(first posted 3/15/2016) Americans don’t like hatchbacks. It’s sad, but it’s true. Oh, they will tolerate them on inexpensive subcompacts and compacts but beyond that they, and to a lesser extent Canadians, are not interested. Case in point: the BMW 3-Series Compact. But while the Compact would appear to be an evolutionary dead-end to North Americans, an unpopular shape not even redeemed in consumers’ eyes by the blue-and-white roundel badge, its greater success in Europe established it as the progenitor of a long line of smaller-than-3-Series BMWs.
It’s interesting to see how the hatch slammed shut on the hatchback format’s popularity in North America. For a little while in the 1970s and 1980s, the body style seemed to be gaining steam before tanking in popularity in the 1990s; for example, Toyota dumped its Corolla hatchback and saw no commensurate decrease in sales. The 3-Series Compact represented a curious conflict for buyers between a really desirable attribute (a BMW badge at a lower price) and a really undesirable attribute (a stubby hatchback body).
No matter how tempting the lure of a premium badge, a hatchback-only model range is sales poison in North America. Witness the Audi A3, first introduced in 2006. Ignore the silly “Sportback” marketing speak: it was a hatchback. Sales pottered along at around the 6000 annual unit mark, before skyrocketing to 22k units in 2014 and 35k in 2015. Why? The A3 became a sedan. Even in somewhat hatchback-friendlier Canada, sales increased 74% with the arrival of the sedan.
Third door aside, the Compact’s reason for being was logical. As with the recent crop of entry-level Germans like the Mercedes-Benz CLA and BMW 2-Series, the Compact was to offer a lower price point for the brand and attract younger buyers who would then be inclined to replace said entry-level car with a more expensive model down the line. Make a good impression and you have a BMW customer for life. Many BMW dealers were clamoring for a cheaper product to sell and more younger buyers would bring down the average buyer age – in the UK, this had risen from 40 in 1990 to 47 in 1993.
The Compact received a different dashboard from the sedan. While there were some cheaper materials involved, the styling was classic BMW with the controls angled towards the driver. Vibrant fabrics were available to lend a more youthful vibe to the very Teutonic interior, including the option of scarlet red seats and door inserts. The interior was no less spacious than the sedan, as the Compact rode the same wheelbase; total length, however, was 9 inches shorter. Curb weight was almost identical to the sedan as the structure required stiffening.
The interior was classically BMW in appearance but differentiated from the E36 sedan. Underneath, it was a similar story. Instead of the more sophisticated multi-link rear suspension used in the sedan, the Compact employed the old E30 3-Series’ semi-trailing arm rear suspension. There were a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, it was shorter and lower and thus took up less space, improving cargo capacity. Secondly, it was cheaper to produce and helped keep production costs down. Handling and steering was as delightful and precise as the sedan but the old rear suspension meant wet-weather traction was inferior and the ride was less compliant.
BMW set modest expectations for the 3-Series Compact in the US – 6000 to 7000 annual sales – but it only accomplished that in 1996. For comparison, total BMW 3-Series sales volume was upwards of 50-60,000 annual units, representing more than half of total BMW sales.
It wasn’t just the hatchback-averse United States where the Compact failed to garner sales. Between 1995 and 1999, the E36 Compact sold just 3,000 units in Australia. There, it was pricier than high-spec versions of the Peugeot 306 and Volkswagen Golf and yet offered less power; the Australian Compact range opened with a 316i with just 102 hp and 110 ft-lbs and was topped by the 318ti with 138 hp and 129 ft-lbs of torque.
In North America, the 318ti was the only option. For the Compact’s sophomore season, a new 1.9 four-cylinder was standard (although it was still called the 318ti) and this produced the same horsepower but a few extra pound-feet of torque. Standard transmission was a five-speed manual with a four-speed automatic optional.
In the US, the 318ti launched with a list price of $19,900, a considerable saving over the cheapest 3-Series sedan ($25,600). This put it a few hundred dollars ahead of the more powerful albeit less fuel efficient Volkswagen Golf VR6 and at a similar price to the sportiest versions of compact coupes like the Eagle Talon and Nissan 240SX. Standard equipment included dual airbags, anti-lock brakes, air-conditioning and power windows, mirrors and locks. For an extra $2,400, a 318ti buyer could add the Sports package which included a stiffer suspension, sport seats, fog lights and bigger tires; alternatively, one could purchase the Active package with an electric sunroof and cruise control.
In every market, the Compact was priced at the same level as hot versions of mainstream hatchbacks and coupes and had a power deficit. But it had an ace up its sleeve: rear-wheel-drive. There were simply no other hatchbacks available with RWD. Handling was a delight and provided you purchased your Compact with a stick, you could work the small but rev-happy four-cylinder engines and get the most out of them. In Europe, the Compact was also available with a 1.7 diesel four-cylinder (89 hp, 140 ft-lbs) and, most excitingly, the 2.5 straight-six petrol. This engine put out 168 hp and 181 ft-lbs, competitive with the Golf VR6. Alas, this did not make the trip across the pond, perhaps because a Compact so equipped would have been priced well into 3-Series sedan territory.
Despite slow sales, BMW North America stuck it out until the end of the E36 Compact’s run. However, they declined to offer the 2000 E46 Compact. This new hatchback had unique styling and yet an identical chassis to the E46 sedan. Eventually, it made way for the 1-Series hatchback, coupe and convertible, the latter two of which were sold in North America. Annual sales were generally twice as high as they had been for the 318ti, perhaps due to the more acceptable three-box format.
While the hatchback BMW never died elsewhere in the world, BMW North America has yet to offer the 1-Series hatchback and yet took the unusual step of introducing the 3-Series Gran Turismo in 2014. In BMW speak, “Gran Turismo” apparently means “oddly proportioned hatchback”. Still, variety is the spice of life and the GT BMWs are some of the more practical of BMW’s cavalcade of niche vehicles.
The 1990s were a watershed moment for the German luxury brands in terms of entry-level offerings. BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Audi each launched a range of entry-level models but they each took very different approaches: BMW with its cut-down 3-Series, Audi with a Golf-based hatchback and Mercedes-Benz with an innovative if dorky and van-esque offering. Despite varying strategies, each automaker has eventually found tremendous success. BMW’s smallest offerings may not look like the 3-Series Compact and soon most of them will not even be rear-wheel-drive but the Compact got the wheels rolling. You, too, can buy an affordable BMW! But one must wonder: will the younger buyers and increased sales volume created by cars like the Compact and its descendants come at a great cost to the prestige of the German luxury brands?
Related Reading:
Future CC/Driving Impressions: 2014 Mercedes-Benz CLA250 4MATIC
Curbside Classic: 1994 BMW E36 325i
Actually, the 323ti had the M52B25 engine, which was a 2.5 liter.
Oh these Germans and their confusing names. Good catch, I’ll fix the text.
It has only gotten worse since then with the model names. Anyways, I’ve very much enjoyed the read. Lots of interesting facts.
Even BMW Officials secretly complained that this 3series´ back end looked like a pain in the ass ! 😉
One thing the 318ti proved was that RWD was not getting the brownie points any more with this hot hatch. I think this is partly due to the fact that the fours offered were strangely lackluster.
I wonder if this is what lead to the rebirth of Mini. There was room for sporty hatches in the line, but on a FWD platform, and not austere versions of the 3 series. The inevitable scary part is going on now. The FWD Mini platform is starting to sprout BMW badged versions.
I owned a base 1997 318ti. The hatchback was my favorite part as the 3 series was such a common car that the Gremlin style chop off made it stand out. The kids may have liked it more if BMW had gone full Gemlin and cut the wheelbase and backseat space and still offered the bigger engines.
Let’s be honest though: the only reason the Compacts and the 1-series have been RWD till now is cost: there is no sense in developing FWD for just one car. In a small car, RWD takes up a lot of space and none of the small BMWs have ever been particularly practical, the back seat of the E87 is smaller than that of a Ford Fiesta. Now that the MINI has grown enough to make it possible, the next 1-series will migrate to FWD, too. But really, the MINI is a superb car to drive*, and BMW wouldn’t put its name on a car that doesn’t have the driving dynamics you’d expect.
* if you can still drive while wearing the blindfold you’d be tempted to wear because of the styling.
* especially the dashboard
I always joked that the “T” in Ti stood for “Truncated.”
That’s excellent, and very apropos.
To be nitpicky about a small detail that I think helps to illustrate an important point, saying the E36 3-Series Compact was priced like cooking hatchbacks isn’t entirely accurate. (“Cooking” in this context doesn’t mean “hot” — more like “bread-and-butter.”) In the mid-90s, $20–25K U.S. was a bunch of money, particularly for a body style Americans generally considered downmarket and that in this case clearly looked small and a little awkward.
The 318ti’s base price was comparable to an Acura Integra GS-R or Volkswagen GTI VR6, but over $1,000 more than the more common Integra LS and close to $5,000 more than a four-cylinder Golf Sport. Also, I got the distinct (if anecdotal) impression that very few U.S. Compacts went without at least one of the option packages and various other add-ons, which took the 318ti’s as-equiped MSRP to more like $3,500–$4,000 more than the hot Integra or Golf. That WAS a big jump for 1995–96.
The contemporary Honda Prelude, Toyota Celica, and Mazda MX-6 suffered basically the same problem. Because they were made in Japan, a Prelude Si, Celica GT, or MX-6 LS started at $21–22K and could top $25K with options, which really killed their sales. The people who would have wanted them couldn’t stretch that far and the people who could (like empty-nest Boomers) were no longer looking for sporty coupes or hatches.
Whups! I misused a slang term. Now that I look it up, a “cooking” model is more like a “warm” hatch than a “hot hatch”. I was reading UK reviews before I wrote this and mistook the term… it’s not as commonly used in Australian automotive journalism and now that I think about it, I’ve never seen it in American. Corrected, thanks.
It’s especially fun when the same term means very different things depending on your nationality. (“Can you raise the hood?”)
Aside from the awkward rear styling, I wonder if another reason this didn’t sell well in the US is because (at least to me) it seemed to scream, “Look at me…I bought a car with a blue-and-white roundel on it!!! Even I can afford a gen-u-wine BMW!!!”
Perhaps that’s a bit harsh, but in reality there are have always been those who choose luxury marques primarily for the prestige value.
Which also splains the popularity of the C Class. Chrysler got the 300 while Daimler got an econobox.
I liked these cars when they were new but that was definitely how they were viewed, as overpriced ‘BMWs In Name Only’.
I can recall trying to point out that the premium small-engined RWD hatchback was actually closer to what a BMW really was, but with no success – Americans just didn’t accept that car as a genuine BMW.
If I recall correctly, a few years after that BMW entirely discontinued NA I4s from the American market.
I know I wouldn’t buy a BMW or Benz unless I was getting at the very least a 5 series or E class.
It’s just my own bias, but to me the 3s and Cs (let alone the 1s and CLAs now) scream “I want to look like a rich sophisticated yuppie but I can only swing a lease on the cheapest car you make!”
And for the 1-series, that’s a a sad state of affairs, because from what I’ve read it’s not a bad car.
Reviewers seem to position it in the spirit of the old BMW 2002, and the convertible version is said to be particularly nice.
Like I said, it’s just my own bias. The 1 is probably nice for what it is, but my taste goes to rolling bank vault/land yacht. I don’t much care for old BMWs precisely for that reason, so the 1 being in the “spirit” of the 2002 doesn’t appeal to me. Ymmv
To paraphrase a comment used about the VW 411, 318 meant 3 doors, 18 years late.
I always thought that if the 3-series had been hatchback-only going back to the E21 in the ’70s, American buyer prejudice against premium hatchbacks would never have gelled in the first place.
Like if they’d carried on the style of the 2002 Touring.
“I always thought that if the 3-series had been hatchback-only going back to the E21 in the ’70s, American buyer prejudice against premium hatchbacks would never have gelled in the first place.”
That strategy would have likely been disastrous for BMW. Interestingly enough, even in Europe, the preceding Touring models Old Pete mentions were not popular amongst buyers. Only 25,827 were sold from 1971 to 1974 before BMW pulled the plug.
The BMW E36 Compact might have just worked had BMW been willing to give the green light to both the 5-door hatchback and M3 Compact variants, while the later E46 Compact would have been better off with the same plus the same front-end as the BMW E46 3-Series.
The fact BMW were not willing to do so only demonstrates they were half-hearted with the BMW Compact, the 5-door hatchback would have captured a wider audience than the 3-door hatchback managed to by itself while the M3 Compact would have served as a halo model and virtually unmatched Hot Hatch (in terms of power) for both the 3/5-door hatchback Compact range further increasing sales.
The very first time I saw one I thought something had gone wrong in the factory while building it – how did an elegant 3-series end up like this? Mind you, I was 7 at the time. The 3 Compacts may have been awkward and slow-selling but did show BMW there was a market for a small BMW. When they finally went about it seriously with the 1-series it became a tremendous success.
BMW Gremlin.
LOL, I can’t unsee that now.
Haha!!
William, just to be clear, I didn’t mean to sound pithy. Loved your piece, just never liked the car. I now know where to find the facts on it! 🙂
It reminds me of what the Escort Three Door Hatchback would have become if it had remained RWD after the Mk II.
Which, if you think about it, is exactly NOT what BMW was going for.
Ate Up With Motor really nailed the cause for why the Compact didn’t find more customers. I’ve looked at these as a potential customer for years, but 90% of the 318tis I have run across so far have been equipped with automatic transmissions. There was also no such thing as a “stripper” model, as far as I can tell. The fact that cars like Integras were at the top of the price pyramid…..until the 318ti arrived, with LESS power, did them no favors.
Both BMW and Porsche build cars they call “entry level”, but the prices asked are not really all that “cut rate”.
There is a lot I find appealing about these cars. They’re really the preamble to the modern MINI Cooper hardtop/hatch. Reasonably equipped, high-quality interiors, obvious BMW engineering, etc. I just can’t get past the styling. Oddly proportioned with the muscular E36 front end leading to a rather clumsy rear.
Even as far as hatchbacks go, I don’t find the styling to have any sex appeal, something important for the entry-level luxury car buyer. I think the more distinctive styling of the E46 hatchback helped in giving it a stronger personality and appeal of its own.
The current 3- and 5-Series GTs are equally awkward looking and make even less sense, especially considering they are priced above the sedans and are less practical than the much better looking 3- and 5-Series Tourings (wagons). And from firsthand work experience at a BMW/MINI dealer, they do not sell at all. Conversely, the “hidden-hatchback” 4-Series Gran Coupe does much better in sales, about even with the regular 4-Series coupe.
My thoughts exactly on the current 3 GT and 4 Gran Coupe; they force a customer to make the same compromises the Touring does (no manual, XDrive only, $10k above the base sedan-only 320i or a base X1); at that price, anyone willing to give a hatchback a shot would just as soon go for a wagon.
Five-door luxury *cars* in the US appeal to a niche market that really doesn’t want to compromise; being the halfway option between Gran Coupe and Touring isn’t much of a sub-niche.
The GT models did well upon launch, but with the constant followup of different (better) cars, they didn’t really go anywhere. Given the splash they initially made I was inclined to disagree with your statement of them not selling, but when I think about it I don’t see many at all. And I live in Munich, the city with the highest BMW concentration in the world (the 4 series Gran Coupe and the 2 Active Tourer are runaway hits on the other hand).
The MINI is definitely in a similar marketing position, but I think it has benefited form being a separate entity with its own identity.
Aside from price, a big problem with the E36 Compact was that its obvious, visible relationship with the E36 sedan and coupe really served to underscore the idea that the Compact was just a 318i with 20% off — including the tail end of the car. That invited buyers to compare the Compact to the sedan and think about what they weren’t getting for the price, which is the opposite of what you want in an entry-level model unless you’re really only interested in upselling.
I dont know if NZ got these new I wasnt here but they have flooded in ex JDM since then, they seem to be nothing special and the 306 is a more sporting drive from what I have observed, they are however cheap if you want the roundel badge in your driveway.
This is nice work, Mr. Stopford.
These E36 3er hatchbacks always look to me like contemporaneous Honda Civics, the same way a Dodge Caliber looks like a Toyota Matrix or certain medium-recent Jaguars look like Buicks.
It is really kind of strange how North Americans don’t go for hatchbacks (though I do see a fair number of A5 Audis about)—I wonder if the likes of the Chev Citation spoiled it for us the way the disieselised Olds 350 V8 put us off diesel engines. Kind of a shame, anyhow; it means we missed out on this really sweet Civic 4-door hatchback (take a few moments; click through the whole collection of pics). Chevrolet are putting out a new Cruze hatchback and even calling it that, right in the United States; I guess we’ll see how poorly or well it sells.
The 3 door version of that Civic was sold only as the Si model, after Honda had switched the Si nameplate to a 2 door sedan for one generation. (It was considered to be a low point for the Si model.)
BTW, this 5 door example looks too bland, I doubt even hardcore fans of the Civic would buy it in the U.S.
Ironically, the generation after the one pictured had a more radical/adventurous 5 door hatchback. The U.S. may be getting a 5 door hatch for the Civic in 2016….at least according to a recent Car&Driver road test.
Just to clarify, I think you mean that the 2002-2005 Civic Si hatch was the low point. The 1999-2000 Civic Si coupe is a classic, the only B-series DOHC VTEC engine available in the US in a Civic from the factory.
We’ve had the Cruze hatchback in Australia for a few years now, so the body is already available – minimum risk to Chevrolet in offering it, as the toolings’s already done. IIRC the body was a Holden design – but unusually for that segment, you see more Cruze sedans on the road here.
Chevrolet Cruz began as a Suzuki rebadge before moving to the Daewoo built car, we have them here in fairly large numbers, popular with the elderly they get the Chevy bowtie they loved in their youth with decent build quality, reliability and fuel consumption they could only dream of previously win win.
Wasn’t the Cruze hatch a late arrival everywhere it was sold?
Chevy’s announced the next-gen Cruze hatch will be available in America; I suspect with the gen1 it was down to the hatch or the diesel, and the logic behind going with diesel is that the gen1 hatch body dies for Lordstown would be short-lived while powertrains would carry over.
Yes the Cruze hatch was a late addition to the range, the car was originally launched in 2008 with the hatch added in 2011 and wagon (built only in South Korea I think) in 2012.
It is probably worth noting the Suzuki rebadge Bryce is referring to was a Holden version of the Suzuki Ignis, completely unrelated to the current GM car.
Nice article. Both these cars and the M-B C-class Sport Coupe that followed had some sales here in SoCal and you still see well cared for examples in use. YMMV but I think the truncated BMW looks way better than the M-B.
Agreed – that Benz looks particularly unfortunate.
The follow-up CLC was worse, at least the first version had a mini-CLK look about it.
They do ok as an urban easy-to-park ‘personal car’, but I usually see them with older empty-nesters not young people.
The latest “premium-hatch”, the Infiniti Q30. Technically based on the Benz A-Class, BTW.
As a former owner of the only other 4 cylinder/entry level model Infiniti sold in the U.S. I am curious to see if this car comes “stateside”, and if it does, what the marketing strategy will be. It looks like a smaller version of the SUVs that Infiniti has been selling recently.
It is coming as a 2017, but badged as the QX30 along with the prerequisite CUV styling elements and slightly raised ride height. Saw it at the Twin Cities auto show this past weekend.
No signs of volume sales diluting the perceived prestige of the brand here in the UK, where I understand the 3 series outsells the Ford Mondeo. Most non-car people still regard the premium brands as just that. TBH, when I see Ford’s attempt at getting a seat at the prestige table in the shape of the Vignale, I can see why that is. The Mondeo is a perfectly good car, but Ford itself seems to think it needs an image boost to compete with the 3 et al. Which further serves to undermine its credentials in the marketplace.
Apart from the image problem (which is probably 90% of people’s issue with them), hatchbacks do have noticeably worse structural integrity, rattles, and cabin noise than sedans. That’s a big reason why I’ve never cared for them. It’s noticeable when comparing brand new ones, and it only gets worse as they age. The C-pillars on a sedan make their bodies much more rigid, and all that plastic trim around the hatch and cargo area on many small 4-cylinder hatchback buzzes and rattles loudly, in addition to letting in more wind and road rush at higher speeds. I’m not talking about old Chevettes… I’m talking about new 2010s Golfs, Fiestas, and Accents.
Not to mention that, lately, a lot of sedans are priced thousands LOWER than their hatchback counterparts. This was the case with the Golf/Jetta as well the Ford Fiesta (although I think with the Ford they finally introduced a base “S” hatchback recently). I’m not normally a “by the pound” kind of buyer, but the idea of spending $20,000+ on a 2-door golf when a quieter, more substantial 4-door Jetta costs $17,000 just seems like a rip off.
Yes, the lowest priced Jetta is thousands less than the lowest priced Golf, but there is more….or actually LESS to the Jetta than just a separate trunk.
Pretty much all car makers have woken up to the idea of a “premium hatch” and so the cheapest/starkest model is now the (trunked) sedan. Your Jetta example shows that it has a less powerful/smaller capacity 1.4 liter engine as standard while the Golf has a 1.8 liter engine as standard.
According to VWs U.S. website, the “base” Jetta has 6 different trim levels compared to “only” 4 different trim levels for the Golf.
Car makers themselves are forcing potential customers to realize comparing a hatch and a sedan is an apples to oranges deal.
Your observations about noise from the hatch area are spot-on.
It was especially bad with my Mazda 3. Apart from body engineering integrity, I think a lot depends on the design of the hatch – my 3’s hatch was almost vertical and opened down to bumper height – a whopping great hole in the rear of the car – whereas the ‘bubbleback’ Ford Laser I used to have had a more sloping hatch and a sizeable fixed tail panel to heft you luggage over. It had a lot less hatch noise than the 3.
Interesting I have a Citroen hatch no rattles certainly doesnt buzz in fact the diesel engine is inaudible at any speed, car has approx 300k + racked up, probably better built than Golf Fiesta etc.
Your Golf/Jetta comparison isn’t the best, as the two cars are no longer directly related. The current Golf uses the new corporate MQB platform, whereas the current Jetta still utilizes the old VW Group A5 platform (same platform that underpinned our 2006-2009 VW Rabbit/Golf). This, Howard Kerr’s point about powertrain discrepancies, along with the fact that the Golf is still produced in Germany for our market all contribute to the higher price point for the Golf.
I stand corrected; I see that Golfs sold in North America now actually come from VW’s Puebla plant in Mexico. Learned something new today!
For whatever reason, VW builds Golfs sold in North America in Mexico…..then switches to German-built Golfs, and then back again. Jettas, on the other hand, have been built in Mexico without all the “back and forth” of the Golf.
If you aren’t familiar with VW’s VIN #s, it came from Germany when the VIN begins with a “W”. Mexican-built VWs have a VIN# that begins with a “3”. (U.S. built cars begin with 1, or sometimes 4 or 5.)
Any current-generation car will be orders of magnitude stiffer than its’ 80s/90s equivalent.
I remember when the 3-Series Compact was released in New Zealand; the first time I saw one I threw up a little. Seriously, BMW put no effort whatsoever into the styling! Merely sawing the boot off a coupe and then extending the rear window opening to the bumper did not an aesthetically-pleasing hatchback make… I always thought the whole car was downright cynical. At least they changed the panels on the E46 version.
Keep mind that this car was primarily targeted at the European market. It was a big deal, because it gave BMW a Golf-Class competitor, and the Golf class is the predominant one there.
And it worked well enough for BMW in Europe, giving Golf-class buyers the option of a RWD hatch. Its space utilization wasn’t as good as the FWD hatches it competed against, but its driving dynamics were unique and desirable, for a certain segment of the market.
It was not surprising to me to see this not do well in the US, for the many reasons already given. Frankly, I was a bit surprised they even bothered to bring it over here.
Agreed Paul, I dare say there wasn’t a lot of cost in importing it to most markets because it had so much commonality with the 3-series.
The price difference in Australia was exactly the same 80% as quoted above although that was the 316i compared to the 318i sedan. BMW’s 4-cyl engines were pretty lackluster at the time and had been for a while; they were a significant sacrifice when buying a BMW compared with a ‘normal’ car.
One of these has been turned into a rally car locally, which seems like a good use for it.
I knew 2 e36 compacts-one replaced a Saab 900 hatch for a frugal, but car-loving Boston lawyer, and the other one, with a Webasto “California roof,” belonged to a girlfriend I had. To me, the compact was a good traditional BMW, but the company’s own increasing prestige made it seem like a cheap car to some. And, as AUWM points out, more power (and maybe more luxury features) were expected in the 90s. In some ways, BMW remained very conservative from 1975-200?, in styling, in engine design, etc. The compact got everything right that BMW had gotten right for many years, but the game had moved on, at least in the US, to cars that were cheaper, or splashier, with better straightline performance.
I had a 323ti, i actually felt styling was attractive, more than the sedan. I always liked long hoods and short overhangs, which this car had, i never liked the dash, it looked and felt very bland and not expensive enough. Mine had quite a lot of miles for a mexican car (150,000 miles). It never really had engine problems but it never felt like a quick car. It felt solid but heavy, take off where a little boring but steady and predictable.
Before this i owned a Renault Clio Sport which was a lot more fun to drive and suspect it was a lot quicker, but obviously it was less refined so i embraced the bimmer trades off.
The only thing i needed to replace where tie rods and wishbones, very frequently, it came with way too big rims which did nothing to improve handling or ride.
It was an ok car i guess. Don´t really miss it. Solid but lackluster.
It apparently still lives, must have a million miles since i just saw the car advertised online. Still having those stupid rims.
I know a guy who took a salvage-titled 318ti and dropped in an M3 powertrain from a wreck. A very happy gentleman, and I’m pleased to report that he hasn’t killed himself yet.
I looked at the 318i and just could not get over the awkward proportions. Then, I found out that the rear suspension was the older design. Ended up with a used e36 325i instead. The 2.5l six was a gem as was the rear suspension, particularly on rough pavement.
Three year old, off lease, certified sedans and coupes were selling for 75-80% of new, about same as the price of a new 318i.
I think part of the problem with the styling was that it wasn’t differentiated at all from the coupe–so it looked like a coupe that had been in a rear-end collision. If they had changed the roofline more, or just done *something* else to differentiate, it might have worked better.
Also, the US market doesn’t usually tolerate hatchbacks in larger/more expensive models, except when they do. The Audi A7 is a good example. It’s a large, luxurious and considerably expensive hatchback, and judging by the number I see relative to the price and the relatively “niche” placement, the hatch isn’t a turnoff. Helps that it’s a gorgeous piece of design.
I always felt that this car was prelude tot he BMW 1 series, which initially in Europe was a hatch only. The 3 series branding was perhaps to keep the 1 series label “dry” in case, and also to lend some 3 series aura to the car. Maybe, 1 series was being kept in case the MINI didn’t fill the spot it has?
The 1 series is the same mix – a shorter wheelbase 3 series with a hatchback. competing with the more expensive Golf.
Gremlin popped to mind with the bob-tailed title and lead photo. But this doesn’t come across anywhere near as crude as the Gremlin did in its time. It gives off a practical vibe, as did the Gremlin, not matched by their RWD roots.
I give credit to both as novelties on the road.
Say what you like about them, but from the moment I saw one in around 1997 in my high school parking lot, I’ve loved the 318Ti. I even joined an online forum and actively looked for one several times, but it seems every time I’m in a position to buy, there’s nothing available, and when I am not able to, a nice clean 5 speed pops up in a desirable color combo. Luck of the draw I suppose. Maybe one day our paths will cross.
“In BMW speak, “Gran Turismo” apparently means “oddly proportioned hatchback”.
As a die hard BMW fan who also likes hatchbacks, I think a closer translation would be coyote ugly.
On the truncated 318it, while it would have likely failed anyway, I think they approached it wrong. Instead of the gutless 4 banger they should have marketed it as a hot hatch with the 2.8 engine. BMWs long been about performance, not buy in economy, at least go down swinging and give it a good shot. In the BMW world, there have been countless 6 cylinder conversions, it’s very popular.