BMW - The Ultimate Driving Delusion?

Joe_Horner

We all know the adverts - perfect Teutonic engineering elevating our driving abilities and enjoyment to new heights. Possibly even getting the girl in the process. But do they have any basis in truth, or are they pure fantasy and ego massage for those defisient in the driving skills stakes?

Personally, much as i admire BMW for their engineering (especially the older versions of their classic 6 cyl), I believe the latter. Let me explain:

Skill in any field is basically a matter of getting the most possible out of available tools. The virtuoso pianist takes the same 88 keys and does far more with them than I do when I hack out Chopsticks. Give them a Klima spinet or a Bechstein concert and they'll get every ounce of magic from it. Michaelangelo used basically the same pigments and bristles as anyone else and used them do do more. Give him a set of childrens watercolours and he'd have still created art.

Likewise, with driving, a driver with skill will get the most possble out of whatever he's driving. The closer he comes to the limits of the machine's abilities, the more his own abilities come to the fore.

This is demonstrated every night (on some channel somewhere) on the endless repeats of Top Gear with their "star in a reasonably priced car" - the same car driven in broadly similar conditions, by wildly differing skill levels. The only limits are the car's abilities (fixed) and the skill of the celebrity. Compare even the best of the celebrities times to the Stig's and it's clear that the celebs are being limited by their own skill.

All that a "better" car does in that situation is to be more forgiving of the driver's inadequacies. More grip means they're less likely to fly off the track when they pick a poor line, or turn in harshly, or wobble about on the throttle mid-corner. But it doesn't improve their ability, it only masks their lack of.

Every genuinely skilled driver I've ever known has agreed that the skill, and the fun, is in pushing the limits of the machine. A track day in a 2CV can be just as enjoyable as one in a Veyron. The Veyron will be faster, undoubtedly, but keeping the 2CV on the track near its 65mph limit is just as challenging, and just as enjoyable, in its own way.

So how does that relate to road driving and those seductive adverts?

Quite simply, almost every mainstream car produced since the mid 60s has more than enough performance for normal road conditions. Especially if you intend to pay at least lip service to the law! They can all keep up with other traffic, whether or not their drivers choose to, and they can all corner fast enough to spin off into the bushes.

But, to average (say) 50mph over 100 miles of A road in an Austin Alll-aggro takes far more concentration and far more skill than it does in a 5 series. If you have any concept of safety, most roads are limited by visibility and other users rather than the car's absolute limits but, for the same speeds, the Allegro will be much closer to its limits and much more of a challenge than the BMW.


In summary, anyone can drive a fast car well within its limits - which it will always be if you're driving reasonably safely on the public road. Real skill is driving a slower car at the same speed. Because of that, all the "ultimate driving delusion" does on real roads in real life is cover for the mistakes of the inept - giving a deluded illusion that you're better than you really are

Feel free to discuss.....







* Ok, they're also quite nice places to be, but that's an entirely separate discussion from driver skill

JustinR1979

I didn't read all that, but to add some balance...
I had many cavaliers, sri, v6, then calibre turbo, thought they were all great.
Then bought an E36 M3, and realised what I'd been missing - very nearly didn't buy one after seeing a 316ti with an M badge...
But kept reading reviews, and couldn't say no.
Every aspect was 10 times that of my previous cars; more expensive so no shame in that.
Then bought an E39 M5, what a car they are.
So solid, everything is just right on them.
Will do 25-165 in 5th, potter along at 30mph in 6th, and bring the traction on going from 3rd to 4th in the dry despite 275 tyres.
Never heard a door close with such a nice sound.


I always disliked bmw's, and their drivers, but you can see why they get on with it like they do, they have the car under them to do it.


Don't want to sound like that chap with the M3 and imaginary Lexus, but it all makes sense when you drive one - M cars anyway.
Next car will be a bmw, not an M as the diesels offer all the poke you need.

Joe_Horner

Oh, I quite agree that they're nice to drive - I've had 3 or 4 myself over the years and would happily have another.

My point was that they actually require less driving ability in just about any situation on the public road than "lesser" cars to get equivalent results. Which is exactly the opposite of what their "ultimate driving machine" tagline suggests

agrinnall

I also couldn't face reading it all, but a skim through didn't obviously show anything related to money saving, so perhaps this would be better in a different part of the forum, probably Discussion Time.

forgotmyname

People only choose a BMW because they stopped making the Morris Marina

vikingaero

Didn't read much of it but BMWs are attractive as a purchase 1) for the badge, 2) for the premium product, 3) for the drive 4) for good engine/CO2 combos and 5)for the good lease deals because of lower depreciation.

GabbaGabbaHey

I sort of understand what the OP is saying, but there is a certain integrity in the design, manufacture and build quality of BMWs that does raise them above a "normal" car - though it has to be said that the overall quality of cars in general has improved massively over the years so the gap is much, much smaller than it was, say, 20 years ago.

I also have an E39 M5 (and a Z4M Roadster), and what attracts me to them is how well they do everything - they flatter poor drivers, but they also let good drivers drive to the limit with much more confidence in the ability of, and feedback from, the car.

My third car is a Lexus IS250 SE-L (yes, honestly - which is why I followed the other thread with some amusement), and while it's well engineered, there is noticeably less driver involvement or enjoyment involved in driving it than the BMWs.

Yes, a good driver will get the best out of an Allegro if they have to (look at what Alonso has done with the Ferrari this year), but why would they choose to? You might be able to do a job with Rolson tools, but I bet you'd rather do it with Snap-On. You could eat Morrisons food for dinner, but would you do it if you had Waitrose available to you?

James_B.

The OP makes no sense. A Toyota IQ is far more forgiving of errors than an Elise S1, but most would agree that the Elise is the far superior "driver's" car.

Similarly, an M3 is less forgiving at the limit than a Golf, as the higher power and rear wheel drive mean that clumsy control inputs are more likely to send you off the road backwards.

darkmatter101

Joe_Horner wrote: »

My point was that they actually require less driving ability in just about any situation on the public road than "lesser" cars to get equivalent results.

Not entirely true, I'm sure a lot of drivers who are new to rear wheel drive would be quite frightened if they pushed a BMW in the wet (especially the older e36). I have seen countless BMW's spin and crash in roundabouts and sharp turns.

BMW's are deceptively quick, in that you feel like you're doing 50mph but glance at the speed dial and actually realise you're going 80. That can be quite dangerous for drivers who aren't use to powerful cars which are also refined and smooth (probably the extra sound deadening).

I think sometimes BMW take their whole motto on being 'the ultimate driving machine' a bit too seriously. They even started selling their own 'BMW Performance' parts, no other car manufacturer as far as I'm aware does that. They realised from the E36's that they have to make their cars more soft and road friendly rather than sporty. If anyone has driven the E36 that was quite a 'raw' car for what was suppose to be a 'luxury' car.

InsideInsurance

Joe_Horner wrote: »

My point was that they actually require less driving ability in just about any situation on the public road than "lesser" cars to get equivalent results. Which is exactly the opposite of what their "ultimate driving machine" tagline suggests

I agree with the first part, generally, that within the legal limits of the road they take less driving ability to drive but I dont see how that is connected to the tagline?

"Ultimate driving machine" to me doesnt mean its very hard to drive it, which seems to be what you are inferring from it, if anything I'd argue it means the opposite. To me at least the ultimate driving machine would allow you to go further with your level of skill than other vehicles can which would mean that they are in part easier to drive which seems to be what you are saying. On a secondary note I would also add the enjoyment of driving it but then different people get enjoyment from driving in different ways

thescouselander

I once owned a BMW 330 CI with the M badge and although it was a quick car it was by no means my favorite. As a day to day car it proved to be extremely unreliable and it wasn't particularly comfortable as it crashed over the put holes that seem to have developed over the last decade.

My favorite car of all time was my old Toyota MR2 MkII. Not nearly as powerful as the BMW but you could throw it round and it was a lot of fun. The seats were super comfy and it was completely reliable too so it was an excellent everyday car.

So yes, I'd agree, there's nothing special about BMWs and I'm not convinced they get you from A to B faster than any other car.