This is a milestone car–not just for BMW, but for the whole future of the sport-sedan segment, now such a large one. Plenty of folks have written about the original BMW 1600 and 2002, introduced in 1966 and 1968 respectively, and sporting clean styling, great handling, and nice slim, chrome bumpers. The one I found recently, however, is at the tail end of its decade of production, with battering-ram bumpers and a catalytic converter; but still, it’s an awfully nice car. This was the proto-3 Series, and part of the Neue Klasse of BMWs that saved the Munich-based company’s bacon.
Prior to the revolutionary Neue Klasse sedans in 1964, BMW was just barely getting by, thanks to the two-cylinder rear-engine 700 (above) being a minor success. The 700 gave Harald Quandt enough hope in BMW’s future to invest in it heavily, and save it from the future that befell Borgward, which went to the great hereafter in 1963. In addition to the 700 sedan and coupe, BMW also had at the time the little Isetta bubble-car, the four-passenger Isetta off-shoot 600, and the big, expensive 2600, little changed from the original 1953 “Baroque Angel” 501/502 sedans.
The BMW 1500 Neue Klasse was an instant sensation and hit (CC here). It offered a unique formula of performance, handling and comfort that was just not readily available elsewhere. In short order, more powerful 1800 and 1800 Ti models were added, as well as a more luxurious 2000 and 2000Ti. The legendary BMW M10 SOHC hemi four took well to performance increases, and a racing development of it would eventually end up in a F1 car making some 1300 hp in 1986.
The success of the Neue Klasse emboldened BMW to make a smaller version, with two doors. The 1600 debuted in 1966, and was initially called 1600-2 (later 1602) so as not to be confused with the larger four-door 1600 sedan in production at the same time. It sported the same clean, boxy lines and tall roof that made for a very spacious interior for a car of its size (the photo above was shot by Davo; lots more pics of it can be found here on the Cohort). Lots of glass area gave it superb visibility. It was no stunner like a Jaguar XKE/E-Type given its Teutonic boxiness, but still was a very good looking automobile. With 96 (gross) hp, it was a lively performer for the times.
BMW was on a roll now, and in 1969, took the big step of adding a larger six cylinder line, the 2500 and 2800 models (as seen above and below, photos courtesy of Cohort contributor carnivalofsorts13).
The later 2800 and 3.0Si (also sold in a lower-trim version called the Bavaria in the States) was a very attractive sedan; and its M30 six cylinder engine also became one of the the most highly revered of its kind for decades. But let’s get back to the small two-doors.
The 2002 was introduced alongside the 1602 in 1968. It was mostly the same car, but featured a 1990 cc version of the M10 four-cylinder engine as used in the 2000 sedan, good for 108 horsepower. The US market undoubtedly inspired its existence, as in Europe the performance version 1600ti already made 105 hp. But the combination of emission controls and American’s general preference for larger, less peaky engines made the 2002 a superb compromise, and the 1602 version eventually disappeared in the US.
Granted, 108 horsepower doesn’t sound like much in a time of 300-horse 2012 Impala rental cars, but back then it was a revelation in such a well-mannered, lightweight car–especially in America. In the mid- to late-1960s, the Great Brougham Epoch was just getting started, and the 2002 became the seminal small sports sedan alternative, very delicious to those in the know.
image: lov2xlr8.no
The 2002 was also offered in a sportier 130hp “ti” (dual carbs) and tii” (fuel injection) versions, and are the most desirable of the type. And in 1972-73, the 2002 Turbo (above) was not only the first turbocharged production BMW, but the first turbocharged production car in Europe. It was a rocket, producing 170 hp at 5800 rpm, and 180 lb-ft of torque. You couldn’t miss it either, with its colorful decals, front air dam and fender flares.
As the years passed, the 2002 changed, albeit not very drastically. US-bound cars got the biggest changes, starting with tacked-on side marker lights in 1968. That wasn’t so bad, but aesthetically the worst was yet to come, as big federally-mandated bumpers were added for 1974. Substituting them for the earlier models’ chrome slimline bumpers not only hurt the car’s looks a bit, but also added to its weight. Under the hood, even more performance-choking emissions equipment brought down power; despite all this, it remained a fine little sporty car, one that started a lineage still going strong today.
Inside, you could almost believe it was still 1967. Things changed very little, all the way to the end, and those firm bucket seats were just as good as always.
And look, full instrumentation. Yes, that black interior is a little drab, but this car was all business, save for a bit of wood trim to brighten the instrument panel. Everything was clearly marked and close to hand, including the short-throw manual transmission. It was nice to get so much information from your car. Remember, in the mid-1970s most Detroit cars had a fuel gauge and speedometer, period.
The 2002 was offered until 1976, which is the year of today’s CC. I spotted this attractive, gunmetal gray example at a friend’s used car lot. It’s a nice original car and is ready to roll. One of Jeff’s salesmen, Dan, owns this beauty. Despite the plates, it is not for sale. I don’t blame you, Dan!
From checking out this car and sitting in it (thanks Dan!), I can tell you it is very attractive. There might be two dozen of these in Eugene, but seeing one around here is a treat. I can’t even remember the last time I saw one of these in the metal.
The 1602/2002, along with the 1500/1800/2000 sedans, represented a new beginning for BMW. The ’02 had a good run, and from its success came the very first 3-Series, the E21, which took over in 1976. Obviously, BMW cooked up a pretty good recipe; the 3 is still with us 36 years later and, judging from all the 325s and 335s I see running around, is BMW’s most successful model. It all started here.
I’d get rid of those huge bumpers and get period-correct slim bumpers. I would also seek out euro lights/headlights (if applicable) to bolster the looks a bit.
Otherwise, a very clean example.
If I were ever to drive a BMW, I’d prefer it to be older and spartan when compared to today’s trumped up bimmers.
All in all, I think that this car was hurt less by the USA federal bumpers than almost anything else. Those bumpers destroyed all of the English sports cars and even most American cars. Somehow the no-nonsense German design of this car seems to shrug and accept the bumpers reasonably well.
This is another car that I have always had a hankering to own, although I would prefer one of the earlier ones with the less complex engine systems. I would probably regret the purchase within the first thirty days, but I would at least get to experience the true, unadulterated BMW spirit that has sustained that company for a generation or more.
In the mid 80s, I knew a law professor who had owned a 2002. He loved BMWs but ruefully wondered out loud just exactly when BMWs had priced themselves hopelessly out of his reach, which by that time, they had certainly done.
This car also seemed to mark a line of demarcation – the 2002 was the last BMW that people bought as a car. The 320s and later models were just as often (if not more so) bought as status symbols.
Although I prefer the small bumpers, I agree with you. Something about the bauhaus boxy simplicity of the 2002 made them work much better than average. And they were infinitely more useful. The only other cars that worked failry well with the new big bumpers were some of Teague’s AMC products, because he just hung them out there, rather than even trying to integrate them crudely to the car, like the Big Three did. They just sort of floated out there, and didn’t ruin the surface tension of his cars.
Towards the end of the 2002’s run, in places like LA it was already becoming a relatively-affordable status symbol for the early yuppies.
JP, I agree in total with your remark about the 2002 being a line of demarcation of sorts. That car was the blueprint for the German sports coupe but the architects themselves somehow lost their way. I think VW with their versions of the Jetta GLI captured that feel of the 2002.
As the owner of a 1989 E30 with ‘diving board’ bumpers, I can tell you that while I can’t stand the design they’ve gotten me out of trouble more than a few times, especially parallel parking in NYC. Older Bimmers’ headlights and taillights seem to be right at bumper level of most newer cars, so I’ll take any protection I can get!
1989 was the year that BMW E30s switched to 2.5 mph, body-colored bumpers. Are you sure you don’t have a 1988? I loved the 5 mph bumpers on mine. The only thing I’d change on my current car would be adding real bumpers. ‘Sleek looks’ are useless when they’re wearing the scars of every flawed parallel parker.
This is my feeling about modern cars that omit any sort of rub strips on the door for the sake of cleaner flanks…
Back from the day when BMW actually made “The Ultimate Driving Machine”. Today, the slogan should be “World’s Most Leased Car (Amazing How Many of Our Owners Can’t Actually Afford One)” or the simpler “Lexus Mit Handling”.
Yeah, I’m a curmudgeon. The E30 was the last of the real BMW’s, the E36 while still acceptable was where BMW started worrying that their performance image was putting off potential customers.
This is probably the newest BMW I’d own. Living in LA, I’m surrounded by BMWs which are almost certainly nearly all on lease, and lacking any distinction. They and the US arm of the company they represent are the “Ultimate Marketing Machine”. But this car, or a 3.0CS…that I could get into.
(Disclaimer: My wife drives a MINI, so I do contribute in some way to the success of BMW USA’s marketing efforts. But she wants what she wants.)
Ha, funny I thought, “World’s Most Leased Car”, i wonder if this is actually true. LeaseTrader says…it is, 7.7% of BMWs are leased, more than any other brand.
I never understood the attraction of the 1600/2002, or for that fact, any other BMW. My girlfriend had a 2002. It leaned like a 2CV on turns. It had slow steering with a bus-sized steering wheel. Every 2002 I’ve ever been in had some element of the interior (armrests, seats, trim) in disrepair. Shifting was slow and klunktastic. I much preferred my Fiat 128. The 2002 seemed to be the car for those wanting a slightly smaller package with marginally better handling than the ’55 Chevy they first owned.
But its *German*, Das ist Gut!
Even a penalty box is good if its German.
My first was a 1970 02
Still own a 76 02 love big bumpers
You must have really never driven on a mountain road in one.
Those cars stick like glue, always runs good
0 to 60 in 10 seconds, back in the day that was fast.
Unbelievable visibility,
Rust like hell, but how many 70s cars don’t.
Fiats are way cool but not as much low end and sound too mechanical for me.
I’d still love to have a both. They are totally different, but independent
Suspension an four wheel disc. They get it on.
I had to say something to try to sway your opinion
Cause, I’ve got nothing better to do I guess.
A friend in my church choir owns an orange ’71. He put a 5-speed in it and loves the way it drives.
There’s currently one for sale at an auto body about 5 minutes away. It’s one of the newer ones as it has the 5-MPH bumpers. No idea what they want for it.
In 1974, my future mother-in-law inherited a modest sum from an aunt. She was a single mother with four teenaged/pre-teen kids(!), working as a secretary in LA. So what did she spend a substantial portion of it on? A beige 1974 2002, with the stick. She had her priorities!
When I appeared on the scene in 1977, it had already had a few expensive issues, given that she was totally at the mercy of BMW of Beverly Hills (or whatever it was called then). It had a propensity to overheat, as many of them did.
I didn’t drive much, but did drive some of us up to a memorable ski weekend in Mammoth. It was a nice ride for the times, but as Kevin already commented, it was sprung/shocked a bit softer than I might have expected. But that was one of its charms too, and since I was driving a very soft Peugeot 404 at the time, in relative terms, it wasn’t overly so. Or the shocks were getting a bit soft.
The 2002Tii had firmer springs and shocks, and really was the genuine sports sedan of the two. BMW probably already had buyers like my MIL in mind with the base 2002.
When she “retired” to Iowa in 1985, she wisely took our advice and sold it, given the reality of getting an aging 2002 serviced there. Her replacement car: a 1970 Plymouth Fury with the “Mod top” and a 440 under the hood. It was promptly named “La Bamba”. Quite the contrast from the 2002.
A trade-up, for sure. 🙂 It sounds like what I did – sold a nice 2 year old 85 GTI and bought a 66 Fury III sedan. And I didn’t even get the paisley vinyl top or the 440. But then, I didn’t start with a BMW.
A mod top AND 440 on one Fury….that’s a car I’d love to have. Sadly there’s probably none left.
With retro models being so popular, surely it’s time for a reborn 2002 – the perfect combination of size, performance, and sensible simplicity.
The German Triumph sedan both brands chased the same market sporty sedan, I prefer the Triumph for looks and handling but I guess BMW made the first cars for the US that actually went around corners.
Nice job Tom!! You have done the vehicle a great deal of deserved justice. It truly is a special breed and for all pros and cons, it is just plain fun on the run!! As you well know everything is for sale eventually, if any interested parties come forward let me know.
TKS,
Dan
A pretentious neighbor who had a 318 and was a member of a BMW car club said that among club members, “if it isn’t old enough to have round tail lights it isn’t very desirable.” I also read that the small BMW was the basis for the Datsun 510. Like the little BMW’s, rather have the 510.
That was then franco, this is NOW!
I heard that a lot of BMW fans prefer the round taillight cars. I don’t know if it’s because of the round taillights…or other features the round taillight cars have.
I’m not a BMW fan by any means but I do appreciate these I guess…maybe because they are kind of “Volvo 240ish” or something. They are kind of cute with their single headlights & that wacky central tailpipe.
Drive a 02 and you are happy!
The 02 has nothing to do with Volvo or other clunky Cars!
Drive it and you have a grin in your face! 🙂
In the ’70s in Italy there was a big rivalry between these BMWs and the Alfa Romeo Alfetta…the 2002 surely was solid and well built but it was also considered a notorious rolling coffin for its insidious handling, no match with the transaxle Alfetta, it just was from another planet…nowadays Alfa can compete only with the lower end of BMW range…such a shame
Never quite understood the appeal. In 1984 a friend had a1972 2002. I had a 1971 saab99.despite being fwd, the saab semed superior in everyway, including handling. The ergonomics of the 02 where a little bizarre too, i had never before experienced pushing in on the turn signal to sound the horn. The shifter was no better than the 99s notorious sloppy unit, and fast corners where rather unnerving. The motor did turn out to be more durable. I doubt too many of those triumph engined 99s are left. When mine blew its head gasket it proved impossible to get the head off, a common failure, I’m told
It’s not impossible to get the head off of the Triumph engine, just nearly impossible. It takes a number of tricks- the special tool to try to lock onto the studs, leave the engine able to run, to get it to hot to give each head stud a chance to be taken out.
I have spent ~week to saw off the head studs to get the head off; it paid ~ an hour.
Ultimate Pomposity Machine, more like it. Sorry, can’t get older BMWs down my throat at all. Small, bad-looking, boxy penalty boxes aren’t really my cup of tea, and much less so if they are `luxury’ cars of some sort. Makes you wonder if luxury in Germany meant four wheels and a roof.
I spent a few hours behind the wheel of various 1600’s and 2002’s in the ’70’s and I think they were already getting dated by then. My 1975 Alfetta sedan was far better in almost every way (except maybe long-term durability, but I totalled it in 1978 so never found out), and when I bought a Fiesta in ’79, I remember easily sticking with a 2002 on a twisty road. But today, a clean 2002 with 14″ alloys and small or tucked-in bumpers still looks nice – classic and simple. I had an opportunity to buy a one-owner ’75 a few years ago, but decided that thermal reactor year was best avoided, since in California a 1975 car has to pass smog checks with original emissions hardware. I did get my first speeding ticket behind the wheel of a friend’s 2002.
Bob Marley owned a 2002. Apparently because BMW also stood for “Bob Marley and the Wailers.”
I raced these cars for years, both in SCCA Improved Touring and a couple of times in HSR/VARA events; they are STILL one of my favourite cars to drive on track because, although they aren’t blazingly fast, they are beautifully “fling-able”. Put a good suspension on one of these beasties, and it will allow you to put it almost anywhere it needs to be in a corner. Great fun, in their own way.
Also love the E30 M3 on the track, and just this past week was blessed with the experience of driving a new 1M at TX World Speedway — I think I’ve found a new fave car! (too bad there will only be about 740 of those brought here to the USA…)
Of the many dozen cars I’ve owned…my 1974 2002 is the ONLY car I ever regret selling. I sold my 1991 SE-R to buy the 2002 and drove it as a DD for years. Attempted to sell it once (for whatever reason entered my head) and at the time of sale, completely broke down and wound up keeping my Baikal Blue beauty. Drove it for a few more years and decided to sell in my attempt to “grow up” I suppose. Now 43, I find myself often scanning ads/eBay/etc…for a decent 2002. Sigh…perhaps one day again…
Where is the love. You people that say, can’t get a bmw2002 down my throat, the cars look bad and drive terrible and you say ford fiesta in the same breath, good heavens,
The bmw 2002 is an unbelievable car, comfortable for four adults, has a huge trunk,
I used to put two people in there to sneak into drive in theaters, oops, the m10 four
Cylinder motor is as durable as you can get. When you drive one the slight smell of horsehair and gasoline in intoxicating. They honestly feel like they weigh 5000 lbs,
So solid, 30 miles per gallon and with positraction you can go any ware. I can hear the deep rumble of my wife’s 02 coming home a quarter mile away. So many good memories,
And many more to come, were gonna go on a 7500 mile road trip this spring.
I’m with Picoman, love the 2002. I had a 1974 2002 with the big bumpers and a double barrel weber carb that was one of the most fun to drive and predictable handling cars I’ve ever driven. I can’t compare it to Alfa Romeos of the period because I haven’t driven one (but sure would love to!), but I did test drive a Fiat Dino coupe 2.4 (1972 I think…) and found the 2002 way more fun to drive. I’ve driven many and owned a few other BMW’s, Mercedes, Porsches, VWs, Saabs, Fords, Cadillacs (2009 and forward, and yes they are very good handling cars!), and even an Infiniti (2004 g35 coupe), and the 2002 with its independent suspension, rear-wheel drive, and 55/45 front to rear weight distribution was the only car that I could truly “steer” with the throttle. On an off ramp, you just set your line and then press down on the throttle to let the tail out a little, and let off of throttle to let the car tighten the line and turn more in.
Loved it and yes I agree with another of the commenters and wish I still had it!