Top Gear compared it to a Golf R32 and the Golf was markedly better in their opinion, for what that is worth
1
2
-
Oct. 5, 2009 9:16 a.m. aussiesmg SuperDork
-
Oct. 5, 2009 11:32 a.m. mrwillie Reader
aussiesmg wrote:
Top Gear compared it to a Golf R32 and the Golf was markedly better in their opinion, for what that is worth
You beat me to it......
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5342249578921573529#
-
Oct. 5, 2009 5:32 p.m. White_and_Nerdy New Reader
mtn wrote: I agree with all of this on the buyers perspective. Which is kind of funny, because I get labled as a rich snob, or as a kid who's daddy got him a BMW, etc. etc. They think I'm rich. Right... You do realize that your Toyota Carolla cost more than 3X my BMW?
Think that's bad? I once bought an '83 320i for $1000 - one of the cheapest cars I've ever owned - and everyone thought I was all awesome and stuff because I had a BMW. Didn't have to tell THEM how cheap it was...
-
Oct. 5, 2009 7:29 p.m. westsidetalon New Reader
BMWs are exspensive are they even legal at the GRM Challenge?
-
Oct. 5, 2009 7:41 p.m. d_jabsd Reader
aussiesmg wrote:
Top Gear compared it to a Golf R32 and the Golf was markedly better in their opinion, for what that is worth
I saw that. IMO, it was a BS test. The highest performance Golf vs the mid-range 1 series... not really a fair comparison and no surprise the .:R32 won. A 135i vs .:R32 would be a fair comparo from a performance perspective.
-
Oct. 5, 2009 7:51 p.m. mad_machine UberDork
good point.. but then the 1er would have cost even MORE. They also should have used the 2 door hatch
-
Oct. 5, 2009 11:24 p.m. lewbud New Reader
westsidetalon wrote:
Yes.BMWs are exspensive are they even legal at the GRM Challenge?
-
Oct. 6, 2009 12:23 a.m. friedgreencorrado Dork
As an ex-BMW guy, all I can say is that it was another great idea ruined by the marketing guys.
I expected a 70s style BMW without three tons of power windows, power seats, power cupholders, heated headliners, etc., etc., etc...
But we can't have that in the US, where "the brand" is more important than how well the car would go down the road.
I'm not bitter because I'm poor, I'm bitter because even VW is doing this crap nowdays. Even if the Business School Morons ever bring the Polo over here, it'll be full of the same kind of overweight garbage that's ruined the Golf, because "..it's what our customers want.." in the US.
Ugh. There's a reason BMW folks want E30s, and VW guys want A2 chassis Golfs & Jettas. All this "going upmarket" crap is because they want to sell cars to people who don't care about cars, rather than to those of us who do.
If somebody like Daewoo or Kia (IMO, Hyundai is already doing the "upmarket" crap as well) made a car that handled well, they'd make a fortune here in the US.
-
Oct. 6, 2009 6:30 a.m. Dashpot New Reader
friedgreencorrado wrote: If somebody like Daewoo or Kia (IMO, Hyundai is *already* doing the "upmarket" crap as well) made a car that handled well, they'd make a fortune here in the US.
But they wouldn't. Carve out a niche among true budget minded enthusiasts? Yes. Sell more than 20K units to justify tooling up? Probably not. It's taken 30 years of continuous market research to get us the cars "we" want, so 18 way electric everythings and I-pod docks now sell cars. Steering feedback and control balance take a distant back seat to NVH control for "refinement".
