LA TIMES: BMW 1-series can fly; too bad it's heavy and ugly

[CobaltSScrazy]

Dan Neil / Los Angeles Times

Let's begin with a verity, an undeniable truth that is evident from 3 feet away or from the cold distance of outer space: The new 1-series BMW is ugly. Seriously ugly. Ugly with X-wings locked in attack formation. I know an ugly car when one blows past me at 100 mph.

Ugly cars are unusual, for very good reasons. Auto companies are vast organizations, with billions of dollars invested, and tens of thousands of employees, some of whom can actually pick out their own ties. Also, in an age of computer-aided design, virtual modeling and rapid prototyping, ugly usually can be rooted out and burned at the stake before the first tooling is purchased. Usually.

The 1-series compact coupe (in 135i and 128i trim) is actually the latest in a fairly robust line of ugly cars from the Werks. The coupe model follows three- and five-door versions that have been hugely successful in Europe and the rest of the world since 2004. The styling is a vestige of what BMW then called its "flame surfacing" design vocabulary -- although it has less the incandescence of fire than the weary drape of wet canvas. Or old skin. That's it. The1-series looks like it needs a jowl lift to repair its prolapsed cheeks. With the downward bowed accent lines running along its flanks, this car looks like it has suffered a high-speed hernia. Meanwhile, I search the stars in vain for a reason the designers gave this car a notch-back design -- so that there is a discernible trunk in the back -- when it so plainly aches for a fastback.

But I'm not so superficial that I would write off the 1-series with some subjective rant about styling. Oh, no. I have other reasons to torpedo this car.

I've always been an advocate of small, premium cars, such as the Audi A3, the Volvo C30 and the Mini Cooper S. And, over the years, as the 3-series has grown into the fully rigged gold-plated showboat it is, I have longed for a smaller, lighter, simpler BMW, something along the lines of the old 2002 or even the 318ti that sold in the U.S. from 1995 to 1999.
Who wants a poor man's BMW? A poor man, that's who.

So, what did I have in mind? I'd like a BMW a foot shorter than a 3-series, half a ton lighter and $10,000 cheaper. I'd like it to have a four-cylinder, high-pressure turbo engine, a six-speed gearbox, and I'd like the whole thing dipped, Achilles-style, in a track-ready minimalism.
And the new 1-series isn't it.

The 135i is, officially, smaller than the 3-series coupe: 8.9 inches shorter and 1.4 inches narrower. But that loss of dimension doesn't get you much except a crick in your neck. Our topped-off 135i test model weighed a portly 3,420 pounds, a mere 137 pounds less than a similarly equipped 335i Coupe.

The reason? It's basically the same car squeezed into an undersized sheet-metal Speedo. The engine -- the unspeakably smooth and ridiculously potent 3.0-liter twin-turbo -- is the same. The front strut suspension and rear multi-link suspension are the same. Ditto the level of upfit and equipment levels. Virtually every interior component, in all its premium, czars-of-Russia glory, has been lifted from the 3-series parts bin. The result is a smaller car that weighs the same. This is not, generally speaking, a good thing.

Worse yet, the 1-series really isn't much of a value proposition. Our test car priced out at $42,325, which is only $4,525 less than an identically optioned, better equipped and infinitely more attractive 335i Coupe. I suppose there are other cost-of-ownership issues such as insurance and so forth, but I think you would have to be slightly mad to choose the 1-series over the otter-sleek and beautiful 3-series. Perhaps only if you can't reach the pedals in the bigger car.

A little shopkeeping: The 1-series will come in coupe and convertible form; automatic or manual transmission; turbocharged, as our test car, or with a naturally aspirated version of the 3.0-liter in-line six cylinder putting out 230 hp and 200 pound-feet of torque. The base price for the 128i coupe is $28,600, more if you want windows and tires.

The convertible 128i starts at $33,875, and the 135 ragtop fetches $39,875.
Is the 135i fast? It's completely and utterly bonkers with acceleration. Squeeze the throttle in first, second, third gear, and it feels like a great big rubber band being launched off the world's thumb. The numerologists at Car and Driver recorded a 0-60 time of 4.7 seconds and a quarter-mile estimated time of 13.3 seconds. That means the 135i is quicker than the last-generation M3, which was clinically psychotic.

Link: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...01/1149/AUTO01

------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I DID think it looked awkward though no one can deny those performance numbers...on par with a GTO of this decade 4.7 and 13.3 is very impressive!

CobaltSS

[coaster.n3rd]

I've seen the car in person and its not as ugly as this guy is describing. I'll wait to drive it before going any further. Isn't this the same guy that did not like the Aura handling and preferred the Camry? he can't distinguish between a toaster and a car. i don't trust his opinion.

[DuSpinnst]

Further proof that Dan Neil is a retard.

[TaHoE]

I have to say, I am not a fan of BMWs, but the 1-Series really seems like a great car. It's so small outside, yet so roomy, and it relatively attractive. It's probably my favorite BMW....back to performance

[Mr. Burns]

Honestly what part of this car is ugly?

+ YouTube Video

[goblue]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

Further proof that Dan Neil is a retard.

Actually - I think he called it dead on. I could do without the hyperbole and cliches, but basically the 1 series is a slightly smaller, just as expensive, slightly faster, and much less attractive version of the 3 series - without its fantastic hardtop convertible. Thats how he called it - couldn't agree more.

BMW had real opportunity here. Use that fantastic motor in a lighter, tighter vehicle, and they could have built a refined, comfortable lotus. Instead we get a 3 series that spent a few seconds in a car crusher.

Thats what Neil is getting at - lost opportunity, and its refreshing to see that vitriol aimed at something not wearing a domestic badge.

[ctaylorzl1]

This guy must take the short bus to work! The 1-series is a really cool car. And the fact that BMW put the TT I6 in it makes it even cooler. Not to mention it looks great IMO!

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by ctaylorzl1

This guy must take the short bus to work! The 1-series is a really cool car. And the fact that BMW put the TT I6 in it makes it even cooler. Not to mention it looks great IMO!

Yeah. Wouldn't it be cooler if Cadillac had an "ATS?"

About 8 inches shorter than the BLS on Alpha, with the same 306HP V6 as the sole engine? A car that was build to run and eat up the curves!!??

[ctaylorzl1]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

Yeah. Wouldn't it be cooler if Cadillac had an "ATS?"

About 8 inches shorter than the BLS on Alpha, with the same 306HP V6 as the sole engine? A car that was build to run and eat up the curves!!??

Oh yeah! A ATS with 304hp DI 3.6 and 6-speed manual!!! That would be one of the coolest car on the road! It would be fast as hell, and would get pretty good fuel economy from the DI V6 in the lite car! I doubt GM would ever do something like that though.

[big swede]

Originally Posted by goblue

Actually - I think he called it dead on. I could do without the hyperbole and cliches, but basically the 1 series is a slightly smaller, just as expensive, slightly faster, and much less attractive version of the 3 series - without its fantastic hardtop convertible. Thats how he called it - couldn't agree more.

BMW had real opportunity here. Use that fantastic motor in a lighter, tighter vehicle, and they could have built a refined, comfortable lotus. Instead we get a 3 series that spent a few seconds in a car crusher.

Thats what Neil is getting at - lost opportunity, and its refreshing to see that vitriol aimed at something not wearing a domestic badge.

I agree 100%. BMW had a great oppourtunity to really make a desireable small car available at a time when people are thinking about the next smaller vehicle. Instead they ended up with a car that is uglier, has less options (hardtop coupe) and is nearly as expensive. Worst of all is marginally lighter than the 3 series. Unless you run track events where the couple hundred extra pounds might be important I can't see why you would choose the 1 over the 3. It's not like the 3 is some poor handling barge, it's a world class performer.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by goblue

Actually - I think he called it dead on. I could do without the hyperbole and cliches, but basically the 1 series is a slightly smaller, just as expensive, slightly faster, and much less attractive version of the 3 series - without its fantastic hardtop convertible. Thats how he called it - couldn't agree more.

BMW had real opportunity here. Use that fantastic motor in a lighter, tighter vehicle, and they could have built a refined, comfortable lotus. Instead we get a 3 series that spent a few seconds in a car crusher.

Thats what Neil is getting at - lost opportunity, and its refreshing to see that vitriol aimed at something not wearing a domestic badge.

I think it looks fine, and he can't write anything without trying to be "intellectually funny."

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

The first thing I thought of when I saw the ad for the 1-Series, was the Porsche 914. The 914 was the "poor mans" Porsche back in the 70's. The Porsche for the guy who can't afford the 911, yet also wants a Porsche. That's what the 1-Series seems to be to me. The "poor mans" BMW.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66

That's what the 1-Series seems to be to me. The "poor mans" BMW.

You'd think that, until you look at the price. The 1-series is only about 3k cheaper than the 3 (or at most 10% less depending on options).

[goblue]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

I think it looks fine, and he can't write anything without trying to be "intellectually funny."

Well, at least we agree the Vette is one of the best looking cars on the road. However, this vehicle doesn't look "fine" to me. The near random waves of the side profile just doesn't work.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by goblue

Well, at least we agree the Vette is one of the best looking cars on the road. However, this vehicle doesn't look "fine" to me. The near random waves of the side profile just doesn't work.

I take it you don't like the Z4 then?