Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenMonster
That's not the point.. the point is that BMW is comparing this to the "tossable" 2002... which was/is a roller skate on rails...
If I have to explain that a tossable vehicle is, then you really wouldn't understand anyways...
It's not about performance figures... The 2002's and early 911's were hardly powerhouses... But what they lacked in hp they more than made up for in being lightweight... and you could throw those cars around corners.
It's not about 1/4 mile times, it's about driving dynamics...
I'm not really interested in the 135... I am considering the 128 because I had hoped it would be a cheap, lightweight, rwd vehicle... With lightweight crossed off the list, I'm hoping that pricing will be attractive... At least I know the 1-series will be rwd, but 1 out of 3 ain't gonna cut for me... 2 out of 3 might tho'. Hopefully I won't be as disappointed with pricing as I am with the weight.
|
The 2002 and 135i connection made in the marketing literature is far more of a methaphorical connection than an actual comparison in my mind. For their respective time periods they fill pretty similar roles in the market....Much like how the Boxster does what the 550 or 356 did back in the day, all the while weighing some ~700-900lbs more (at least).
I feel like sometimes people get so caught up on statistics and figures, without pausing to experience the car. Using some of the thinking displayed here, I might completely write off the CL-S in your sig because it is no where near as light as the 87' Legend LS 5-speed (or first gen CL) my family had for many years. But in reality, having driven both cars, I would pick the heavier CL-S any day of the week. I say wait till someone ACTUALLY drives the car.....