the 4er even with the tape on it.

Nowdays LEDs are very cheap, so I guess all LED tail lights can't increase production costs for more than a few EUR.

Seriously. It's just amazing how Eni keeps on going about it being 'expensive' as if he is some broken record.

LED lights are dirt cheap. Maybe 5 euro extra on a 50.000 euro car.

LED headlights are expensive, sure. LED brake/turn signal lights ARE NOT EXPENSIVE.

- maybe on Jupiter.

in no way or metric known to man is BMW 'a rather small auto company'.

LOL, so true.
"BMW is small" and "LED is expensive" are not going to cut it anymore.

I've one question for Enl and Scott. When others are dramatically reducing weight on their replacements why hasn't BMW?

Are you actually being serious (I hope you are not)?

 

[martinbo]

@klier: I edited your post. Please stop trying to stir sh!t up more than it is already. We have enough headaches to deal with.

 

[klier]

@martinbo: many thanks for the heads up, but I don't see a change??
What did you do LOL

 

[martinbo]

@martinbo: many thanks for the heads up, but I don't see a change??
What did you do LOL

Peanut. I'll PM you.

 

[Deckhook]

Give examples of the others you speak of - I'm curious to know who they are and in which context...

Probably I should have worded it better, what I meant was claimed weight savings for their upcoming models but as Agent K said VAG's new platform has shown 'actual' weight savings so the likelihood is their new MLB platform will show similar savings but Merc are claiming similar weight savings with their next models.

@EnI, you are right with these weight savings the rest are claiming it will probably mean their replacement will be on par with BMW or at best a few kilos less.

 

[aleks_16]

IMO one of the importent things on the 4er is the axle load distribution 50/50.

 

[martinbo]

Probably I should have worded it better, what I meant was claimed weight savings for their upcoming models but as Agent K said VAG's new platform has shown 'actual' weight savings so the likelihood is their new MLB platform will show similar savings but Merc are claiming similar weight savings with their next models.

Please provide links to these manufacturers' supposed claims.

 

[EnI]

In what sense is BMW a rather small company?

There's no other automotive company with such (premium brands) portfolio, such R&D costs, and such amount of revenues. They are either much larger in some way (producing high-volume economy-brand vehicles - with less R&D costs), or are more of a boutique nature. All the other premium brands are parts of bigger automotive concerns.

BMW's R&D & purchasing expenses are much higher compared to eg Lexus - which shares the costs within Toyota Corp, Mercedes which shares them within Daimler (and its bus & truck & cargo van) division, not to mention Audi under incredible VAG umbrella. Even Cadillac has GM, JLR now have TATA behind them, Maserati is under Fiat (so is Ferrari), while Aston Martin is much more boutique & therefore in constant search for a serious partner in at least technical (=R&D) division.

But sure there are also the priorities ... Wen can be sure that BMW i development has been done on other brands development expenses. To finance huge costs of "Project i" BMW have had to save & cutting costs elsewhere. And then it comes to profitability: BMW has to cut more costs to be as profitable as eg. Audi. And that's why (... with less cost-cutting lately ...) MB Car division's profitability sank lately.

But I agree with cautions that BMW have to be VERY careful where they are cutting costs (rust under seats in 3er & 1er was an extremely bad sign!) otherwise the brand image can be hurt and the damage control is much more expensive then. Ask MB.

I wonder as well, why no LED brake lights & rear blinkers - since the position light tubes are LED fed ... and LED headlights (incl. blinkers) are optional. The orange cluster part (where the blinker is) looks almost retro these days, lol. And IMO it's a weird marketing decision to go with non-LED solution on tail lights when the outgoing model features LEDs already. It's a perception of downgrade, and that can't be good at all. But obviously BMW counts on early adopters all around the world, who don't care about LEDs much ... while others will obviously get them with LCI in few years when early adopter wave will phase out.

Yes, it's weird ... especially on a technically advanced brand / car. The conventional lever-style hand brake is another such example. Or is it there (but it's hard to believe) for more sporty-oriented drivers - for hand-brake drifting. But I hardly see many doing that in 3er & 4er. Not even in 1er. Or am I wrong?

In the end ... BMW is not small, but comparatively it's still too small to rival on every level some direct competitors who enjoy a safe harbor of larger automotive corporations (same can be said eg for MINI & Rolls-Royce though). But still BMW have to be very careful where cutting costs - not to damage the brand image. Yet ... perhaps ... a majority of targeted clientèle doesn't care about LEDs as much as we do. I guess people care more about other things than LEDs - but at least for the ones who do the all-LED tail lights should be optional at least. Since optional LED-package is already very expensive. Ehm, we should trust the marketing & finance guys, shouldn't we?

 

[Deckhook]

Please provide links to these manufacturers' supposed claims.

I don't think they have openly said it, only the magazines stating what these weight savings will be from sources inside these companies.

Here's a link from Audi News back in Sept 20th 2012 about the A3 SB stating upto 90kg reduction which seems to be correct from roadtests.

 

[EnI]

Weight reduction comparison is very relative & therefore tricky to do: since usually new Mk models feature more standard equipment (eg. safety & convenience features etc) than the outgoing Mk model. Yet we usually don't have direct comparison between same specified & equipped cars (eg new with standard features vs old with optional features) - we only get new standard vs old standard comparison. Therefore figures from data sheets are useless since they only state weight figures for standard cars without optional features. And every additional eg speaker, electro-motor, cable, etc adds a bit of weight.

While the companies usually state in their press releases the real, absolute weight reduction: of exactly the same equipped cars. So, the net weight reduction. The absolute one.

Eg. the old car has 4 standard airbags, 2 are optional ... while the new one has all 6 of them standard ... etc. A kilo here, a kilo there ... and when comparing standard to standard the weight reduction seems minimal or there's even a weight increase present.

But we have to mind the new Mks are usually larger, perhaps coming with larger standard wheels etc ... So any weight reduction or even keeping it @ same level is an achievement. Optimization is a bitch. The big leaps are only present when some radical new and / or much more expensive light-weight material is used. But in such a competitive business that's rather rare - even in the premium segments (but more common in ultra-premium segments though).

 

[Human]

There's no other automotive company with such (premium brands) portfolio, such R&D costs, and such amount of revenues. They are either much larger in some way (producing high-volume economy-brand vehicles - with less R&D costs), or are more of a boutique nature. All the other premium brands are parts of bigger automotive concerns.

That, makes BMW a company with balls IMO

 

[martinbo]

I don't think they have openly said it, only the magazines stating what these weight savings will be from sources inside these companies.

Here's a link from Audi News back in Sept 20th 2012 about the A3 SB stating upto 90kg reduction which seems to be correct from roadtests.

So, in a nutshell: It's conjecture when viewed against any frame of reference other than MQB and furthermore has no relevance with respect to measuring the F30/F32 against their primary competitors. Thus, your stated-as-fact assertion in the question was incorrect.

 

[Deckhook]

So, in a nutshell: It's conjecture when viewed against any frame of reference other than MQB and furthermore has no relevance with respect to measuring the F30/F32 against their primary competitors. Thus, your stated-as-fact assertion in the question was incorrect.

Until BMW released the official spec of the 4 series everything about it's weight was conjecture, all I was asking was why it hadn't reduced in weight when rivaling brands (according to Magazine sources) will be reducing their future models.

If you prefer we can continue this question when those rival models are released if their weight has indeed reduced but frankly I don't see why you are making such a big thing about this simple question which I might add Enl was so happy to answer.

 

[EnI]

I'm eager to see weight "performance" & figures for the BMW's new UKL platform. Eg. Active Tourer vs B-class vs new Golf Plus will be an interesting comparison weight wise.

 

[Deckhook]

To answer Martin's question, the only real examples we have of true weight reduction is VW group's 'MQB' products, where real-world testing has shown up to 10% true weight reduction, on what was an already class-competitive platform, which represents a huge achievement in real engineering and state of the art use of mixed materials.

Likewise, the next major weight reduction we will see will again come from VW group, with the new MLB platform structure. For example, Audi will manage a true 10% reduction in the weight of the 2nd gen Q7, the 2014 A4/A5 and the 2014 TT(MQB).

VW group are head and shoulders above the competition in the productionising of mix-material lightweight structures for high volume manufacture. BMW is ahead with its know-how developed for the more niche 'i' marque, and we'll have to wait and see how it can transfer this economically or not to more mainstream products like the next 7-series.

This is not the right place to truly discuss the implications of VAG's claims if they indeed turns into a reality other than to say it will be interesting watch how all of the above models compare with rivals.

 

[martinbo]

Until BMW released the official spec of the 4 series everything about it's weight was conjecture, all I was asking was why it hadn't reduced in weight when rivaling brands (according to Magazine sources) will be reducing their future models.

If you prefer we can continue this question when those rival models are released if their weight has indeed reduced but frankly I don't see why you are making such a big thing about this simple question which I might add Enl was so happy to answer.

Balderdash. It's about what's right and what's wrong. I could give a rat's arse as to whether EnI was happy to answer your question or not. (No beef with him of course).
My issue is with you and your sweeping statements as always.

Read this:

I've one question for Enl and Scott. When others are dramatically reducing weight on their replacements why hasn't BMW?

Now read it again, presented in HD format English:

I've one question for Enl and Scott. When others are dramatically reducing weight on their replacements why hasn't BMW?

Your words. Your statement says that BMW's competitors are dramatically reducing weight. Operative word: ARE. Appropriate word: SUPPOSEDLY.

Furthermore - in the context of the 4er discussion what relevance does your assertion hold? I'd accept it if we were talking MQB vs F20.