carcounsel.com |HID|

1) Like Cayman vs. 911, they were trying not to cannibalize the more expensive model – trimming power leads to an outcry, making the cars feel distinct from the driver’s seat via spring/shock/bar/effective steering ratio less so.

2) The 1 series was hammered by the press for its hobbyhorse ride (run flats+short wheelbase) in its original hatchback form, so this midcycle refresh required they stress ride comfort (same happened with X3 and Mini) which in knee jerk engineering terms means lower suspension natural frequency.

3) They were trying to go for more of the vintage BMW feel (long travel, real world compliance, roll to signify how close the limit is and make sure it’s exceeded progressively) – more along the lines of an E30 or a current Xi than an i or sport package car (which feel ‘slammed’ out of the box and mistake grip for handling). There’s a sense that since they couldn’t make it lightweight like a 2002 they wanted a bit of the feeling that died with the last of the trailing arm cars… Also note the narrower tires! More self aligning torque, more progressive breakaway… just what all BMWs need these days!

4) The 1 series has a lot of baked in understeer to protect those not used to RWD - I’ve read many a test that mention cars like the Mini or even the Golf are more neutral (I suppose they can be because torque reversal at the limit can’t upset the chassis so much).

That’s my theory – and I’m sticking to it.

Luxury brands’ bean counters have severely stretched their products’ DNA. Merc’s bank vault gestalt took an enormous hit over the last twenty years. Bimmer’s SMG gearbox, iDrive multi-media controller, run-flat tires, SUV and dumbed down steering are a worrying divergence from their Ultimate Driving machine ethos. The aforementioned Lexus IS’ harsh driving dynamics bear scant resemblance to their magic carpet LS flagship. Only Audi creates a range of automobiles with brand-faithful consistency. – TTAC

I’m seriously impressed by what the GT-R accomplishes, and it serves out ferocious performance for the money. I get it. But I just can’t love it… The GT-R is too heavy and too computer controlled for my taste. Editor MacKenzie recently blogged about a similar drive in the new BMW M3 coupe and preferred it to Nissanzilla. I drove the same BMW the day before and arrived—independently—at the same conclusion. I’ll take its sonorous, high-winding V-8, its live, lithe feel, even more useable interior and trunk, and elegant look. The M3 gives up a smidgen of performance edge to the GT-R, but it’s a far more harmonious package and better satisfies my urges as a driver. - Matt Stone, Motor Trend

Unique among the current BMW line-up is the sublimely effortless, torque-rich delivery of its all-new, direct-injection 4.4-litre twin-turbo V8, which develops 400bhp from 5500 to 6400rpm and 442lb ft of torque between 1750 and 4500rpm, wafting the 50i to 62mph in a claimed 5.4sec. There’s no M Power-flavoured lust for revs here. [The X6’s] eight-speed auto with the option of changing gear via steering-wheel paddles might seem like a recipe for a conspicuous work-rate, but the delivery is almost Bentley-like in its laid-back lack of drama. – evo

I’m fairly critical of cars that manufacturers cobble together in a hurry and charge more for whether they be body on frame SUVs, sedan-based coupes, hardtop based convertibles, or the new strain of ‘four door coupes’ (e.g. MB CLS, BMW X6, VW Passat CC) if only because the consumer seems to be getting a raw deal when paying a premium for what is in many ways an inferior, more compromised car.

But as this quote reminds us, in some cases such cars are a second chance for a carmaker to make right a previous attempt. And if I take off my cynic’s cap for a moment, you have to applaud anything that leads to more choice for the consumer and fewer dull, ‘me-too’ cars on the road.

The whole idea seems an extravagant folly, a marketing indulgence of almost Phaeton-like magnitude. But then the regular Passat, while a competent car, is hardly an object of desire. The CC offers a chance of one-upmanship sufficient, maybe, to secure a purchase instead of passing the Passat by. [The resulting car offers] Mercedes indulgence at a sensible price – evo

(As an aside, note a comment that applies to the standard Passat and most front drive sedans in general):

Best version? Not the V6 3.6 4Motion, which feels too heavy and clunky. It’s the entry-level 1.8 TSI with 158bhp, a crisp, punchy engine powering an agile, comfortable car. Less is more here, too.

In an age when advertising and moviemaking’s flooded with computer generated work and even more flooded feature lists, the commercial ‘M3 Revolution’ was a revelation.

You can see the spot – and how they made it – here.

I’ve complained before about the ergonomic nightmare that occurs when you style a dash before you think about usability, about how there’s a sense that BMW designers are deciding what wheel size must be used or how low a car must sit and the consequences, and the inefficient packaging and poor visibility that’s stemmed from sketching a car that looks good on an autoshow turntable but cares not about visibility or ingress/egress.

Which begs the question: is the subpar side impact performance another example of the designer’s pen having disasterous consequences? Is the sharp tumblehome (or slant of the side glass) to blame for not only the sense of clausterphobia but the inability of the side curtain airbag to protect the driver as well as they’d be protected by other, less designed and more engineered BMW models?