I was at Long Beach MINI/BMW today and had chance to test drive a new BMW 530i while my MINI was in for an oil change.

In person, I thought the new 5 was a little more attractive than the pictures I've seen to date. This is definitely a baby 7-series, and not an evolution of the previous 5 series in outward appearance. At least to me, that's not a good thing, although it is still the best looking new BMW to be released in the last couple years (i.e. better than the new 7 and the Z4).

Here are some pictures I took, and some thoughts on them after having viewed and driven the car.



_________________
PM DiD

 

Thanks Dave - I'll be test driving one later this week (Last week was the M3 SMG and the Z4 3.0)

I'm now 100% sold on the look of the 5er since seeing it in person and crawling around the interior. Now all that has yet to be determined is the driving - which of course I'm not worried about considering the previous car was about as perfect as you can get and this one is 200 pounds ligher] .

BTW I can't believe you would take the E over the previous or new 5er - is it the looks? If so I can at least understand your rational (to each their own) but if it's the driving dynamics I'm going to have to respectably disagree.

 

I'm sure the 5er's driving dynamics are the best in it's class.
That said, I find it absolutely HIDEOUS.
I don't know what "design language" Chris Bangle is trying to speak, but he seriously needs to go back to Berlitz on this one.
If there really was a design language that Chris Bangle wa trying to convey, it would be readily aparent in that pic showing both the 5 and 7 series cars...yet I see nothing in common between those two cars but unjustified morphological weirdness.
The whole design is incongruent and arbitrary, like some sort of hastily put together reptilian android.
Lines intersect in places they shouldn't, while curves and angles coexist in chaotic disharmony.
The whole car looks unbalanced, awkward and heavy, kind of like a Toyota Camry (check out that first pic).
I can't stand the way it swallows it's wheels, making it look even more overweight.
Nowhere is this car's lack of design congruency more apparent than at the rear, with that awkward and ghastly trunk hinge, arbitrarily shaped taillights and cheapo lower "spoiler fin".
The interior looks dated, and so much for "driver-oriented".

If this truly is the shape of things to come at BMW, I guess I can kiss my dream of owning an M3 goodbye..

Ugh..


_________________

 

No offense but I'm going to have to completely and 100% disagree on every point you made...

>> I'm sure the 5er's driving dynamics are the best in it's class.
>> That said, I find it absolutely HIDEOUS.
>> I don't know what "design language" Chris Bangle is trying to speak, but he seriously needs to go back to Berlitz on this one.
>>If there really was a design language that Chris Bangle wa trying to convey, it would be readily aparent in that pic showing both the 5 and 7 series cars...yet I see nothing in common between those two cars but unjustified morphological weirdness.

You have to remember that Chris Bangle doesn't design these cars. He simply oversees the process with other desginers. Secondly they are not meant to be identical. BMW wants the cars to have their own unique looks and not be (as one designer put it) different lengths of the same sausage.

>> The whole design is incongruent and arbitrary, like some sort of hastily put together reptilian android.

I would have to completely disagree. Yes it doesn't look like a melted jelly bean like the Lexus ES300 but the overall design is very uniform in it's purpose. It's stance is aggressive and preditory while being refined.

>> Lines intersect in places they shouldn't, while curves and angles coexist in chaotic disharmony.

I'll have to disagree here too

>>The whole car looks unbalanced, awkward and heavy, kind of like a Toyota Camry (check out that first pic).

Pictures don't do this car justice. Again totally disagree here.


>>Nowhere is this car's lack of design congruency more apparent than at the rear, with that awkward and ghastly trunk hinge, arbitrarily shaped taillights and cheapo lower "spoiler fin".


Again completely disagree. Also get used to the fin. It will be everywhere in 2 years.

>>The interior looks dated, and so much for "driver-oriented".

It's easily one of the most dirver oriented interioirs in it's class. If you want to see a mess check out the new E-class.

I guess it's obvious we'll have to agree to disagreee about this one :smile:

 

I was thinking about this while I was at the dealership, with the 7, 5 and Z4 out now, the 3 and the X5 look pretty dated by comparison. Does anyone know when the 3 and the X5 are due for replacement. I gather the 3 series is next in line.

any idea what the release order is? 3, X3, X5 or X3, 3, X5?

Dave

 

>>I was thinking about this while I was at the dealership, with the 7, 5 and Z4 out now, the 3 and the X5 look pretty dated by comparison. Does anyone know when the 3 and the X5 are due for replacement. I gather the 3 series is next in line.
>>
>>any idea what the release order is? 3

The 1 will be out in 05

The 3 will be out in 05/06

The X3 will be out this winter

The 6 will be out next March/April

The facelifted X5 will be out this month and will be joined by the X5 4.8is later next year. The next X5 is still 4 years away.

The 7 will go through the usual BMW mid model facelift next year.

According to insiders the next 3 series will be much more readily accessible in terms of design than the current 5 or 7 series.

 

Gabe,

By way of comparison, what are your thoughts on the design of the E class?

 

>>Gabe,
>>
>>By way of comparison, what are your thoughts on the design of the E class?
>>

(the following are my opinions)

...well first off the E Class is very derivative design work overall. Sure it's not a bad looking car but it has little character in most of it's lines and offers at best a handsomely bland product. To me the latest MB designs are an obvious attempt to cater to the middle ground as much as possible. The current E's look seems defined by what won't offend the marketplace. The designs are at best tentative and ambiguous (except for the SL).

The thing I love about the 5er (and BMW in general these days) is that the designs are defined technology, uncompromising performance, and push the current envelope of our design language. They stretch our aesthetic sensibilities to new levels and new directions. It takes great courage to do this with such mass produced automobiles but BMW stands behind it's products like few other companies. Of course the downside is such progressive design will inevitably leave some people behind.

Then you have MB and the new E class that simply looks like a massaged version of the previous version, and that version looks like a massaged version of the earlier previous version. To me it shows a company that has little faith in it's customers and in it's design department. Not necessarily the mark of a product that I'd want to invest my time or money in.

 

Speaking of the evolutionary track, here are some pics of the Golf

 

I do not like the dustbuster look of the mkV Golf The classic two-box profile of the mkI is still the most pure of the group.

I like the boldness of the new BMW 5-er, and after seeing one in motion on the road, I must say it's very striking, very sexy, and very cutting edge! It looks much better in-motion than at rest, and much better than in print/online, I think.

I will try to go drive an E60 530i Thursday, availability willing.

 

i checked out the new 5 today at the dealer.
it was very nice looking in person.
i have to say that the alpina z8 parked next to it really had much more of my attention! hehehhee
i also got to see a pepper white MCS today which also looked really good in person!
as soon as i find out the status of my insurance claim on my wrecked mini, i may be ordering one!

 

>>No offense but I'm going to have to completely and 100% disagree on every point you made...
>>You have to remember that Chris Bangle doesn't design these cars. He simply oversees the process with other desginers. Secondly they are not meant to be identical. BMW wants the cars to have their own unique looks and not be (as one designer put it) different lengths of the same sausage.

I agree that they shouldn't be identical, yet certain design elements should be utilized as recurring themes in in order to convey a specific design THEME throughout the model line. I simply don't believe Bangle nor his team have successfully achieved this. While "pushing the design envelope" may be laudable from an experimental or conceptual standpoint, it doesn't always yield acceptable results.
Take the Ford Focus, for example.. As the first proponent of Ford's "New Edge" design philosophy, it presented some serious flaws, especially in it's interior "theme".
Not unlike the new 5er's exterior, it was composed of an arbitrarily assembled amalgam of intersecting ellipses, rectangles, and triangles, all "arranged" with seemingly no regard to basic design concepts such as rhythm, proportion, or symmetry. This is why Ford's later "New Edge" models such as the Mondeo and Fiesta (European models) abandoned the Focus's interior design philosophy for a more attractive and refined version of essentially the same design philosophy.
This is one clear example of when "pushing the design envelope" fails.

My point is, the new Bimmers still need to define and polish the new design theme.
If you look at the 5 series' head and taillights, for example, there is no apparent design theme or common language..they just appear to be arbitrarily designed shapes.
Basic aesthetic philosophy dictates that good design requires justification, of which the 5 series offers none in many of its key elements, such as awkwardly placed body panel intersections, amorphous pseudo-organic headlights (what justifiable purpose does that "eyebrow" serve other than to just be "different"?) and poorly resolved lower fascia design (could they not give the poor foglights some suitable housing?).

I realize that design is subjective, so I'm with you in stating that we'll just have to disagree on this one.
However, in this case it's not just a fraction of the public that's being "left behind" by BMW's new design direction...This time many other members of the design community have offered some pretty negative feedback.
While this of course proves nothing, it definitely suggests that disregarding many basic design concepts for the sake of "pushing the envelope" might not be the best way to go. Then again, only time will tell.

Again, industrial design is as subjective as art..and controversy is a necessary element in the creative development process. Throughout my years as a professional Architect/Designer, I've learned that when it comes to aesthetic validity, mere opinions are all we can really offer.. :smile:


(By the way I'm not real crazy about the Lexus ES300 either..)

 

I was with one of my friend's last night as he test drove the 530...nice inside, and the new look is starting to grow on me as well. He thinks he needs either the 545 or an older 540 though. He wants the power ( is used to driving big American 8's) From his driving, I could tell the steering was more responsive than the 540 he test drove back in July. It's funny, he uses my Cooper as a benchmark for handling responsiveness.

The new Mercedes sedans don't really do it for me, but the coupes (especially with the AMG packages) are nice.

 

Good comments. There's nothing like intelligent discussion about automotive design. Too often it's a decidedly low-brow conversation.


>>My point is, the new Bimmers still need to define and polish the new design theme.
>>If you look at the 5 series' head and taillights, for example, there is no apparent design >>theme or common language..they just appear to be arbitrarily designed shapes.
>>Basic aesthetic philosophy dictates that good design requires justification, of which the 5 >>series offers none in many of its key elements, such as awkwardly placed body panel >>intersections, amorphous pseudo-organic headlights (what justifiable purpose does that >>"eyebrow" serve other than to just be "different"?)

The eyebrow allows a longer, more visible turn signal that wraps from the front to the side of the car. It allows the 5er to have one light where the MINI has two. It also integrates the front side reflector into the light unit while giving it ample room to do it's intended job. Finally it follows the line of the hood that initiates the belt-line while giving the car a character point that is unmistakable. Granted it's something not seen on a modern automobile before and I can understand someone initially questioning it. I certainly did the first time I saw it.


>> I realize that design is subjective, so I'm with you in stating that we'll just have to disagree on this one.
>> However, in this case it's not just a fraction of the public that's being "left behind" by BMW's new design direction...This time many other members of the design community have offered some pretty negative feedback.

I have yet to hear more than a couple of dissenting views about the new 5er from anyone in the design community. I work with a handful of designers who follow cars quite a lot and everything single one of them thinks of this new 5 series as a success. I suppose it depends on what you're looking for when it comes to finding opinions.


>> Again, industrial design is as subjective as art..and controversy is a necessary element in the creative development process. Throughout my years as a professional Architect/Designer, I've learned that when it comes to aesthetic validity, mere opinions are all we can really offer.. :smile:
>>

I couldn't have said it any better!

 

These are the parts of the design that I personally don't find that appealing.

1) The grille

 

>>
>>That little )( in between the grilles. They just look too close together to my eye. Maybe it's my background as an engineer, but it does remind me of holes that were drilled too close
>>
>>The low beam and the high beam look good (real good), but the wrap around turnsignal doesn't look right to me.
>>
>>The plastic around the turn signal is also at least two different colors (orange and clear).
>>
>>In addition, I don't understand why the lower right part of the orange reflector has to have an intersection point. It seems to me that the lower part of the light assembly should have one less arc in it and it would be cleaner that way.

The intersection reduces what would be a massive light module if they went with one large swoop. This to me is one of the reasons that the 5er is such a design tour de force. In almost every case a manager would want this detail eliminated due worrying that it might lose some people or at least make them work a little harder to appreciate the look. What BMW says (to me at least) when they let these details remain on the car is that (a) we trust the designers vision (b) we trust our customers (c) we have faith in our brand and in our product.

Further, this detail better defines that all important belt line that is such a major part of the design of this car. And finally it creates a tension that is paramount is great design work.

 

Is there a conscious effort on the part of the designers to make cars look angry?

 

>>Is there a conscious effort on the part of the designers to make cars look angry?

I think "aggressive" is the word that many use. Personally I would prefer to think the 5 series has a "purposeful stance" - especially in motion.

 

Compare the stance or look of a 325 to a 330 or an M3. The M3 looks infinitely more aggressive.

I would wait to pass final judgement on the new 5 series until I see the 545 and M5. A set of 20 inch wheels can make any car look good.

 

>>Compare the stance or look of a 325 to a 330 or an M3. The M3 looks infinitely more aggressive.
>>
>>I would wait to pass final judgement on the new 5 series until I see the 545 and M5. A set of 20 inch wheels can make any car look good.

One of the reasons the new 5 doesn't look good to me is the way the wheels are swallowed from view by the wide, draping body.
The same thing happens to the Nissan 350Z, making it look less athletic and muscular than it would look with a more pronounced degree of lateral wheel-arch bulge. Granted, I still like the 350Z, but I feel that just like the 5 series, it would have benefited from a more aggressive stance.

Gabe, I agree with you on the importance of establishing a strong beltline as an organizational "spine" along which other design elements can be derived and arranged. The fact that you utilized the term "tension" as design terminology when describing this concept assures me that you indeed know what you're talking about.. :smile:
_________________

 

>>>>Compare the stance or look of a 325 to a 330 or an M3. The M3 looks infinitely more aggressive.
>>>>
>>>>I would wait to pass final judgement on the new 5 series until I see the 545 and M5. A set of 20 inch wheels can make any car look good.
>>
>> One of the reasons the new 5 doesn't look good to me is the way the wheels are swallowed from view by the wide, draping body.
>> The same thing happens to the Nissan 350Z, making it look less athletic and muscular than it would look with a more pronounced degree of lateral wheel-arch bulge. Granted, I still like the 350Z, but I feel that just like the 5 series, it would have benefited from a more aggressive stance.

I completely understand you thoughts here. Personally I think that the 5er deals with the high beltine rather well but again I understand your point. So I suppose you are anti painted-wheel arches on the MINI then? I am for the very reasons you state above.

BTW good point on the 300ZX - it's a bit much when you require an 18" wheel on a small sports car to look aggressive and visually fill the wheel wells. 17"s just don't look right on that car.

Unfortunately (or forunately depending on how you look at it) belt-lines in modern cars will continue to rise over the coming years. That is unless Americans and Europeans stop getting bigger.

 

>>I completely understand you thoughts here. Personally I think that the 5er deals with the high beltine rather well but again I understand your point. So I suppose you are anti painted-wheel arches on the MINI then? I am for the very reasons you state above.
>>

Good inference, Gabe..I'm absolutely against painted wheel-arches on MINI's...not only because of the aforementioned issue, but also because I believe that design elements should be constructed of varying materials that reflect their intended purpose.
In contrast to the rest of the car, wheel arches are PROTECTIVE elements as well as esthetic ones, so why should their material be of an identical appearance or texture to the rest of the car's sheetmetal? I personally find it visually appealing when an object's components retain the natural appearance dictated by their function.
Another example of this is the Jeep Liberty...I much prefer the appearance of the base model's textured, dark plastic wheel arches and bumpers over the more expensive "Limited's" body-color plastic cladding. I know it's supposed to look more "upscale" that way, but personally I find that the durable black plastic cladding gives this OFF ROAD VEHICLE a more purposeful, rugged appearance.

And, of course, by these standards it naturally bugs me that my MINI's "alloy patina" is not REALLY alloy patina...but that's ok for now 'cause I probably couldn't afford the real stuff anyway.. :smile:


By the way, I added some stuff to my previous post after you answered it, so you may not have seen it.
Oh, and thanks for sharing your take on the "eyebrow" thing.. I now understand it a little more, and hate it a little less :smile:

_________________

 

I just have to say, as a person with no formal design training, I really appreciate having two nicely explained view points on this subject.

 

Dave:
For having no formal design training, I feel that your critique of the 5er's weaker design points was spot-on!
While they are indeed somewhat subjective and open to discussion, the points you identify address some really valid questions regarding it's design.
I especially remember your use of the word "arbitrary" which pretty much sums up my perception of why this car just doesn't do it for me.
Cheers :smile:

 

Ryan's E60 Test-Drive
Well, as promised, I went and drove the new 530iA. There were no manual tranny's on the lot, so I suffered with the 6-speed slushbox.

Handing I'm quite impressed. Dynamically, the car feels refined, makes no apologies for it's comfortable yet sporting handing and ride. Naturally, the car has an understeering tendency, which is typical BMW. My demo car did not have Active Roll Stabilization or Active Steering, and although I love the Active Roll in the 7-er, I did not miss it in the demo car. All the controls weighting and feedback was typical BMW precise and appropriate.

Powertrain As always, the 3.0L inline-6 is TO DIE FOR silky smooth "...like buttah" as Mike Myers would say. The M54 is one of my all time favorite engines, period! The 6-speed slushbox, well, I hate automatics, so I'm rather biased. The manumatic mode was a "shift request" at best, and seriously delayed with poor tactile feedback in the shiftknob. 100% love the engine, pass on the tranny. Be a real automotive enthusiast; get the Manual.

Exterior Technically, I love the styling. The shape of the car is dynamic and exciting, and looks fantastically toned and sculpted in-motion. Emotionally, I'm still a bit reserved about some of the cars' shapes. The rear bottom lip of the trunklid looks awkward and overcomplex, as does the bottom "spoiler" of the rear bumper. The headlight eyebrows give the car a "I'm trying too hard" aura, which is not a positive in my view. Also, the rear tailight clusters seem to stab the side of the car with their sharp angle, like a suicidal auto-stylist (ouch) The side flanks, with their "flame surfacing" look fantastic at all angles, especially with the optional Sport package wheels!

Interior I must admit, the interior is a mixed bag aesthetically. The gauges are awesome; simple, classic, effective, and stylish. Conversely, the center console area is a disaster; the "bridge" look is "Icky-poo" as Clover would say. The IP has the look of a miniaturized 7-series, which is good, except the materials have a downgraded look too. The leather feels nice and supple, but the wood trim looks plastic and in poor-taste. The door panels look awkward and contrived, but are great for ingress and egress. The window switches however, are also awkward to reach and use, and are obviously "parts-bin" pieces. The I-drive derivative is also a mixed bag. It has reduced functions from the 7-series, but still uses the same anti-intuitive system whose logic I can't seem to pinpoint. The added "menu" button also acts as a "help me get outta here: escape" button. Driving positing is perfect, as always with BMW, and 10-way power seats and 4-way power tilt/telescope wheel helps find that perfect arrangement. Oh, and forget about having rear seat passengers that happen to have feet, because they won't be able to get them in or out of the rear foot well! Yikes!

Overall I'm impressed with the new 5-er not as a replacement of the near-perfect E39, but as a miniaturized E65. With classically smooth BMW power and great handling, and a good behind the wheel feel, the only downsides are some poor non-driving-related ergonomics and awkward styling.

I can't wait to test out the new 545i 6-speed manual!
Cheers,
Ryan