Ugh, even more unacceptable. I hate the split lights look (and can’t stand them on any Genesis). It’s very gimmicky to me.
Well, styling is obviously subjective. I imagine BMW sells every X7 they make, so clearly you are not alone in your opinion. 
Yeah, it does look expensive. That’s different than it looking good, IMHO. A Kia Forte looks (and is) relatively inexpensive, but I think it’s a very attractively styled car.
Oh, ok. That’s something I wouldn’t normally even notice.
I will, however, admit that while dumpster diving on Ebay for alternative replacements for mine I came across some aftermarket ones that are similar… but I hated the design so I spent hundreds more on one OEM with the cerium** finish.
(this was for my M550)
** I’d never heard of cerium either, until this experience.
The cerium finish is specific to the non-M M models, like the M550, X3 M40i, etc.
I see. Well, I like my mirrors better, and if I’d wanted an M5 I would have gotten one. 
I believe those gaping holes are the headlights. The top looks like DRLs. I believe this design is similar to the Hyundai Palisade, but doesn’t look as cohesive to me.
Either way, I’m sure it looks better in person, but still not a huge fan.
I’m gonna say aero. I have no idea what I’m taking about, but let’s go with that.
Wow that is really ugly, and I like the current X7.
For the history nerds like me who may be more curious, the below article dives into the history of BMW’s ever evolving mirror designs, including mentioning the cerium split between the baby Ms and the winged regular Ms in the current generation, and how that evolved out of the original teardrop design into the F80 M3/4.
Back to this X7, this makes me ponder their choice even more. I suppose marketing can do whatever they want to with the brand language and so long as it sells cars, the purists in the M division are perhaps just turning the other way?
Looks like they rolled this mirror change out on the 2022 X3 m40 as well?
I think the purists lost the battle when they stuck a turbocharged engine in an SUV way back when…
Why is BMW so bent on fixing something that isn’t broken? Interior refresh is nice but the exteriors are getting progressively worse 
I think BMW must be having a complete crisis in their exterior design dept. It’s true that their design language from the late 1990s didn’t really leave them anywhere to go (which is why I think their return to that language over the past 10 yrs was going to be a dead end), but the Bangle design language also wasn’t going to go anywhere. And so now we have… bizarre-ness.
Mercedes and Audi both have cohesive and arguably much better design languages. It’s not really that hard.
You mess up when you try too hard.
The Camry and Sonata, for instance, both have really nice profiles and rears for their segments. They both fail at the front end, especially the grille. Trying too hard to be distinctive.
Same for the X7.
I think the performance SUVs, specifically the E70/E71 X5M/X6M were cool, and fit the market well. Not everyone wants to drive around in a two-and-a-half-ton slab that can’t dance.
Same goes for the Macans GTS/Turbo, Cayenne GTS/Turbo/Turbo S (note: not Turbo GT), GLx63s etc etc… It’s a valuable segment, but it needs to be limited.
As an enthusiast, the water gets murky when the M/AMG-esque nameplate starts trickling down into DNA that is definitely not M/AMG. M40i, AMG 43/53, Cayenne Turbo GT - this is what’s irritating to me. This has nothing to do with the overall department, my blame is entirely on marketing. It’s upsetting they were able to get their way, but…profit gets to choose the route.
Everything is becoming diluted and it really sucks. There used to be a time where an M badge was a special event and seeing an E39 M5 amongst a sea of 530i’s was an absolute treat. Keep your eyes peeled on your morning commute and I guarantee you’ll see more M badges than real M cars. Sad.
But what is a real M car ? A new 340 will match or beat prior gen m3s on both track and straight line.
It’s not a true M car but it’s better at a lot of the things that people laud an M car for.
In my eyes - limited production, bespoke powerplant, capable of track duty on the weekend and an office commute on Monday, and a feel of passion or uniqueness that’s transmitted back to the driver are key points most nowadays are missing. Also traditional styling cues contribute to this (hood bulge, wide fenders etc.).
Sure the M340 is quick, and I would expect it to be quicker than prior generations as development continues, but straight line speed isn’t the only checkbox. A prime example would be the GT3 and Turbo S. Or jump back to the N54 335 and E9x M3 days. You could flash a 335 and roll on E9x M3s easily, but at the end of a day it’s still an open diff non-M car that doesn’t strike a cord in the ‘feels’ department. Did the E9x M3 get yanked by a JB4 335, sure…but spinning 8,400rpm while doing it in the only V8 ever put into a 3-series M car - that’s fine with me.
It’s not just straight line though. It will beat prior gen m3 on the track too.
I would argue the m8 and M suv aren’t true M cars either and have watered down the name. No one is realistically tracking an M suv or M8.
Sorry to derail for second time though this one somewhat more topic adjacent haha.
I truly don’t understand this logic that’s thrown around a lot. A new 340i will also beat a Ferrari F355. It’s a little something called progress. You don’t compare it to a previous generation of a car… compare it to the current generation. A G80 M3 will mop the floor with a G20 340.
Also do you have any evidence of a 340i beating an F80 M3 around the track? Looking at Hockenheim GP track times, the F82 M4 beat the G20 340i by 2 seconds… which on a less than 2 minute lap is not insignificant.
I say all this currently owning a G20 340i. It’s an amazing daily driver and incredibly quick, but it lacks the soul you get from a full on M car. Spreadsheet numbers are only half the story. Case in point… A 340i will beat a Ferrari F355… but I know which car I’d have a lot more fun in… and it’s not the BMW.
Some of us are… ‘unique.’ We might even attend track days focused on driving M SUVs… 
(even featuring the outbound X7 M50i)
Fair enough. I didn’t say the immediate prior gen though. I get that there is more to things that numbers I just find the comparison a little strange when we have like 4500+ lbs cars that while are still incredibly fast , quite atypical for what most would consider track cars.
I know people do complain about the newer models becoming bloated weight wise though as well.
Ultimately a subjective thing for everyone to decide their own definition.
Truthfully what defines a true M car is changing with the times… as it should for a mass market brand like BMW. So while an M SUV is counterintuitive to what M may have originally represented - it’s a reaction to changing market demands. Everyone “needs” SUVs.
I feel the pain of cars becoming bloated over time. In the name of comfort and refinement as well as safety regulations, there’s not much choice and you see it across the board. I think BMW had predicted that due to the “approachability” and refinement of the new G80 M3, it should be their best selling M3/M4 generation of all time - as it’ll appeal to audiences beyond enthusiasts. So an M SUV is just an extension of that same logic. Sucks for people who love the rarity and exclusivity of an M car, but great for BMWs bottom line.
