I am old enough that while I never owned a BMW 2002 when they were actually
being made, like any good reader of Car and Driver reviews of the 2002, I
lusted after them a lot. Unfortunately, at the time I only had $3500 to
spend and 2002's were around $5000 with very few dealers, so I ended up
with
a Ford Capri 2600 (German made) that promptly dissolved away in the
Chicago
winters (lots of salt). Why I did not look for a used 2002 is a mystery to
me at this point, but I fear it would have dissolved away, too, so maybe
it
is better I did not get one in that environment.
Nevertheless, my respect for 2002's is quite high (sensible design, big
green-house, tasteful and simple styling, good, but not over-the-top
power,
even semi-affordable).
So BMW introduces the 1-Series hatch in Europe as a kind of son-of-2002.
And
while it looks nothing like the 2002 (this is the age of Bangle, alas),
one
can accept it as a spiritual off-spring...especially from the practicality
standpoint. Then they decide to send it to the US, but not as a hatch, as
a
coupe and now a convertible. Both slightly less ****ky off-shoots of the
3-Series and both seriously expensive and, let's face it, esthetically
very
challenged.
Now comes the really weird part. The automotive press goes ga ga over both
of them and I have no clue why. Worse they continue to compare the
1-Series
to the sainted 2002. At least as sold in the US, the 1-Series is the
antithesis of the 2002. The 1-Series is nothing more than 3-Series
(slightly) Lite, with worse handling.
I am no fan of the current 3-Series (vastly prefer my 2003 E46 zhp sedan),
but OK, it's the only 3-Series being made for now and until the twin turbo
engine over-heats and dies, it is very nice, so I can see people getting
them, but where is the attraction in the (non-hatch) 1-Series that costs
almost as much and looks even worse?
- GRL
|
