By Justin Berkowitz
April 11, 2008 - 59,888 views
History is bunk. Although cars like the Jaguar XK120, Shelby Mustang and Porsche 911 have become legends, their modern equivalents offer far superior driving dynamics. And greater reliability. And safety. But it is their "soul" that resonates: the combination of icnoclastic style and man - machine zeitgeist. So when enthusiasts (and BMW PR) started comparing the new 135i to Bimmer's venerable 2002, expectations were sky high. The reality is more like a fat guy limbo dancing under a pole raised six feet off the ground.
My paranoid-delusional theory: BMW intentionally botched the 135i. If executed properly and sold with a mid- to upper-20s price tag, the 1-Series would have eaten the 3-Series' breakfast, lunch and dinner. Not to mention the toll it would have taken on sales of the BMW-owned MINI. So The Boys from Bavaria grabbed a 3-Series, screwed it up a bit, kept the hatch for the Eurozone and said "here is your entry level car."
Even a quick glance tells you BMW doesn't believe in reincarnation. The 2002's huge greenhouse dominated its exterior. The 135i is the exact opposite. The new Bimmer's beltline rides absurdly high; an accurate indication of submariner visibility. Even by modern BMW standards, the 1-Series is a bit of an odd duck. The front end is contempo BMW, but the headlights are more cubist X3 than sleek 7-Series. The trunk looks like it's taller than it is deep. There is nothing iconic or beautiful about the 135i. It's a rolling caricature of a virtually identical car.
In fact, the 1-Series' looks like a trash-compacted 3-Series coupe. Yes, the 135i continues Chris Bangle's axles of power flame-surfaced design theme (and how). And yes, some elements are distinctly appealing. The base of the rear pillar, for example, has a lovely retro curve to it. But when compared to the form-follows-function minimalism of its alleged ancestor, the 1-Series coupe is nothing more than an automotive affectation.
The 135i's interior offers a welcome return to basics. Bargain hunters will be well pleased that the materials deployed throughout the 135i's cabin are virtually identical (in quality) to those found in the 3-Series. The 135i's dash design is considerably better. The center stack is oriented toward the driver– a BMW interior hallmark I've missed in the years since BMW realized the orthodontists leasing their cars didn't give a damn.
Dentists' chairs are more comfortable than 135i's standard-issue front seats; even if you include the drilling. The seats' inverse side bolstering places you on top of a leatherette covered hill. Continuing a less noble BMW tradition, righting this ergonomic wrong costs big bucks. That'll be $1500 for leather and another grand for sport seats– which come packaged with Shadowline Exterior Trim, an M-Leather-Wrapped Steering Wheel, Increased Top Speed Limit and all-caps spelling.
The 135i's back chairs will not accommodate anyone: you, me, children, smaller children, junior members of The Lollipop Guild or Jay Shoemaker's chihuahua. The rear accommodations are barely sufficient for a decent-sized backpack, never mind a pair of homo sapiens. Not that it matters. The 135i's front seats are mounted so close together you can't reach into the back. And now, the good news…
Thanks to its 300 horsepower turbocharged inline six, driving the 135i is like strapping yourself to a Flüssigkeitsrakete. Until you get used to the thrust, ramming the tach needle into the red line transforms the neophyte into nothing more than spam in a can, flung at the horizon by God's own right hand. BMW says the zero to sixty sprint takes just 5.1 seconds. I doubt it. It seems much faster. And yet, after a while, the 135i leaves red-blooded drivers wanting more gears, more space and a higher speed limit (see: above). It's too bad the rest of the car is just luggage.
The 135i's dynamics are distinctly "piano like." By this I mean it drives as if there's a piano strapped to the roof. And no wonder, the 135i tips the scales at 3373lbs. (When BMW and Edmunds described the 135i as the 2002's successor, they must have been talking about the 2002 model year 330i.) Even with the mighty mill motivating the mass, despite the fact that it's lighter than the equally powerful 335i, the 135i feels heavy on its feet. Don't get me wrong: there's plenty of grip. But someone forgot to add nimbleness.
The 135i's steering is a big part of the problem; its ponderousness makes turn-in an unnecessarily onerous chore. The 135i's manual transmission doesn't help matters. Like most latter day Bimmers, the clutch is a two-footer that engages with rubbery imprecision. And while the 335i has a most excellent ZF automatic transmission, the 135i does not. The smaller car's French-made six-speed auto is jerkier and more dim-witted than its big brother's cog swapper.
With the 135i, BMW decided to have its cake and ate it too. Maybe that's why the 135i is so fat. I guess BMW couldn't offer a beautiful, affordable, spirited entry level car below the 3-Series, but not have a car below the 3-Series. Rather than "make it fun" or "make it practical," BMW sent us a slightly smaller, marginally less expensive, much less attractive 3-Series. Damn it's quick. But a 2002 for 2008 it most definitely is not.
3 / 5 Stars | 2008 BMW 135i rating summary and performance review
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
More Reviews
April 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am
What I think BMW missed out on was the opportunity to offer an Audi A3, Golf GTi-eating 135i hatchback!
But then it would have lost some snob-yuppy appeal, and we all know it’s a no-no.
The coupe 1-series is really ugly, more so than most current BMWs (which is saying quite something). I rode in a 120d hatchback and was quite impressed by its driving dynamics (although I can’t compare with a 3-series). Too bad this one seems to be bungled.
$43,000 for that seems steep, even though it’s cheaper than a $50k 335i coupe. Jeez, aren’t BMW prices absurdly high nowadays?
Also, I think there’s a typo in fuel economy: 15 highway mpg with a manual for 26 with an auto? seems unlikely. And by the way, is the manual really worse in city driving than the automatic?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The aftermarket for seats, accessories and performance chips will have some wiggle room for these cars
April 11th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Typo alert! The highway mileage should be 17/25. It’s been corrected.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
$43,000 for this car???
A foreclosed and nearly abandoned home in Detroit proper would be far more amusing.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Time has dimmed memories somewhat, but in the early 70s, when I was in high school and some of my bepimpled classmates were having testosterone displays over whether the Vega or the Pinto was better (this was around the time of the Oil Embargo), my English teacher’s red 2002 seemed the epitome of exotic elegance in sporty small transport. To think, here was a car made by a company that only 30 years before was making engines for Focke-Wulf fighters that were giving fits to Spitfires and Allied bombers. It seemed like such an engineering marvel compared to Detroit’s attempts at sporty small cars, one of the contributors to the image of industrial Germany’s rise from the ashes of the 1940s.
Within a few years, I had had the chance to take some drives in other peoples’ 2002s, and even the odd 1600 here and there (which seemed just as fun, even with a smaller but lighter engine up front). It’s safe to say those drives fixed what a BMW SHOULD be in my mind. Only two liters, maybe ca. 100 hp in non-Tii mode, four speeds on the shifter, and sometimes a bum synchro in 2nd gear. But what fun!
Nowadays when I see another 3 Series on the road, I rarely think about the exotic nature of the 2002, but more likely Dan Neil’s quip that the 3s are so numerous on LA highways he decided to call them Bavarian Roaches.
I think it was simply too much to expect the 135i to be a reincarnation of that iconic BMW. Memory is a powerful thing, even if it’s a bit foggy.
It doesn’t help that even with all that the 135 has for it under the hood, it still runs north of $43k in tested trim. That red ‘71 2002 cost around $4k back then. What would the inflation adjusted price be now?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Seems we have a different take on this one as well. I drove one the same day I drove a Jag XF. Liked driving this one, didn’t care for the XF.
That said, the 135i is such an incremental change from the 335i it’s necessary to ask, “Why bother?” It is a bit quicker, and a bit more agile than an already quick and agile car. (I personally like the heavier steering.) But the differences aren’t large enough to justify a second model. Especially when so much practicality is sacrificed.
In other words, it’s an excellent driving experience, but largely because the 3 on which it is based also provides an excellent experience. Like you, I’d like to see a curb weight (much) closer to 3,000 pounds.
And so I suppose that an excellent driver’s car can at the same time be a disappointment.
With TrueDelta, I hope to have some reliability results soon, but this will depend on how quickly owners join up and participate in our research:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
April 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Well, this is faster than the Z4 coupe 3.0si and cheaper than the Z4 M-coupe. So it does have that going for it. But still, I haven’t read a positive review for the 135i yet that reaches the level of fawning that BMW usually receives.
It’s pretty sad that BMW’s giant SAC is a better vehicle than their small 300hp coupe.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:41 am
How refreshing. Finally, an auto journalist has the bravery to give the first negative review of this silly, overpriced little beast.
In my opinion, BMW should have just re-introduced its 4cyl hatchback that failed in the 1990s. The time is right for it. Now, every other manufacturer is planning 4cyl RWD cars and Bimmer is stuck with this thing.
Who wants to take bets that people will cross-shop this with the new Solstice hardtop, and choose the Pontiac? Now THAT’S embarrassing!
April 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
I wonder how this car would have turned out if BMW didn’t own Mini.
Would the 1 series have become a 4 cyl with the 128 being the top model? Could they have made it lighter?
I think as much as they didn’t want to eat away at 3 series sales, they equally didn’t want to mess with Mini and Mini Clubman sales.
So with that said - the BMW 2002, and it’s legacy are history.
I wonder what they will do with Triumph?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Wow, best review of this car I’ve read. Of course that’s only because I agree with it all. I do love BMW leatherette, though. I have fond memories of its ruggedness from my dad’s 320i. However, at this price I always find petrochemical cows a bit hard to swallow.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Thank you for that very honest assessment of a car that most dare not speak ill of. I recently had a drive in a 07 328i and the seats in that car were as you described the seats in this one. Are they the same?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
mxfive4,
I think you nailed it, with the Mini Cooper S in the product mix, there is no room for a true entry level BMW.
I’m done with BMW, at least for now. The 1992 325i was sold last night and I just dont see replacing it with a any current BMW sold in the USA. Too bad, because I loved the way that car drove and even looked, as well as the BMW motorcycle that was my first introduction to the BMW brand.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I would prefer a nicely restored 2002ti any day!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
We start the week with Jonny’s X6 review and end it with Justin’s 135i write-up.
What perfect symmetry. Proper book-ends, these.
Whether doing ubersoovie or kleincoupe, the blue propeller boys have fat and ugly down to a science.
Having seen a few 135i’s running about town already, I second Justin’s negative comments and square them. In the flesh, this car is quite possibly even more unappealing than it is in photos.
BMW. You’ve lost the plot.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am
As a younger, not-rich, driving enthusiast who also uses his car to carry quite a bit of gear now and then, the 120d has been my dream car since introduction. When BMW announced they were finally bringing the 1-series to the US, I figured my venerable ‘98 Impreza wagon might be seeing retirement sooner than later. Nope.
The car division could use a lesson from Motorrad - reasonably priced do-it-all vehicles that get great mileage yet retain fantastic driving dynamics are always best-sellers.
My BMW of choice will continue to be the F650GS.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Ok, one quip with the review, the rear seats are not that bad. I sat comfortably behind a 5′10″ driver. Ok, I’m not what you would call a large man but the rear seat room is not on the Audi TT, Porsche 911 level, it is a real seat.
Unfortunately I haven’t driven this yet, but I see where you are coming from. I can’t argue with the overly fat argument or the stlying issues. When comparing this car to what it should have been it falls short. However, having driven a 335i, I can’t imagine that it isn’t simply awesome. Anything wrapped around that engine would be awesome, much less a 335i minus 200lbs of bulk. Plus, with some basic aftermarket tweaks like an LSD and a chip there are very few cars that will be able to run with the 135i including the new M3. Start throwing carbon fiber and other lightweight components on it and it will be all that it should have been and more. Hopefully, BMW will do this for us and come out with the 135tii or a 123tii turbo.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I was really looking forward to this review, but now I feel somewhat disillusioned. I wanted to like this car. Admittedly, I’m no BMW expert nor historian, so the attachment they claim to the 2002 has little effect on me. I’m wondering if the car would be better-received if they didn’t pimp heritage so much in the ads. Still, at this price, an entry level performance coupe ought to be free of any critics. Disappointing…
April 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Clarkson gave the coupe 5 stars. Pity, I had hoped BMW knew what it was doing, that somehow the 1 series overcame the flaws on paper.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Mr. Berkowitz, thank you for not pulling our the BMW free pass like so many other publications and writers have done. I disliked reading all the hype in the run-up to the US release of this car and I’m glad to hear the opinions of someone willing to go against the grain.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I still haven’t seen one in person, but the more photos I see of the 1 the less I like it. It’s basically a 9/10 scale 3 series, but the sedan not the coupe. It offers no real reason to buy it, because everything including size, weight, and cost are 9/10s a 3 series.
And the new 3 series is a beautiful design to me, they just nailed the coupe’s proportions. Why bother getting a 1, get a 3!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Lest we forget that there is a substantial class of no-nothing young (under 35) lawyers, doctors, and consultants getting paid close or more than 200K per year. The kind of people who get new Blackberrys & I-pods phones every six months, have the latest flat screen tvs, use too much hair gel, think that a $500 bar/restaurant tab for a Friday nite is par for the course, have monthly rents in the thousands, and thrive on competing with each other.
BMW has nailed the demographic once again. If BMW were concerned with bringing a fresh, quirky, and interesting product to North America, we would have gotten a 128 1-series hatch (or as others have mentioned a 120d) or something. Nope, that’s not what the yuppies want. Fast or SUV.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Sounds from the review like this is a BMW designed by people who take the bus to work. Competent and reliable, good on-paper performance stats (it is a BMW, after all), but with all the soul of a primer-gray Trabant in base trim.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I’m an under 25 year old consultant and I wouldn’t be caught dead in this thing. If someone is trying to ‘compete’ with his car, an ugly, compact, poor-man’s 3-Series isn’t going to impress many people. Neither will any of the ubiquitous 3-Series models, with the exception of the M3 in certain enthusiast circles
April 11th, 2008 at 11:58 am
So the other night, I pulled out the pictures of my old BMWs…my 1974 2002 is still the car that calls the most to my inner-car lust. Even though it was a 21 year old car when I bought it, that car was just…just…right. I also owned a Euro-spec 318i (E30, thank you)…minimalist, light on it’s feet, and thanks to some slight handling mods, cornered like nobody’s business. Moved up to a 1993 325is..and then my lifelong love affair with BMW pretty much dried up. Bangle ruined it for me. Sure, my wife and I are still looking at a Z3 down the road to play with, but that’s it. I had high hopes for the little (relatively speaking, obviously) 1-series. If it had come out several hundred pounds lighter, perhaps with a blown four cylinder somewhere in the low $20s, I’d be considering one. But damn…$43k for a slightly shrunken 3-series? With the X6 and now this, one has to wonder what the folks over at Bayrische Motoren Werke are thinking? Then again, maybe they know the American market TOO well and will sell a gazillion of these beasts…just not to me. Now excuse me while I go back to day dreaming about my days in the good ol’ 2-double oh-2.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
In the end, the only reason to get this car is for the hatchback. Oops, can’t get the hatch in the US.
Anyone looking to buy one of these would be better off with the 3. It will cost you less in the long run, because the 3 is going to hold it’s value better.
If they would bring a lighter, more economical, but still fun to drive car to the plate, they could find a new set of customers at a time they really need them. Instead of a homerun, they took the walk.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I’m confused by a couple of sentences in this review:
The 2002’s huge greenhouse dominated its exterior design; the airy cockpit made the car feel a lot smaller than its dimensions indicated.
How did its air cockpit make it feel smaller? Wouldn’t it have made it feel bigger than its compact dimensions would have suggested?
Bargain hunters will be pleased that the materials deployed throughout the 135i’s cabin are virtually to those found in the 3-Series.
Virtually what? Identical?
A decent sized backpack back is just about out of the question.
Back there?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
wow, didn’t realize this one doesn’t have the ZF transmission… so much for having a solid drivetrain. good engine, though.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
omnivore :
Point two and three (the 1-Series’ interior’s similarity to the 3-Series and the backpack issue) were my bad. I’ve edited the text to clarify.
Justin will address the other question.
[NB: After complaints from several commentators, in the interests of editorial transparency, TTAC will no longer remove comments that point out our errors after we've fixed the text. Unless the mistakes are so completely dumb they make us look like total idiots.]
April 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I had the BMW 2000, which was a 4-door big brother to the 2002. Great engine and the best clutch I have ever experienced in a car. Not the best looking car, though. It was roomy, quiet, and handled great. Plenty of power once the smog pump was disabled. The seats weren’t particularly bolstered but were super comfortable. I used to set the valve clearance just to admire the beautiful head cover casting. I rate that 2000 as arguably the best car I have ever owned. Only bug in the years I owned it was a front wheel bearing. I finally traded it on a new 260Z.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The 2002 was easier to get in and out of as well. I was shocked when I looked at this car at how uncomfortable I was.
My mistake, though. I’d just looked at Minis and the Smart. They were nice and roomy.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I rented a 318i 4 door sedan (salloon) in the UK about 7 years ago while I was there on vacation, and it was civilized (civilised?) and competent. It had a usable amount of power, not excessively stupid.
Four cylinders. Automatic. Four doors. Green. But, BMW! (At the rental agency in Scotland, they obviously said to themselves “American…. give him the automatic” when they didn’t know I learned how to drive on two stick shift cars, a 1973 VW Beetle and a 1973 GMC Sprint SS 454 with rock-crusher).
We need the four cylinder BMW’s here, BMW. In both the 1 series (for singletons with no passenger needs) and 3 series.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
After the hype for this car, I still didn’t get it. The distance between this and the 3er, as noted in other comments, won’t appeal to the status-seeking crowd, and those looking for a budget BMW aren’t served, unless the $36k base price is more common than for other BMWs.
The spirit of lightweight fun lives on in the Mini, Miata, and Elise/Exige. The Germans won’t reprise the 2002 or the GTI, with their original spirits, any time soon. Plaid doesn’t make you look thin with what, 3300lbs of ass to haul?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
This car IS a slightly shortened 3 series. And who started all that 2002 stuff? If it was BMW, it was pure marketing hype. If it was the bimmer fans, they have only themselves to blame.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
IMHO, as I’ve been saying for months, they screwed the pooch by not offering the 5-door hatchback:
1. The layout is already being lapped up by buyers of the Mazda3, 4-door GTI, or Impreza/WRX. The old “Americans don’t want hatchbacks” thing is dying quickly.
2. They removed the rear doors and cargo room, which MIGHT have made the car better overall and at least offered a layout that the 3-series doesn’t really have.
The whole idea of an 90%-scale 3-series seems ridiculous to me, especially when it’s not designed as some kind of lightweight stripper version.
Agreed wholeheartedly that the market is ready for a new incarnation of the old 318ti.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I test drove a 128 last weekend and came away with a more positive impression. My impressions: LOOKS: Better in person than in the pics, Tight and agressive. It made the 3 series coupe parked next to it look like a soft porker. INTEROR: fantastic! Beautiful leather and a high quality look. Nice traditional look without being overstyled. No cheap silver plastic (are you listening Lexus, Acura?) Sport Seats are a must.I found them comfortable. Backseats are useless as expected. POWER: Good, but will not overly impress. Did not care for the 6 speet AT. It was a little too busy for me. I would take the manual. RIDE: I liked it. It wasn’t harsh and road noise was not excessive. HANDLING: I didn’t have the opportunity to push it. Better than my 4Runner! OTHER: Options are expensive! choose with care or the car will cost alot. I would take this over a 3 series.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
It doesn’t help that even with all that the 135 has for it under the hood, it still runs north of $43k in tested trim. That red ‘71 2002 cost around $4k back then. What would the inflation adjusted price be now?
Assuming an average annual inflation of 3%, $12,000.
Based on the review, I’m surprised this expensive, fat, ugly, but somehow small (it takes talent to combine those three attributes in a single automobile) car got three stars.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Maybe we Americans (for the most part) are the the tacky, tasteless, boring, soulless, bunch that will simply drive any stupid 3box car or SUV with a designer badge on the hood, that the rest of the world see us as.
Maybe we do “give it up so easy” that automakers like BMW know that they dont even need to try hard to please us.
Maybe we are that frivolous with our cash that BMW and the like know that they easily make madd profit on silly items like navigation systems that they sell for $2000 but can be had in the local Target for $500. In the meantime cut numerous little corners on their cars to the point were they ARE actually nothing more than RWD Accords.
Hell even Toyota know that it does not take much if any effort to make a buck in the USA. Americans dont pay attention to jack so build one extremely nice model and than bait and switch with much lower quality. “Hey its a Toyota, right” Not for nothing but GM, Ford, and Chysler got away with that crap for half a century!
Hatchbacks??? Why, Americas will simply take out a second mortgage and buy a second car like any SUV. No better yet they will drive a $50,000 6000lb luxury SUV and than pay someone to deliver whatever they buy but refuse to dirty their “truck” up with.
Make a crappy little sub-compact with build quality less than a Civic or Fit call it a Mini and fools in America will spend $30,000 on a $15,000 car!
This is America folks and those 1 series will sell. They are arriving just in time to maintain sales as the 3 series is becoming to expensive for America. They will also allow 3 series posers to feel better that they have now moved up the BMW foodchain by default.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Umm…yeah. I think I’ll go back to pining for that Evo MR.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Good job Justin - the best review I have read of this car yet.
What a wasted opportunity the 135 coupe is. I have been renting 120d hatchbacks in Europe ever since they became available and love them. Practical, economical, a flexible engine for urban driving and a bag of fun to drive. The 120d hatch is a great all-round package. The 135 coupe is neither practical, nor economical and is resting the defense of it’s $45 price tag entirely on its performance which comes up short.
If you want pocket rocket performance then an STi, EVO, RX-8, 350Z or R32 Golf can get you as many or more thrills for less money. I never thought I’d say this but the 135 makes the Audi A3 3.2 look like a sensible choice.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I think BMW product planners felt had trouble “defining” the 1-series - especially in US trim.
On the one hand, the car had to be different, a real alternative to the 3-series that would possibly a attract younger busyers the brand. On the other, both the 128i and the 135i had to be every bit a BMW, with inline 6 engines and hallmark BMW handling. Most of all, the execs in Munich were determined not to repeat the 318ti hatchback experiment characterized by an underwhelming car that slightly tainted what a BMW in America was supposed to be.
Long story short, both the 135i and 128i are too expensive BMW missed a real opportunity to offer a lighter 1-series that was still every bit of a BMW but could be had well-optioned for about $30k. At that price point, it would have been king vs. the Audi A3 2.0T, the Acura TSX’s and the Volvo C30. It’s hard to say what class the 1-series is in, and who it will compete with. As exciting as the 135i maybe, don’t be surprised if the 128i sells it by a good margin. The only way to justify the 1-series is by buying a lightly optioned 128i with a manual and calling it a day.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
When I see a BMW. there are only 3 things that come into my mind.
1. It is from Germany
2. Horspower
and
3.still a Bimmer.
Look at the Driver’s Cockpit it so plain and boring. A $40,000 car is just too much to bear.
I can buy 2 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS fully loaded with 650 watts system w/ sub-woofer, Navigation system,Paddle shifter,17 inch wheels, heated leather seats, CVTransmission etc etc for 17,850 and I can beat a 3 series in 4.5 a seconds in 0-60 and also you can buy 1 used Kia with 6 cd player, foglights and much more.
Who wants a Bimmer? Not me
April 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
A $40,000 entry-level car? Ugly, cramped and too heavy? What were they thinking??
April 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
It doesn’t help that even with all that the 135 has for it under the hood, it still runs north of $43k in tested trim. That red ‘71 2002 cost around $4k back then. What would the inflation adjusted price be now?
per the infaltion calculator I found,
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
What cost $4000 in 1971 would cost $21140.12 in 2007.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I think I did the right thing buying a MINI. Same problems with the back seats, but at least the leather sport seats were cheaper, and are really, really nice. And coming in well under $30K for a fairly loaded up car that drives/handles great. And I am getting just over 40MPG with mostly highway driving.
A 5 door hatch on a small scale would have been very cool. But, if BMW had done some sort of hatch, it could have bit into sales of tricked out MINI S’s and and the Clubman. Besides, their last hatch version in the 3 series flopped so badly the remaining few on the road are probably collectible.
If I had $45 to spend on a car, the 1-series wouldnt be it…
April 11th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The poor base seats remind me of the ignition system: the default configuration is lousy, so you have to pony up for the expensive upgrade.
For those who haven’t witnessed the stupidity of the BMW ignition sequence… you insert a “key” into the dashboard and then
turn it to start the engine like in any normal carpush a different button located above the key to start the car. Turning off involves the needless multi-operation sequence in reverse. Or, instead, you can pay an extra $500 for a proximity sensor that means you don’t have to insert the key… just push the start button. Well, there is one good thing: BMW finally stopped hiding the key slot behind the steering wheel.April 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Wow…just wow. I don’t know how many people are just utterly missing this car.
The looks, I’ll grant. It’s not a natural car. Ugly? I don’t think so, personally. But it’s not classic. It’s not sexy. But then again, I don’t think the 2002 is either, either.
But everything else? My god people.
For $35k, you can now get into one of the most perfect drivetrains known to man. The 6-speed trans in this car is supposed to be a slightly revised version of the 335i (mainly has a shorter shifter). I’ve driven the 335…which was damn near perfect and could perhaps use a shorter shfiter.
The suspension layout is identical. The car now has regenerative braking and superior brakes.
In an age in which young buyers are throwing down 35k for STIs and EVOs (and I don’t see a shortage of them), BMW has offered a car that can outperform both of them on dry roads and racetracks. And let’s face it, the people who buy the STI and EVO “because it has 4 doors” are few and far between.
The interior is e90 +25%. Functional cupholders? Check. Slightly more driver oriented? Check. Cleaner design and execution. Here it is!
If you’ve ever raved about the 335, if you’ve ever gone to bmwusa.com and priced one out just for fun, if you’ve ever told yourself you don’t need 4-doors, then you should love this car.
It’s the 3-series with a step taken towards the sportier side of the horizon. Shorter, 200 pounds less (lets face it, that’s a ton of weight less in this day and age), a little less refined in the guttural way.
Why is it the 2002 reborn? It’s not. But it’s BMW taking a step towards the 2002. Less expensive, less big, and all the important stuff has been given to it or improved upon (i.e. 6-piston front brakes, better rear diff power control).
And here we are 40+ comments into a mediocre review of this car, lamenting it.
I’m proud of BMW for taking this risk. I hope it does so well that they continue it and bring the 5-door hatchback version. I think it’s a glorious car with the disadvantage of now being as good looking as the e90 coupe, but being better performer.
Those who deride the 1 but praise the 335i coupe, suspend your pistonhead priveleges. You have succumbed to negativity about auxiliary subjects, and ignored the performance capabilities.
Joe
April 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Omnivore-
How did its air cockpit make it feel smaller? Wouldn’t it have made it feel bigger than its compact dimensions would have suggested?
Good question. What I meant was that the airy cockpit made the car feel like it had more space inside, but that the exterior of the car was a compact and easily managed size. With lots of glass in the 2002, you could see all the way around you, see the corners of the car, the road, etc.
On the other hand, the 1-Series is cramped inside but because it’s like looking out from a pillbox, it’s difficult to tell where the bumpers end, and the car just seems to overwhelm you.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
The 1er as sold everywhere except North America comes as a 3-door (think Golf) and 5-door (think A3). Why in the heck BMW didn’t bring THOSE cars here is beyond me. Instead, they brought a 135i here and totally screwed the pooch.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Our stateside aversion to hatchbacks is what made this car look like the goofy rolling caricature it is. Executed as a 5-door hatch (like the rest of the world sees), it’s a striking design. As a 2-door coupe, it’s plain awkward.
The value/weight/size/power cyclic continuum of despair needs no further discussion in its absurdity. I will say though that the “piano” snick made me spit milk through my nose.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Forty-Three Tousand Dollars???
Forty-Three Thousand?
Really? F-O-R-T-Y T-H-R-E-E?
With plastic seat covers?
There are BMW suckers born every minute.
Thanks, I’ll take a G35S any day.
Rubes.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
It’s as though they were too lazy to actually design an entry-level car, so they just shrank the 3-series, kept most of the mechanicals, then realized they couldn’t sell it at an entry-level price.
At that point, any sensible auto-exec should have killed the project, or redesigned from the ground up. What a travesty! Of course, the bigger travesty will occur when people actually pay $40G for this half-breed.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Personally, although a fan of hatchbacks I don’t mind the idea of a coupe, as long as it’s well done.
The problem with the 1 series, but also so many other cars these days, is that it’s not so much a 3 box design as a 2 1/2 boxer. Or maybe 2 1/3? The rear decklids are getting so foreshortened that you might as well have a hatch, then at least the rear deck opening would be large enough to actually place something inside the trunk without going through contortions to do so.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’m sure this seemed like a pretty good idea when oil wasn’t $100 per barrel and the dollar was worth something.
But now, the car doesn’t make much sense. The US-dollar-is-worthless-based price point will limit demand to a very small group. Although that might be a good thing, because it’s really debatable whether BMW should be selling a car to Americans that is slotted below a 3-series. It wouldn’t be great for the brand to have a popular, cheap alternative to the 3, when it’s the 3 that is supposed to be the popular, cheap alternative to the 5, 6 and 7.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Zarba -
43k is the 135i with sport package, premium package, navigation, and cold weather package.
35k gets you a 135i
35k also can get you an STI.
Rubes aplenty.
Joe
April 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
It was BMW. Their advertising and their website were proclaiming the 1 series as the second coming of the 02. Which, naturally, got the 02 folks excited. I should know - I’m one of them. I have a 73Tii, and it is a crazy amount of fun. 2100lbs and 130HP.
Yes, the 135 is a ton faster than my Tii, but it’s not going to be anywhere as nimble or tossable.
I was really looking forward to the 1. I don’t mind the lack of practicality. I prefer small cars, even for a given price. The 1 series price is a bit high, but I might be willing to pay it if - if - it weighed 400 lbs less. 3400 lbs is a joke. My E34 5 series weighs 3400 lbs.
I’m right in the target market for this car. Under 30, driving enthusiast, and make OK money. But there’s no way I’m buying one.
I’d love the Mini CooperS if its design weren’t so cartoony. Won’t somebody make a serious small car? RWD? Please? Maybe the Audi A1 will save the day. But I’m not holding my breath.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
With the 135i, BMW had its cake and ate it too. Maybe that’s why the 135i is so fat.
Genious.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I used to own a 318ti, which was kind of a funny looking car, but got great gas mileage, had plenty of interior room and drove/handled great. I’d been looking forward to the 1-series ever since I sold that car back in ‘03. Now that BMW Bangled-up their cars, dropped the 4-banger from their arsenal and forgot about the importance of practicality, I’ll be looking at the Audi A3 to fill the void that BMW left behind.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Or you can think of it as a little bit lighter, a little bit faster, more agile 335i for $5,900 less. All depends on what you are looking for in a car.
Lets see if you had an option to make a car handle less crisp, weigh more and be a bit slower and it only cost you about $6k would you check that option off as a must have?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
@ Joe O
“In an age in which young buyers are throwing down 35k for STIs and EVOs (and I don’t see a shortage of them), BMW has offered a car that can outperform both of them on dry roads and racetracks.”
That has yet to be seen. Only a comparo can determine that.
To get the 1-series the way you want, (in fighting form against the Evo/STI) it will cost at least $40k. The Evo and the STI will undercut that by $1-7k depending on whether you get the Evo or STI and what options you plan to tack on. The $35k 1-series will not have the blown inline-6 and will make 250-260hp. Potent, but you can still get a 300 horse Subie or Mitsu for less than $40k.
The Evo will pull .97g, 1-series pulls .91g and the STI pulls .90g. All three will do 5.0 seconds or less to 60mph depending on who’s driving (I didn’t mention 1/4 times as people seem to remember 0-60 better).
On paper at least, the 1-series isn’t out performing either of Nihons brightest at this pricepoint.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
John,
A few things.
Automobile Mag tested a 335xi 6-speed vs. the STI and Evo. The 335xi won.
That car is ~500 pounds heavier than a 135i and does not offer the sport suspension (all wheel drive BMWs don’t offer BMW’s sport suspension).
It wasn’t a blow out. But it’s enough for me to say, comfortably, that the 135i with sports suspension, shorter length, ~500 pounds less, and less drivetrain sap will not have a problem taking them on :)
I don’t know exactly where your pricing information is coming from. The 135i 6-speed starts at ~$35k. The sport package is around $1000 and only really adds sport seats and a steering wheel…the car already has the sport suspension stock.
Every STI I’ve seen in a showroom (which has been most of them so far, since I just bought a Subaru Legacy GT), has had a sticker price of $38k. Destination and a few options are a bear.
Oh yeah, and the 335i has shown consistently better quarter mile times than the new STI or EVO (which have grown fat on the teat of a civilized ride).
By the way, that imaginary 250-260 HP 1-series for 35k? I think you must be referring to the 128i, which starts at 30k and offers 230 HP.
Pull it together if you are going to decry.
Joe
April 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The sad truth is if there is ever to be a true spiritual successor to the 2002, it will probably take Mazda to bring it to life. BMW just doesn’t remember how anymore.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Count me as another person who would like the 5 door hatchback 1 series and the 4 cylinder engines in the US. A low horsepower light car is more fun than a high horsepower heavy one.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
The problem is there’s no chrome luggage rack for the back deck. Then that piano would have a place to sit.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
All the talk about the 1 Series being expensive is correct. The reason why is the US$. If it had not just tanked, the US$ price would be 10 odd percent less.
Over time some of the competition will come up in price as current rates inflate prices. BMW had the chance to put the adjusted price on this one right away.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I have to admit, this car is kinda ugly. Looks like an escape pod for yuppies to flee a stricken, burning 7-series in style.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@whatdoiknow1: [...]
+1
Lovely rant, by the way. Agree 100%.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I’m late to this train… but on the other hand, I was early too.
Remembering my review of the 118i back in May of 2007
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/reviews/bmw-118i-review/
and subsequent drives, I liked the 1-series a lot more than you did, Justin. It felt small yet uncramped, well-balanced, practical and useful to me. (And it didn’t have those nasty runflat tires, either).
But I didn’t like the 130i I sat in at the Frankfurt motor show in September. It seemed over-equipped and strange, what with all the gadgets and pimped-up features. Your review confirms my impression of the US version. I agree with what othe, quicker commentators have said here: the 118, 120, 120d are interesting and appropriate cars, but the faster versions seem pointless and overwrought — tantamount to a SS Chevy.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“For $35k, you can now get into one of the most perfect drivetrains known to man.”
Man, if only it wasn’t attached to that car.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Wow. Well, I was looking forward to this review; a bit of humour, some irreverency and ultimately the straight scoop - just how I like it from you guys. And what do we get; a BMW hater! Why do I say that?
Well, for one thing, anyone that compares it to the 2002 is just falling prey to marketing gimmicks developed by half-wits. Second, let’s not stretch the truth about the stats. Reality is that the car can be had with 6MT, sport seats, sport suspension for $36.5K. And third, and this is critical, there are no other actual $37K cars that will beat this in any of the performance tests except maybe the Mitsubishi from 0-60. What’s this about 0-60 in 5.4? C&D tested in 4.7? Are they driving the ’souped’ up 135i? And then there are the ‘useless’ back seats; a couple of posts pointed that out here, they are small (no kidding) but not that small. Kids will fit, and 6 foot adults will fit. The latter less comfortably, the former just fine. But if the author thinks that this car is being bought to carry four adults (or any type of family unit for more than treks around town) he doesn’t understand the likely purchaser.
Finally, I’ll say this. I’ve driven the 335i and the 135i back to back. There is no way, that I’d spend another $5K to get the bigger, slower, and generally not any more practical 2 door 335i. If you’re talking 4 doors, different car category, no point comparing apples to oranges. Oh yeah, and then there’s the R32. Slow and available only as an automatic. G37s? Smaller inside, slower outside.
Show me a better performing, more fun(135i has 300ft-lb torque <2K RPM), 2 door, 6MT coupe for $36.5K and I might change my mind. End of day, it’ll be hard to find that car from those currently on lots.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I saw one of these in the flesh for the first time yesterday. It looks worse in real life. The back end looks like they simply took a foot of the trunk to get a shorter car, and failed to change the adjacent styling cues to match. Very awkward.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
First may I say what an excellent review. I wonder how one website can get it so wrong (with the X6 review) and nail it with this review, all in the same week. Go figure.
I also was waiting for this Beemer to come out. Owning a 2004 Honda Accord Coupe EX M6 I was looking forward to changing to a spirited BMW entry level machine. Nope, this car belongs to the orthodontists spoilt college kid, and there it will stay…forever.
I have to wonder at car companies, Ford had the great Mustang, yet keeps churning out clones that poorly mimic the spirit of the original. BMW had the 2002, something that us baby boomers consider an iconic vehicle. Yet, they keep missing the opportunity to capatilize on it. We loved BMW then, we thought you got us, us millions of buyers who know auto-soul when they see it. When will BMW produce an affordable drivers car that leaves a permanant grin and nostalgic memories? Not this time, I guess it will be another four years looking at this marketing mistake before we get another chance.
One last comment about this Beemer, has anyone ever heard the saying, ‘the horse was designed by a single person, the camel by a committee’?
Anyone have an idea what I should look forward to next? And don’t say the Challenger or Camaro (that is living in the past).
April 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Show me a better performing, more fun(135i has 300ft-lb torque <2K RPM), 2 door, 6MT coupe for $36.5K and I might change my mind.
Then again, six months after purchase you might decide that raw numbers aren’t everything and there are more pleasing cars to be had for that kind of scratch. Stranger things have happened.
April 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
It’s probably still a great car although certainly awkwardly placed in the market. But it looks like they drew half the car, then realized they forgot to include a greenhouse and so at the last minute someone at the factory made one without seeing the rest of the car. And then someone kicked in the rear fender.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Joe: I really agree with you. I really like the car too but the price is giving me chest pains. I’m too tight to buy a new normal car much less than this much nicer car.
The comments here sound like the BMW-anti-fans have arrived.
April 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Busbodger - I just bought a Subaru Legacy GT 5-speed for 24,500. Perforated leather, heated power seats, 243 HP/241 TQ, AWD, a practical driver-oriented interior, and all the good stuff standard. It’s my wife’s car, it met all her needs too.
Genuine driving cars can still be had for the cost of a Honda Accord EX 4-cylinder….
Ironically, ~3 years ago I bought a new ‘05 Saab 9-2x Aero (WRX Wagon) for 18,500 w/ a 5-speed and heated seats. Traded it in after 9000 miles for more than I bought it for…
Hopefully we keep the LGT :)
Do I think the 135i is worth 35k? No. I don’t think the STI or EVO is either. Is it possible I’ll lease one to have the enjoyment of owning such a wonderful drivetrain/suspension/braking/steering system at least once? Yes :)
By the way, I’d expect better fuel economy numbers out of the 135 than those ratings. It has better aerodynamics than the 335i (less frontal area), less weight, regenerative braking, etc….
I’d think 19/27 or so myself.
Joe
April 11th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
zbladejr: And what do we get; a BMW hater!
Let's not play the "negative review automatically means bias" game. I don't hate BMWs; on the contrary, I own one (a 2007 M Coupe).
Second, let’s not stretch the truth about the stats. Reality is that the car can be had with 6MT, sport seats, sport suspension for $36.5K.
The price as tested is just that; the price of the car tested. But you're absolutely right - you can indeed get a 135i for $36,600, as long as you're willing to forgo leather seats, metallic paint, power seats, etc. Since my dailer driver GTI has none of these things, I'm not particularly bothered. But some people are.
You also mentioned "the type of person" getting the 1-Series, and I think that's important to touch on because it goes to price. The sticker price only goes so far. The majority of the 1-Series sold in the US are going to be leases. And at least right now, it's more expensive to lease than a 335i.
What’s this about 0-60 in 5.4? C&D tested in 4.7? Are they driving the ’souped’ up 135i?
I had intended to list BMW's 0-60 estimate, which I incorrectly quoted as 5.4; what they publish is 5.1, and the article is corrected to reflect that. I can't speak for C&D's methods in this case, but buff books' test methods are hardly clinical. They stick a pro or semi-pro driver behind the wheel on a track on a clear day, do 10 0-60 runs, and then pick the best one and publish that - not an average of the times, not a real road, not an average driver.
And seriously, press cars (not necessarily from BMW) have a long history of being souped up for the journalists.
There is no way, that I’d spend another $5K to get the bigger, slower, and generally not any more practical 2 door 335i.
And that is why this is lose lose for BMW. Either people are turned off by the car (me, and tremendously disappointed as I had really high hopes for it), or they save $5000 and buy the 135i. Which is $5000 of profit for BMW right out the window. I respect your opinion, and certainly the 135i is not a bad car in my opinion. I just felt like it was a much less attractive, somewhat less expensive 3-Series. But the real issue is that I didn't find it fun to drive, straight line acceleration notwithstanding.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
What’s hard to understand about all the Bangle-ugly, expensive, iDrive-equipped new BMWs is that, apparently, they’re still selling well enough. For its hefty price and stilted appearance, I can’t see the 1-series as being any different. Someone’s likely going to be buying them.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Agree on negativity with this vehicle offering. They could have brought in delicious 4cyl gas or diesel, and hatch but don’t want to be down market in USA. Its a 6 cyl company now, in USA.
Its for sure not a 2002.
2002 was up-engined 1500/1600/1800. These were the break through that saved BMW in Europe. Its not a 1502. Which it should be. For me, not to save BMW they don’t need saving anymore.
2002 was breakthrough for US market but the company was already saved.
2002 weighed 2200 lbs. i.e. 1,100 lbs less than this porker. Thats umm three 365 pound (!!!) passengers standing by curb in 2002, or wedged in with driver in 135i. Or 14 sacks of cement weighing 80lbs each.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_2002tii
2002 had compliant suspension- major part of break through, and nice steering, another revelation.
$4,000 in 1974? Ignore general inflation, all lies from US Government. Look at what a Camaro cost then. $3100-$3700
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/chevrolet-camaro8.htm
OK you give up smog V8, solid axle/leaf springs, and horrible interior, you give up likely 1,000 weight, pay say $500 more. So it was 10-15% more expensive than a Camaro.
OK the 2002 aged quickly, rusted, and had maintenance intensive engine management system in USA.
They could make a new 2002 without these flaws and I would pay what its worth. I don’t want a mini or a new 3 series.
The closest to 2002 in the US market is Mazda3. Its too heavy but closest thing. Mazda2 is closer and I cant wait to see if ford will put ugly grill on the US Fiesta.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
#Justin Berkowitz : Thank you for giving a fresh break from the overly-glowing “All hail the 135i” reviews circulating in magazines and blogs. Your review may be the first one I’ve read where negatives aren’t glossed over in favor of the positives.
In defense of the 1-series’ heft, it clocks in within a few pounds of the late-model 350Z and appears to be much lighter than the G37, while remaining in that price range. All of these cars offer similar performance as well. In defense of the 1-series price point, a 135i is priced in line with the G37 coupe and mid-level 350Z. I don’t think power seats, leather and metallic paint are dealbreakers for most enthusiasts. Even if BMW made the M-Sport package an option, the 1-series’ price would remain contentious with many people.
Regarding a four cylinder, hatchback and/or diesel offering in the US, I imagine a lot of those same people would complain about BMW reaching too down-market, deride the the hatchback styling, and gripe about the 4-cylinder’s lack of power.
With all the rumors of BMW developing a turbo four-cylinder, an ideal 1-series for most of us would be a ~200hp, 2800-3000lb car with a real limited slip. Deep in my heart, I know if BMW created and sold that 1-series in the US, I would still find something to complain about. Probably the reliability.
# Paul Niedermeyer :
Bloggers and BMW bloggers started the whole 2002 thing. It’s a prominent feature in their promotional literature.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Hey, its the new boxster!!!
April 11th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Huh? This “baby” Bimmer weighs more than my minivan…
April 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
@ Joe O
I’m not surprise Automobile chose the the 1-series. They’re almost biased against Japanese auto when in comaprison to anything from Germany. Also, they’ve lost any credibility with me when its editor-in-chief extolled the virtues of the Jeep Compass…for a Chrysler commercial.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/automobile-editor-jean-jennings-stars-in-jeep-pimpatorial/
Price. Road & Track tested the Evo against the STI. The Evo GSR had an as tested price of $33k and the STI $39k. As Justin Berkowitz noted, to get the 1-series the way you want it you ARE going go over $36k.
So what did Automobile find out? The 135i only performs marginally better than, not “outperforms” the Evo and STI.
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/0804_2008_mitsubishi_lancer_evo_2008_subaru_wrx_sti_2008_bmw_335xi/index.html
Maybe you should post a link to that article because that looks like a 335xi.
Anyway, what kills the 1-series for me is the fact that its is no real value. The Evo and STI are at least useful.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I just don’t see the point in this car. It is not much cheaper/lighter than a 3-series. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad car - but other than people streeeeeetching their lease budgets to get a BMW badge, who is going to want one of these?
If BMW made a lighter and less expensive car than the 3-series because they were aiming at a performance benchmark, most buyers (esp. the kind that read this site) would applaud. I would say, “Leave out all the iDrive and power doo-dads and hit the target you are aiming at.” But this car doesn’t seem like BMW was doing that, this seems like they said, “Let’s make a slightly cheaper car so we can get a few more, slightly well-heeled buyers into a BMW.” So they did that and got this car that is barely lighter and marginally quicker than a 3-series - that is no reason for a whole new model. It seems “un-purposeful” - the very opposite of what (I have always assumed) BMW was all about.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
As a Canadian, I’m suffering from sticker envy. An STI here starts at $45K and a base LGT is over $40K. With salaries being so similar and the US/CAN dollars almost at par, can you imagine spending $40K+ for the BASE 1-series?
April 11th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Wow…each time I post a comment I have to correct people on here for some misinformation.
Justin Berkowitz - You said, “And at least right now, it’s more expensive to lease than a 335i.” …
The current lease rates on a 135i are:
71% residual for 24 months, .00258 money factor
58% residual for 36 months, .00258 money factor
Lease rates on a 335i sedan (which costs less than the coupe and has better rates):
71% residual for 24 months, .00210 money factor
58% residual for 36 months, .00210 money factor
Either way you run the calculations, the 135i is 4k less and is therefore less to lease. By the way, all the above numbers are for 15k miles per year leases.
John R. -
Reread my original statement; I said that the Automobile magazine put them on a track and the 335xi beat the EVO and STI. I then went on to say that the 335xi does not have the sport suspension (which the 135i comes standard with…), the 335xi weighs 500 pounds more, and the 135 is several inches shorter in overall length and has less drivetrain sap from less overall drivetrain.
Therefore, my money is on the 135i significantly widening the track-gap on the similarly priced Evo and STI. People are commenting that you “can’t get a 135 how you want it for 35k”. Ok. I’d want it with the sport package. Now it’s 36.5k. It comes with a driver’s side power seat (IIRC) and I know it comes with adaptive xenons and a strong stereo.
I drive a 2006 Honda Civic SI. I see the 135i as a car in a similar vein, in that it’s a small coupe directed towards corner carving (and better at grand touring than mine).
It’s not a “value car”, true, but neither is a Cayman, Z4 Coupe, etc….
Joe
April 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I drive a 2006 Honda Civic SI. I see the 135i as a car in a similar vein, in that it’s a small coupe directed towards corner carving (and better at grand touring than mine).
You forgot the $14,000 plus LESS part for the Si
April 12th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Also regarding leases:
While you may be right with regards to residuals and money factors between the 1 and 3 series BMW, a dealer friend I know who sells BMW, tells me he can get me into a 3 series coupe cheaper than he can a 1 series coupe.
He also says that the salesmen hate the 1 series.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Did this author actually DRIVE the car?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Did this author actually DRIVE the car?
Is this a test? He found it to be fast, but it felt like a piano was strapped to it and the steering was excessively heavy.
Did I pass?
April 12th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Yeah, but the difference is that I would buy the car you described - even if there were a few things to complain about - since no car is perfect. I won’t buy the 135. So, from BMW’s perspective, they lost a sale. Although it seems like they don’t care about the enthusiast anymore. (fun fact: the E34 5 series, in addition to weighing about the same as a 135, actually DOES have a real limited-slip differential).
And let’s everybody stop with the talk about BMW-haters. I’ve owned 4 of them. Just because I won’t prostrate myself in front of anything with a roundel doesn’t mean I hate BMW. It’s tough love. I do care about what they do which is WHY I’m concerned with the path that they’ve been on lately. When GM turns out some rolling letdown, I don’t even lift an eyebrow. Being critical shows that you care (at least to some extent) - it’s indifference where the real hostility lies.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Joe, my issue isn’t with the car so much as the price. I don’t see the value.
I have an association between size and cost. Bigger cars should cost more, all else equal. The only time that association turns is where there’s some benefit to be had from lesser size, such as weight reduction.
Here, there’s no benefit to less size. The 3-series is already a relatively compact car by American standards. This 1-series is just that car in a tighter suit, and the proportions have gone to pot. It’s hard to claim your vehicle is a status symbol when it looks like a permanently confused miniature.
And what of the weight? Two hundred pounds is less than 6% of a 3600 lb. Given the increased steering effort of the 1-series, I doubt the difference is even noticeable. I’m quite sure it wasn’t intended to be a step toward the 2002; BMW fans dreamed that one up on their own. BMW just needed something smaller to wedge below the 3-series, because the latter approaches the E39 5-series for size and weight.
And then there’s the price. This isn’t a $35K car. In classic BMW packaging, if you want power seats and metallic paint, expect to shell out $40K. Select an iPod adaptor, or any of the other nonsense that comes automatically with lesser cars, and you can easy add an another few thousand.
Where’s the value? $40K for a cramped and ugly version of an excellent car? Who would choose this over the 3? Or a G35? Or a G8? If people wanted to drive a 3, they’d buy the 3. When I think of what this car could have been, it hurts.
Incidentally, I think the price comparison with Subaru is unwarranted. That company is equally off its rocker, and two fools don’t cancel each other out. There’s almost no reason to buy an STi over an Evo, which is a better car at $4000 less. It doesn’t have the 135i’s torque, but if you want to argue quarter-mile times, I’ve got a supercharged Mustang to show you. The Evo leaves them all for dead in the corners, and with an ECU reflash of the fuel mix over 4000 RPM, it’ll do it in the straights too.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“Incidentally, I think the price comparison with Subaru is unwarranted. That company is equally off its rocker, and two fools don’t cancel each other out. ”
Extremely well said :)
I thought that Subaru was insane to price the new STI at that point….it’s still a ~17k car (Impreza) built up. The inside es terrible for that price. The Legacy has some of the same….~$20k base car to a ~$33-35k Spec.B. or H6 version. Except the Legacy is actually at the cusp of entry level luxury.
Anyway, judging by the arguments I’d say two things:
1. If this car was beautiful (which I don’t think it is), then people would be much more inclined to love it. Like the original G35 coupe, who had significant shortcomings but was so graceful to behold.
I reassure myself with the fact that from 1997-2004, Porsche produced egg-shaped front headlights and flatter-side 911s….and then went back to form in 2005.
I hope BMW does the same for the 7, 5, 3, 1, and Z within the next few years.
2. People are complaining about a car that weighs as much as a 2001-2006 M3 and ought to perform as well (even without a real LSD, the current rear diff design in the 1-series should be much better than the one in the 335i).
The car has several more years of safety advances and a better suspension. It has more gas-saving items such as regenerative braking and, I believe, alternator de-coupling.
It weighs ~200-300 pounds more than a current Boxster S. Think about that for a moment. One of the purest forms of automotive sports cars, the Porsche Boxster, is only 200-300 pounds less than this car. Which has 4, albeit small, seats.
I’m all for this car getting lighter. But let’s face it folks; the ‘73 2002 was lightweight because it had a small engine, not much niceties, and did not have 600-800 pounds of safety advances and smog control.
If you want a lotus, get a lotus. Great car. But otherwise, this car offers a tremendous amount at 3300 pounds in today’s world.
And, in my eyes, it has about the same utility as a 3-series coupe. Which is to say, not much, but I could fit my bike in the trunk :)
Joe
P.s. I probably won’t be buying a 135i….I want to wait to see what the 2009 or 2011 3-series has to offer. But I’m glad BMW brought it over. It’s a step in the right direction, in my eyes.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Incidentally, I think the price comparison with Subaru is unwarranted. That company is equally off its rocker, and two fools don’t cancel each other out.
That’s not quite true. The STI is a halo car. It exists to sell lower end Imprezas. Love it or hate it, the 135i is not a halo car in the BMW stable. In that sense Subaru is at least slightly less deranged than BMW.
As for purchasers of either car at MSRP? Equally certifiable. No doubt about it.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The only problem with the Mazda3/2002 comparison is the drivetrain layout. If Mazda could figure out a way to offer a version in RWD instead of FWD, they’d have a true, modern 2002.
It’s too bad that the realities of modern drivetrain efficiency in small cars makes the possibility of that extremely remote. A RWD Mazda3, a car that would surely rise to the top of the sporting crowd, would likely drop to the bottom as far as fuel efficiency, meaning overall sales would take a steep nosedive.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Let’s face it, BMWs are fashion statements much like those $1,000 handbags women buy. I’m surprised that they still drive fairly well as the typical BMW buyer wouldn’t know the difference.
This 1 series is a ponzi scheme. The attempt here is to try and take some of the price out of the accessory so that a few more….customers can step “up” to a BMW. As far as an enthusiast car goes, I find it a hard sell against cars like the Civic Si, MazdaSpeed3, and the GTI. And I don’t want to hear about rear wheel drive versus front wheel drive. The MINI has been hailed as a great handler with no regard to its front wheel drive layout. The fact that most cars are driven at 8/10ths of their capabilities pretty much makes the issue of driven wheels a moot point.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:43 am
One last comment about this Beemer, has anyone ever heard the saying, ‘the horse was designed by a single person, the camel by a committee’?
First of all, a “Beemer” is a bike, a “Bimmer” is a car. Being that this is an enthusiast site, not a site that caters to status seekers, one would expect the proper name. Of course you could be trying to goad someone into an argument; in that case I fell for it. As for the camel thing, it is: A camel is a horse designed by committee.
The review is right on the money. The sad part about this car is that it had the potential to be great. Hobbled by the concern of stealing sales from other models under the BMW umbrella we DO end up with a camel. Add the “pirated” structure from the 3, we get the weight. This stuff used to be a Detroit parlor trick. I guess the Bavarians aren’t immune to short sighted business tricks either.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
1. If this car was beautiful (which I don’t think it is), then people would be much more inclined to love it.
You’re right, and I almost wrote that in my comment. If it looked like the previous M3, and it was priced $3-5K less than it is, and it had an LSD, it would be hailed as the second coming of Car-Jesus. I doubt there’s ten people here who legitimately care about rear-legroom. For a drive like that, you can pile the kids lengthwise like cordwood.
That said, I’m not sure real consumers care what it looks like. I don’t find the 3-series particularly attractive either, but BMW continues to make a killing on them. Between the status badge and the powertrain, the car could be a rolling meatloaf sculpture for all it matters.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I still find a lot of the negative comments here inspired by lack (dare I say ignorance) of the basic raison d’etre for this car. A safe, relatively affordable, relatively luxurious (yes, it’s quite nice inside, though no Aston Martin), and extremely capable two-door sports car that adds practicality of a trunk and back seats when, and if, needed.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the looks. That’s not worth debating.
But performance (and no, not just straight line numbers)? Do yourself and everyone else a favor by watching this comparison with a Boxter after reading the review and prior to suggesting that this is nothing short of a good value in a sports coupe for those that choose to pay the price tag. If you argue badge prestige, I’d suggest the 128i; not the 135i. Please, let’s get some objectivity in here - this car drives and performs classic BMW. And in some ways it’s a better choice than the new M3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeahQyxfvxY&feature=related
Is a Lambo Gallardo worth the $150+? Who knows, but it does well in that price range. Same with the 135i.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I still find a lot of the negative comments here inspired by lack (dare I say ignorance) of the basic raison d’etre for this car. A safe, relatively affordable, relatively luxurious (yes, it’s quite nice inside, though no Aston Martin), and extremely capable two-door sports car that adds practicality of a trunk and back seats when, and if, needed.
That’s not a mystery to anyone. But what you’re describing is a modern reinterpretation of the BMW 2002, when what we actually have here is a heavy, relatively expensive, awkward-looking 9/10ths scale 3 series coupe - a sprinting hippo in platypus clothing marketed as if it has all the grace and athleticism of a gazelle.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
$45,000 cars are now relatively affordable?
Would you be my relative?
But seriously, put this car in context; for half its price, you can buy any number of fun, good performing cars. Some of those cars offer better reliability, better resale, and a better buying experience. Other cars, like the G37 coupe and 350Z, offer almost the same performance in a better looking package as much as $8,000 cheaper
For those arguing performance, this car comes too close to the Corvette in price.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
And the appeal of the 2002 was its relative simplicity in providing good performance in its class while at the same time giving you TRUE utility in that it could carry four adults comfortably along with their belongings all at a price that commanded a very small premium over its competition.
This car has none of those attributes
April 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
BMW leatherette is the best.
Is the 135i a Ponzi scheme? Cool. For a car that beats the Porche Cayman @ 12k less in the slalom? Comparing it to a “mazda”? Whatever dude.
135i is a keeper. Plain and simple. Nothing else like it at any price under 50k.
4.7 0-60
13.3 1/4 mi
comfort access
it’s a BMW
great looking front-end
bluetooth
the best sports seats you’ll find
the best steering wheel available
need i go on?
enjoy your mazdas and pontiacs
April 12th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Nino: We have to let go of the 2002; it’s really just a mktg campaign.
And we have to let go of the $45K. If you load a 2008 Accord Coupe, it goes for close to $37K. Let’s look at base price versus performance.
The numbers rkeep820 is referrencing above can be had for $36K, maybe less if you negotiate. Go for Euro Delivery and you’re at $33K plus about $800 in travel expenses.
I have to say that if the R32 were available in 6 speed then it would give the 135i a good run for it’s money in sportiness (not really in performance, the twin turbo six would just slap it silly); but that car too sells for about $33K. So, I don’t know, most people just think that a loaded car is the only way to get the performance and style combo.
But I like the discussion. I highly recommend driving this car - everyone that has (actually) driven one seems enamored with it.
And this thing with weight; I mean how many of us are going to be ‘throwing’ this car around out there where a true 3300 versus 3000 lb weight can be appreciated. If you are looking for a track car then there are many choices in the second hand market that are phenomenal. This car is not meant to be a track ringer, but rather a fun, sporty drive for someone that can afford it.
If you’ve got another $40K the 911 is affordable to you. If you’ve got $15K less, then get a GTI, it’s a great engine (got one) and very modifiable.
And then there’s this. Dinan already has software for the 135i that will give it 381hp and 421 lb-ft tq!!!! So, I don’t know, but if you want to juice it, this could be a terror on the street, or track (with some suspension mods).
I would like to see a list of cars that are better all around performaners for less money (new, not used). Enough with conceptual discussions; name the cars guys, and state the numbers.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hmmm… or you can buy a 1 year old…
Chevy Corvette Convertible
Porshce Boxster Roadster
His & Her Honda S2000 and Mazda MX-5
Mercedes Benz SLK 350 Roadster
His & Her Mazda RX8 and Scion Xb
His & Her Mini Cooper & Nissan Altima
April 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Steven,
Exactly right. I bet the 1-series helps BMW dealers sell a lot of CPO 3-series.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I will not recommend that you stick to Civics because it’s hard to heel and toe in Birkenstocks. While that might be cute I honestly don’t think either demographics or basic lack of perspicacious insight were why you panned a great car. What I do think happened is that the car wasn’t what you had hoped. Let me guess, a $30,000 E30 M3? How vain to review a car from that point of view. If I might exercise my verbosity with an overlong retort:
This car is less of what you don’t need in a 335i and more of what you want. And what other cars come close? Compared to the 335i, the 135 is hotter styling, 9/10 the size, 9/10 the cost, 10/10 the quality, and 11/10 the performance. If you need a backseat or your preferences for styling drive you t