# I don't care what anybody says; E65 745i is a winner!



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

And most definitely the quickest, best-handling large sedan EVER...

Here are some pics for your enjoyment...


----------



## Clem (Oct 29, 2001)

WOW would you look at that. :yikes: 

Looks like royal convoy


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

*More Pics...*


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

*Still more pics*


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

*Last ones...*


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

I recognize the autocross circuit as the Irvine Meadows (what is it, Verizon Ampitheater or something these days), but where was that reception at?


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

*I think so too Jon!*

Thanks for the pics. You guys are lucky!!! :thumb:

Looks like you had a chance to compare the new 7 with other cars like the S-class... How would you compare them? What are the new 7's strenghts?


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

> Looks like you had a chance to compare the new 7 with other cars like the S-class... How would you compare them? What are the new 7's strenghts?


The New 7 Looks better (o.k. - that's subjective), accelerates quicker, stops quicker, and out-corners everything in its class...

This car is a Grand Slam!


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

Jon Shafer said:


> *
> 
> The New 7 Looks better (o.k. - that's subjective), accelerates quicker, stops quicker, and out-corners everything in its class...
> 
> ...


Thanks! That doesn't surprise me... After all, it's a *BMW!!!* :thumb:


----------



## ism409 (Dec 22, 2001)

Kaz said:


> *I recognize the autocross circuit as the Irvine Meadows (what is it, Verizon Ampitheater or something these days), but where was that reception at? *


If that is irvine meadows how come all the cars have New Jersey license plates? and what is that MB doing in the picture:dunno:


----------



## alee (Dec 19, 2001)

Jon is about to join Vince on my troublemaker list! 

Sorry... I still have a hard time getting past the look. 

ism409... BMW NA HQ is in NJ... I assume the NJ plates are all manufacturer plates.

-Al


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

ism409 said:


> *
> If that is irvine meadows how come all the cars have New Jersey license plates? and what is that MB doing in the picture:dunno: *


The cars all have Jersey lic. plates because that's where BMWNA is located; thus, cars registered to BMWNA are registered in NJ.

The Mercedes is probably there to give a benchmark. Ride-and-drives usually offer a comparison with competitive models.

FWIW, this picture resembles a nightmare I had last night:










Jon, I'm glad you like the way these cars look, since you have to sell them. IMHO, these things are so damn ugly that they make me want to retch. The number of simple design mistakes made on this car is appalling; it's not Aztek bad, but it's close.


----------



## in_d_haus (Jan 2, 2002)

I dunno, on the "Aztec ugly chart" I think the Chevy Avalanche is #2. I didn't like the E65 at first but it looks better in Jon pictures. The only thing I question is the infamous trunk which looks disconnected.

I'm a bit worried about how the new 5 will look.
Then of course I'm not real big on the new front end for the 2002 3er either, glad I got a 2001.

IMHO


----------



## IndyMike (Dec 19, 2001)

*I'm just glad that I'm not in the market*

for a vehicle this size, because I'm afraid my allegiance would shift very quickly to MBZ.

Maybe the techno gizmo's are cool and revolutionary, but to see that hideous front and rear everyday would be too much for my delicate constitution to bare up under. There's no way that I can get past the front and rear treatments without wanting to york up my cookies.

In my humble opinion BMW whiffed on this thing!

Once the die-hard loyalists have bought their's, we'll really find out how good some of these BMW client advisors really are.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

*The dashboard,*

specifically the A/C controls, reminds me of mid-1970's GM cheese.


----------



## Mr Paddle.Shift (Dec 19, 2001)

*...*

Hey Jon!!

Fabulous pictures! Cheers!








And yes what I saw last Sunday was indeed a test-drive event for E65. Forgot to mention about the NJ plates too.

Alee, take that!


----------



## IndyMike (Dec 19, 2001)

*Agree!*



hts said:


> *specifically the A/C controls, reminds me of mid-1970's GM cheese.
> 
> *


If you've got some time go over to the E65 board at .org and read some of the comments there.

There have been comments from those that have viewed them that the interior was not quite up to the standards of a car of this caliber.

The jury will be out on this car for quite a while. I'm sure the verdict will be that the jury is hung.

A very controversial car, to say the least!


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: AC Contols*

I'm happy that BMW finally switched to rotary controls for its automatic climate control system. Much easier to use, and makes more sense than buttons. THe presentation of these dials leaves much to be desired-- that shiny greyish plastic on which they're mounted looks very, very cheap. I can almost hear the "creak" sound it makes when pressed a little bit. The interior is quite ugly--- although MBZ S class is better- I think that interior also is cheaply made and a little bit tacky looking. The A8 is the best of them.


----------



## ff (Dec 19, 2001)

I like the fact that the HVAC control are now rotary knobs, but from the pics they look cheap as hell. They should really study the Honda HVAC control setup to get the best look/feel/ergonomics.


----------



## ff (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: Re: AC Contols*



robg said:


> *I'm happy that BMW finally switched to rotary controls for its automatic climate control system. Much easier to use, and makes more sense than buttons. THe presentation of these dials leaves much to be desired-- that shiny greyish plastic on which they're mounted looks very, very cheap. I can almost hear the "creak" sound it makes when pressed a little bit. The interior is quite ugly--- although MBZ S class is better- I think that interior also is cheaply made and a little bit tacky looking. The A8 is the best of them. *


Looks like we had the same thought, at the same time.  I was going to mention that the knobs look like something out of a typical GM nightmare (i.e. Pontiac, Chevy, etc...)


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

JST said:


> *
> 
> ...The number of simple design mistakes made on this car is appalling; it's not Aztek bad, but it's close. *


JST, with all due respect, but are you a car designer? I mean, I have the *utmost* respect for your opinion, but when you say "The number of simple design mistakes made...", do you even know what you're talking about? Like you, several other people find the E65 fugly, but only a car designer could say Bangle and his team made mistakes without qualifying them. I bet Bangle is a car guy just like us and he must know what he's doing or at least he must know a whole bunch of stuff to have the job he has...

Please, don't get me wrong... Like I said, I respect your opinion. It's just that I can't stand people criticizing other people's work from a technical perspective without being "technical" on the matter... 

Now, if you are a car designer or are in the design business, I'll just keep my big mouth shut from now on...


----------



## epc (Dec 24, 2001)

Am I the only one to think that the E65's interior is just a disharmony of shapes, colors and material, as illustrated by this picture?

I saw the car in person this morning at the dealership. Didn't get inside, but from the outside, the front and the back looked just as hideous in person as in pics.

I'm sure the car is the epitome of technology, but no way will I ever drive one no matter how much money I have.

PS. I was at Princeton BMW and there was this gorgeous little MINI Cooper in silver with black roof and mirrors there. Now that's a good looking car:thumb:



Jon Shafer said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

As I've stated from the beginning, I'm not going to let myself come to a "final" opinion on this thing until I've seen some in person, and become used to seeing them on the road -- as I'm sure will happen out here in SoCal.

That being said, while the "humpy" trunk used to be what bothered me most, now what I find most disturbing is the wide spacing between the double headlights, within each side's cluster.

Along with the "eyebrows," It makes it look kind of disturbed... or like it has downs syndrome, or something. It just doesn't seem right.

I don't doubt the multiple glowing reviews on its driveability, or the engine... it's really just the aesthetics I can't wrap my brain around yet.


----------



## Magna (Jan 4, 2002)

i think the car looks good except the trunk lid, and maybe the "eyebrows." the dash looks nice and symetrical, but prior bmw's were more driver oriented with the dash shifted towards the driver. i suppose this is better since the front passenger can also see the screen, use the nav, etc.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

No, I'm not "in the trade," so to speak--I'm a lawyer (which makes me an expert on everything, heh). But I am an enthusiast, and I have spent more time than most thinking about cars and vehicle design.

As an initial matter, I think it's fine for amateur enthusiasts to criticize the work of professionals, especially where (as here) the professional has designed a product for mass market consumption. For example, I am not a suspension engineer, but I feel qualified to comment on whether the suspension in my M3 is a better design than the suspension in the Olds Alero. My technical criticism may be not be as expert as you would get from someone in the trade, but that does not mean that my points have no validity. Industrial design is different from pure art; the E65 is not purely an expression of the artist's intent. It is instead, first and foremost, a product whose appearance is supposed to be pleasing to the eye of a broad possible range of potential consumers. By aiming their product at me, ISTM that BMW has in fact invited my comment, either in public discussion or at the very least through the (non) use of my checkbook.

Second, there has been much ink spilled in the trade press by people who *are* car designers about the fundamental styling flaws of the E65. I don't have the time to dig up any cites right now, but I specifically recall reading critiques by designers in Automotive News and Automobile of the E65's design. In that sense, when I speak of "flaws," I'm including both my own observations and am referencing the more expert opinions of others.

Finally, I agree that I should have been more specific in what, precisely, I was referring to, but I've done so in other posts (at the Org, I think) and didn't have the time to go through it all again. Fundamentally, when I refer to a design "flaw," I'm talking about an intersection of lines that strikes all or nearly all people as being disharmonious. Obviously, groundbreaking designs must push the envelope of what is considered harmonious or pleasing to the eye, so there is no bright line here. OTOH, some designs push that envelope too far, and are never accepted as attractive, no matter how familiar they become. The mutli-ovoids on the 96 Taurus are an example of this, as is the D pillar on early 90s Caprices. Examples on the E65 include the grille position (mounted high above the headlights, which gives the car a pug-nose appearance) and the trunk line (which is poorly integrated into the rest of the vehicle).

In short, I think the E65 is both ugly (a subjective opinion by a non-expert target consumer) and a bad design (a less subjective opinion based on the fact that the majority of non-expert target consumers as well as professional designers seem to agree that the car does, in fact, look like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down). I'm not criticizing those who find it attractive, but I am criticizing BMW because the number of people who do seems to be fairly small.



ALEX325i said:


> *
> 
> JST, with all due respect, but are you a car designer? I mean, I have the utmost respect for your opinion, but when you say "The number of simple design mistakes made...", do you even know what you're talking about? Like you, several other people find the E65 fugly, but only a car designer could say Bangle and his team made mistakes without qualifying them. I bet Bangle is a car guy just like us and he must know what he's doing or at least he must know a whole bunch of stuff to have the job he has...
> 
> ...


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

I just saw them in person and while I can't categorize them as "Aztec ugly" neither are they particularly appealing. The S-Class has much better styling, and looks the part of a mega-buck cruiser. 

The 7-series unfortunately looks like it was designed by the Dodge Stratus design team. Not entirely an ugly car but neither does it make me even want to take a second glance. Or if I do want to take a second glance, it's to check and make sure I'm looking at a BMW, not a Chrysler something or another.

Bravo to BMW for building another non-descript boring machine to the marketplace. Maybe that's BMW's new design focus: Boring Motor Works. :thumbdwn:


----------



## IndyMike (Dec 19, 2001)

*See what some 'Professional' designers*

have to say about the new E65!

I'm not in the market for this kind of car at this time so my opinion probably means very little.

As JPinTO stated very well, I fear more about the direction that BMW AG is headed in its design for the entire lineup.

In the past the thing that has always impressed me about BMW's is that they provided a better blend of attributes than any other automaker.

Now they seem to have taken that point to the extreme to where they are now a blend of Honda, Chrysler and Pontiac.

Congratulations! The marque is now a truly 'World Car'!

If this what is meant by the 'New World Order', then you can have it.

http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e65/forum.php?postid=45452&page=7


----------



## ride365 (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: The dashboard,*



hts said:
 

> *specifically the A/C controls, reminds me of mid-1970's GM cheese.
> 
> *


I was also going to say that the dash reminds me of an Oldsmobile i used to drive.

I'm no car designer... I am in an art/design field... regardless... that thing is ugly as sin.

kurt


----------



## ride365 (Dec 19, 2001)

> *
> It's just that I can't stand people criticizing other people's work from a technical perspective without being "technical" on the matter...
> *


this is from IndyMike's link...



> Less favourable were the views of the professionals - quite surprising, really, considering their usual reluctance to comment on fellow designers' work.
> 
> J Mays, Ford's design boss, freely admitted to being "shocked" by what he saw, adding a worried, "BMW has to be careful not to destroy its image."
> 
> ...


----------



## jAb (Dec 21, 2001)

i like how it looks from the side.... but "aside" from that it just do anything for me aesthetically
the technology is another story.... amazing !
can i drive one if i come up jon?


----------



## dragoon101 (Jan 18, 2002)

*reception...*



Kaz said:


> *I recognize the autocross circuit as the Irvine Meadows (what is it, Verizon Ampitheater or something these days), but where was that reception at? *


the screen on the e65 said "costa mesa" and it looks like the hotel is either the Crowne Plaza Hotel or the Westin South Coast Plaza located across the street from the South Coast Plaza.


----------



## cenotaph (Dec 19, 2001)

I'll reserve final judgement until I see it in person. It isn't growing on me as fast as the M/Z coup did though.

As for people with design training commenting on the car, I remember hearing about the head of one of the top design schools weighing in against it.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: reception...*



dragoon101 said:


> *
> 
> the screen on the e65 said "costa mesa" and it looks like the hotel is either the Crowne Plaza Hotel or the Westin South Coast Plaza located across the street from the South Coast Plaza. *


I think you're right. I know the 4th pic is somewhere off South Bristol.

Can you tell I've lived here too long??


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

ride365 said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure... But WhoTF is Ford's head of design to say shit like that? I mean, a company that designs and sells fugly cars like Focus, and Taurus can't say a thing about BMW...

Also, why did they leave (to the best of my knowledge) the new Range Rover unmodified? Let's not forget that's Bangle's team work too...


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

*I just don't understand -- how many times does BMW need*

to be hit over the head to get the message that MOST people (including other designers), think their new designs are ugly. They've been told this for as long as they've shown the so-called "banglefied" concepts of the Z9 and X coupe. Now, I did talk to a 30 something guy while flipping through car magazines at Barnes and Noble the other day who thought the car was great looking-- a friend of his is getting a new 745 soon. I started off by saying "These new BMW designs are really ugly, huh?" And he was like "no, what are you talking about--that's a beautiful car". I cannot now nor will I ever be able to find anything beautiful about the car. I like someone's description of "expensive ugly" that's a good way to describe it--be kind of like doing your who house in marble w/ gold plated everything. Its expensive, but very tacky and ugly. I guess BMW really won't get the message until these cars don't sell- seems like a pretty strong possibility given the ugliness and the electrical problems that we're already reading about!


----------



## epc (Dec 24, 2001)

ALEX325i said:


> *
> 
> Sure... But WhoTF is Ford's head of design to say shit like that? I mean, a company that designs and sells fugly cars like Focus, and Taurus can't say a thing about BMW...
> 
> Also, why did they leave (to the best of my knowledge) the new Range Rover unmodified? Let's not forget that's Bangle's team work too... *


Other than Ford's designer's comment, what do you think about the words from the guys at VW, Audi and MB???

In any case, I don't think J Mays was responsible for the ovoid Taurus. The Focus and the new Taurus, whether you like them or not, never did draw the kind of criticism from ANYONE like the E65 does.

As for the Rovers, I think it was pointed out that by the time Ford took over, it was too late in the product development cycle to do anything, had they wished to.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

epc said:


> *
> 
> Other than Ford's designer's comment, what do you think about the words from the guys at VW, Audi and MB???
> 
> ...


Well, VW/Audi and MB have their own agenda... Let's see what BMW and MB will say when the new A8 comes out...

Anyway, like I said, I *respect* different opinions. I mean, if you don't like the E65, fine. My intention is not to start a war here... 

Now, he may not have been responsilbe for the Taurus, but I remember when the Focus came out, back in 99, that several people (maybe not the auto press - who cares about another Ford econobox anyways?) criticized its style. The sedan is just FUGLY. The ZX3 SVT is not that bad, but the hood/front end is still fugly no matter what...

Thank God it was too late... Do you think they would've done any better by making its dash Ford-like? Sharing parts from the Ford parts bin? Ask any Jaguar owner if they like that... I bet 99% will say: "F*ck no!" (ok, they'll certainly use a different language )


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

epc said:


> *
> As for the Rovers, I think it was pointed out that by the time Ford took over, it was too late in the product development cycle to do anything, had they wished to. *


I sat in the new Range Rover last week, and its 100% BMW inside and out. Switches, materials, handles, everything is lifted straight out of E38/39/46 parts bins. I wonder how Ford is managing that WRT suppliers and such.

As for J Mays' Fords, I think they're some of the best-looking domestic designs in a long time, and he came to Ford in 97 after leaving Volkswagen (he did the Concept1/NewBeetle), so all the NewEdge cars (Ka, Focus, Cougar, GT90) are not his. He also worked on the E31 8er and E34 5er.


----------



## ride365 (Dec 19, 2001)

*Re: I just don't understand -- how many times does BMW need*



robg said:


> *I guess BMW really won't get the message until these cars don't sell*


unfortunately (or fortunately for BMW) i don't think looks will affect E65 sales that much. for that demographic i think people will still want the biggest bimmer they can get (status), or they'll buy it for the features... maybe even it's performance. frankly i don't think people in the market for that car really care that much about design. IMO i doubt most buy benz or bmw flagships for looks.

even if they did care about looks, do you think old rich guys would have the same taste as you? assuming you aren't an old rich guy 

it'll sell.

kurt


----------



## MarcusSanDiego (Jan 7, 2002)

*My 2 cents*

Well, I have seen this car in person (BMW of San Diego got one on Wednesday). And while I think there are a couple of decent "looks" to the car, overall I am not impressed with this vehicle.

Indeed, I think the side view of the car looks fine. And, with the exception of the placement of the turn signal above the headlights, the front doesn't completely turn me off (though I still don't like it). The rear, however, is ghastly. You really have to see it in person to understand how completely ridiculous the rear end looks.

Also, the car has 19 inch rims on it. It is begging for 20s.

The interior of the vehicle made me wonder if i was looking at something from a betamax machine. It looked plasticy and cheap. Not exactly the interior you'd expect from BMW's top-end line of cars.

All and all, if I was part of the target market for this car, I would never buy this vehicle. It just doesn't appeal to me.


----------

