# fold down seats versus no fold down . . . because of ridigity



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

alee said:


> Yeah strange isn't it? They are standard on the coupe. I suspect maybe the lack of accessibility in the rear is why BMW makes it standard. Then again... :dunno:


That is why. At least, according to the one BMW engineer I spoke to years back when I was having the latch on mine repaired. The front door aperture on the coupe is longer but it is still difficult squeezing anything of meaningful size into the rear of the car. Also the luggage compartment opening is fractionally smaller than the sedan's. While folding rear seats may not appear to address those problems directly, the (coupe) variant does at least provide some other practical measures to compensate.


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

·clyde· said:


> A few years back, I drove from Hartford, CT to Danbury, CT (~60mi) in a bunch of freezing precipitation (some ice, some snow, some sleet, etc). Before leaving Hartford, I had chipped away the ice coating covering the headlights. By the time we got to Danbury, you could hardly tell that the lights were on. There was 3/4" of a sand/ice combo covering the front end. It was ugly.


A drive like that on I84(I presume) is no picnic.

Ed


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

EdCT said:


> A drive like that on I84(I presume) is no picnic.
> 
> Ed


 Yes, I84...and in a poorly maintained Taurus aligned by multiple curb strikes at that. 

At least the wipers were working reasonably well.


----------



## rumratt (Feb 22, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> While folding rear seats may not appear to address those problems directly, the (coupe) variant does at least provide some other practical measures to compensate.


This makes sense to some degree, but often people who buy coupes are those who are willing to sacrifice practicality for styling and performance. I don't see why it shouldn't be optional. :dunno:


----------

