BMW M4

[HAULN-SS]

I think you have to compare based on size. And I don't mean "seats 4" i mean wheelbase, etc etc. So I think you'd have to compare it to a car of the same size around the same year. Nobody compares the weight of an Accord today to an Accord of 1992...it's just a fact cars got bigger..i doubt many people would trade their DD in for something the size of a1992 accord right now either, even with the modern drivetrain

[G.Irish]

Yep, an E46 is not only physically larger it is significantly stiffer and more crash-worthy than a E30 or E36.

[Jake]

The current 3-series (the F30 or whatever it is) is almost identically-sized to my old E34 535i.

It's unfortunate that every model has grown so much over the years. I think it really de-values the model name, as now the 1-series is what you'd want if you liked the old 3's. If you liked the old Focus, you get a new Fiesta. The old Civic is now the Fit. It's massively confusing, IMO.

[SlimKlim]

I read somewhere a while back that the manufacturers "age" the models with their consumers. So the guy you got to buy a new Accord in '92 when he graduated college is now nearing 40, and wants a larger car, so they inflated his trusty old Accord for him.

Not sure I understand that logic, I'd think Mr. Consumer would be coveting the Acura when he was picking up that Accord back in the day, and would want to "move up" with each purchase, so he'd go for the TL or RL 20 years later.

[G.Irish]

Not sure I understand that logic, I'd think Mr. Consumer would be coveting the Acura when he was picking up that Accord back in the day, and would want to "move up" with each purchase, so he'd go for the TL or RL 20 years later.

You have just touched on the key failing of Acura as a brand. People who started with Hondas and moved up the economic ladder, inevitable go somewhere else when they want a luxury car, instead of Acura.

[WRXtranceformed]

Not sure I understand that logic, I'd think Mr. Consumer would be coveting the Acura when he was picking up that Accord back in the day, and would want to "move up" with each purchase, so he'd go for the TL or RL 20 years later.

You have just touched on the key failing of Acura as a brand. People who started with Hondas and moved up the economic ladder, inevitable go somewhere else when they want a luxury car, instead of Acura.

That, and Acura only makes cars now that are as ugly as the Pontiac Aztek

[BFisch06]

I remember being in product meetings during my GM days where they talked about all of this. At least in the case of GM, models are purposefully designed larger and larger so that it looks like the car is getting better and better. "New Chevy Malibu - now with 23.2 inches of rear legroom - the most in class!" Manufacturers continue to try to keep their five-star safety ratings, and this is often most easily accomplished by expanding the current platform (bigger pillars and taller doors satisfy the constraints, but then the car looks stupid and they lengthen the platform to make it look better). In the meantime, other engineering teams are designing new platforms from the ground up to meet current or future crash ratings, and those end up being slotted in beneath what was just the entry-level platform. See the evolution of the Cadillac CTS, and the introduction of the ATS. When the Malibu was re-introduced in 1997 there was 1 other Chevy marketed beneath it: the Cavalier. As the Malibu has become larger and larger there are now 3 (three!) Chevy's that slot under it: the Cruze, the Sonic, and the Spark. I'm just drawing on my (albeit limited) experience at GM, but they totally design them larger and larger on purpose. This is the reason the STS ("Seville") Caddy isn't offered anymore - it got so big they ended production, which wasn't a problem as one of the smaller platforms "grew" to fill the portfolio hole: the CTS. At this point, the CTS wheelbase was exactly 3 inches shorter - and only 3 years later grew another 1.2 inches. The biggest problem I see here is that there aren't any letters before "A".

But yeah, I'm with most everybody here: it sucks and I wish they'd stop. I spoke up in one meeting and was shown a bunch of market research and statistics that basically said consumers want their chosen nameplates to grow with them and will only switch to a new nameplate to move to a different KIND of car (i.e. sports car = Corvette, SUV = Tahoe, CUV = Traverse, Pickup = Silverado, etc.). Of course, this doesn't apply in all cases or even all manufacturers.

[WRXtranceformed]

I remember being in product meetings during my GM days where they talked about all of this. At least in the case of GM, models are purposefully designed larger and larger so that it looks like the car is getting better and better. "New Chevy Malibu - now with 23.2 inches of rear legroom - the most in class!" Manufacturers continue to try to keep their five-star safety ratings, and this is often most easily accomplished by expanding the current platform (bigger pillars and taller doors satisfy the constraints, but then the car looks stupid and they lengthen the platform to make it look better). In the meantime, other engineering teams are designing new platforms from the ground up to meet current or future crash ratings, and those end up being slotted in beneath what was just the entry-level platform. See the evolution of the Cadillac CTS, and the introduction of the ATS. When the Malibu was re-introduced in 1997 there was 1 other Chevy marketed beneath it: the Cavalier. As the Malibu has become larger and larger there are now 3 (three!) Chevy's that slot under it: the Cruze, the Sonic, and the Spark. I'm just drawing on my (albeit limited) experience at GM, but they totally design them larger and larger on purpose. This is the reason the STS ("Seville") Caddy isn't offered anymore - it got so big they ended production, which wasn't a problem as one of the smaller platforms "grew" to fill the portfolio hole: the CTS. At this point, the CTS wheelbase was exactly 3 inches shorter - and only 3 years later grew another 1.2 inches. The biggest problem I see here is that there aren't any letters before "A".

But yeah, I'm with most everybody here: it sucks and I wish they'd stop. I spoke up in one meeting and was shown a bunch of market research and statistics that basically said consumers want their chosen nameplates to grow with them and will only switch to a new nameplate to move to a different KIND of car (i.e. sports car = Corvette, SUV = Tahoe, CUV = Traverse, Pickup = Silverado, etc.). Of course, this doesn't apply in all cases or even all manufacturers.

That makes sense. Car manufacturers exist to make money. If their buyers want bigger cars and the govt regulates their products then why would they build products to satisfy a very small segment of their buyers who care about a car being lightweight.

Honestly with the new generation of kids graduating and buying cars wanting hippy cars or not wanting a car at all, I don't see that changing any time soon.

[G.Irish]

Honestly with the new generation of kids graduating and buying cars wanting hippy cars or not wanting a car at all, I don't see that changing any time soon.

The new generation is probably gonna want smaller, more fuel efficient cars so it might be the first generation that bucks the trend.

Some companies are also trying to push their packaging efficiency so they can keep the exterior dimensions the same but increase the interior room.

Either way I'm just happy that a couple of cars coming out are actually lighter than their predecessors.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4

[Evan]

To be honest though, I thought the M division got off the rails as soon as the E36 M3 showed up. The E30 M3 was a true homologation special and I believe was the most successful touring car of all time. But with the E36 BMW discovered they could make a ton of money making the M3 a more luxurious GT. Over each generation they've just gone further down that road. All of the M3's have been plenty fast, but they keep getting signficantly heavier, with all of the luxo features and size creep.

I disagree, the M division wasnt always just about making homologation specials. The M5 came before the M3, and the M535 and M635 before that, and none of those were homologation street/race cars. The E36 M3 was no race car for sure, but it still had the harder edge of a drivers car (a drivers car that you can drive to work every day)

Ultimately, I just expect BMW to live up to their "ultimate driving machine" slogan and the M division to amplify that further.

But they are following the Mercedes route of big comfy FI automatic luxobarges, which Im sure makes them a lot of money, but makes me roll my eyes when I hear their slogan on commercials.

[SlimKlim]

Ultimately, I just expect BMW to live up to their "ultimate driving machine" slogan and the M division to amplify that further.

But they are following the Mercedes route of big comfy FI automatic luxobarges, which Im sure makes them a lot of money, but makes me roll my eyes when I hear their slogan on commercials.

The last nail in the coffin for that slogan was when they stuck it on the end of an X1 commerical with some successful 20 somethings marveling at how the car Pandoras for them.

[G.Irish]

To be honest though, I thought the M division got off the rails as soon as the E36 M3 showed up. The E30 M3 was a true homologation special and I believe was the most successful touring car of all time. But with the E36 BMW discovered they could make a ton of money making the M3 a more luxurious GT. Over each generation they've just gone further down that road. All of the M3's have been plenty fast, but they keep getting signficantly heavier, with all of the luxo features and size creep.

I disagree, the M division wasnt always just about making homologation specials. The M5 came before the M3, and the M535 and M635 before that, and none of those were homologation street/race cars. The E36 M3 was no race car for sure, but it still had the harder edge of a drivers car (a drivers car that you can drive to work every day)

Hmm, now that you mention it, maybe the E30 M3 was really the aberration. I had forgotten about the E24 M5, and the M1 for that matter.

Oh well, I still think if BMW built more cars like the E30 M3 instead of the E92 M3 the world would be a better place.

[Jake]

Oh well, I still think if BMW built more cars like the E30 M3 instead of the E92 M3 the world would be a better place.

But where would I put my Starbucks? And what's this extra brake pedal doing down there?

[G.Irish]

Oh well, I still think if BMW built more cars like the E30 M3 instead of the E92 M3 the world would be a better place.

But where would I put my Starbucks? And what's this extra brake pedal doing down there?

The stimulation from the driving experience should negate your need for caffeine.

The extra brake pedal serves to free you from having to answer phone calls, texts, or ever lend anyone your car.

[BLINGMW]

Gasoline powered cars are dead to me. Call me when they make the 2600lb Mi3. Clearly they still know how to make a lightweight car that's crashworthy and has all the standard electronic gizmos, they just aren't trying with the dino-powered cars. :dunno:

[SlimKlim]

Speaking of which, apparently Tesla is officially developing a sedan to slot in under the Model S, might be called a Model E. Where do I sign?

[BLINGMW]

Speaking of which, apparently Tesla is officially developing a sedan to slot in under the Model S, might be called a Model E. Where do I sign?

don't hold your breath i'll be at least 2016

[D_Eclipse9916]

Oh well, I still think if BMW built more cars like the E30 M3 instead of the E92 M3 the world would be a better place.

Wut? :evileye:

I guess I have a weird view of the m3s. E30 M3 and E46 M3 were race engines on the street, with harsh drivetrains, and bone-crushing suspensions. The E36 M3 and e92 M3 are good compromises. Torquey, smooth motors, heavier than their previous counterparts, but have split personalities. Cushy/nice around town (remember the E36 is 90s and compare relative), and then fabulously good in the corners/backroads.

I just drove back from NJMP in my mom's e46 m3 and was reminded how seriously hard that suspension is for a factory vehicle. Although high-strung motors are cool, I prefer the powerband in smooth powertrains such as the S52 and s65.

Remember, just my opinion even though I may piss off some purists.

[Evan]

Remember, just my opinion even though I may piss off some purists.

somebody find the picture of DJ driving an AMG Mercedes :bootyshake:

[BLINGMW]

I agree with DJ, E46M3 was almost as unique as the E30M3 for its day. Though I would prefer one of those over E36/E92. That reminds me. Need E46M3.
*edit*
damn, it's easier to find a 'vert than a hardtop. Hmm. :dunno: