RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: BMW Z4 M Coupe
Discussion
err...some total rubish being put about here - below is a best motoring video of the z4mc pulling a cayman's pants down in the soaking wet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJG1eyoVMW0
btw - pls check out the z4mc's magnificent drift at around 8:00...some people can drive...others blame spikey handling and a stiff suspension etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJG1eyoVMW0
btw - pls check out the z4mc's magnificent drift at around 8:00...some people can drive...others blame spikey handling and a stiff suspension etc
Chris,
I have to agree with you mostly on this.
You mention driving a Cayman after it, I was similar I drove a 996 C2 after the Z4M, which did highlight it....
Anyway, getting to the point...
I firstly found the looks great... Walking round the outside, I loved the wide hips, the rear diffuser with the quad pipes, point to a little meanness and intent. The front however, I though was a little plainer compared to the rear, perhaps a little forgotten during the design phase.
Getting in to the car, the interior is a nice place to be. The dials are very sharp and well designed. Its the first roadster style car I had driven, the seating position (quite far back) and the long bonnet didn't make me feel that relaxed. More in driving, I found it hard to place the car, or even in traffic discovering its length... Might take a little getting used to.
Driving wise, the car was driven from cold. The stiff gearbox was something I was prepared for from previously driving the E46 M3s. Not a bad thing, potentially works with the car being a little rough...
Engine wise, tricking along in first gear through a town it was magic. The metallic rasp is second to none. Actually that engine itself it an absolute work of art. However I think it's a little hard core for a daily driver, it's character I feel is best when its being driven hard.
The steering I found was very light, in fact I found it a bit crap really. Same as I do with the E46 M3s.
Its a very firm jittery ride... I felt it was a little off putting, not confidence inspiring... More an autobahn cruiser than a B road blaster.
Its a great car by all means, but its not polished enough... I don't mean make it easy to drive or lose its character, it just felt to me that some things could have been better.
I feel the E46 M3 is a better car. The character of things work better in the M3 over the Z4. I found the M3 a better drivers car.
I don't get the TVR reference to be honest. I can see perhaps the very raw engine similarities... But find the Tseries or Sagaris cars drive quite differently to the Z4.
I'm sorry to say, drive a Cayman or 996 and you will see why they have their reputation. That's a sports car.
Only my 2p
.
I have to agree with you mostly on this.
You mention driving a Cayman after it, I was similar I drove a 996 C2 after the Z4M, which did highlight it....
Anyway, getting to the point...
I firstly found the looks great... Walking round the outside, I loved the wide hips, the rear diffuser with the quad pipes, point to a little meanness and intent. The front however, I though was a little plainer compared to the rear, perhaps a little forgotten during the design phase.
Getting in to the car, the interior is a nice place to be. The dials are very sharp and well designed. Its the first roadster style car I had driven, the seating position (quite far back) and the long bonnet didn't make me feel that relaxed. More in driving, I found it hard to place the car, or even in traffic discovering its length... Might take a little getting used to.
Driving wise, the car was driven from cold. The stiff gearbox was something I was prepared for from previously driving the E46 M3s. Not a bad thing, potentially works with the car being a little rough...
Engine wise, tricking along in first gear through a town it was magic. The metallic rasp is second to none. Actually that engine itself it an absolute work of art. However I think it's a little hard core for a daily driver, it's character I feel is best when its being driven hard.
The steering I found was very light, in fact I found it a bit crap really. Same as I do with the E46 M3s.
Its a very firm jittery ride... I felt it was a little off putting, not confidence inspiring... More an autobahn cruiser than a B road blaster.
Its a great car by all means, but its not polished enough... I don't mean make it easy to drive or lose its character, it just felt to me that some things could have been better.
I feel the E46 M3 is a better car. The character of things work better in the M3 over the Z4. I found the M3 a better drivers car.
I don't get the TVR reference to be honest. I can see perhaps the very raw engine similarities... But find the Tseries or Sagaris cars drive quite differently to the Z4.
I'm sorry to say, drive a Cayman or 996 and you will see why they have their reputation. That's a sports car.
Only my 2p
.Edited by Neil_M on Friday 7th September 10:16
Edited by Neil_M on Friday 7th September 10:20
Does this confirm Harris' thoughts:
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3939556.htm
This has the same sort of handling and I still prefer my old 911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJKikW-ss6s
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3939556.htm
This has the same sort of handling and I still prefer my old 911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJKikW-ss6s
I'm more a M coupe (Z3) fan, the rear of the Z4M coupe is ok, but the the front part is euh...not my taste (I'm friendly ;-))
but then a lot will find the M coupe ugly and not pretty, well, I find it pretty ugly
love them, way more then a Z4, I love the more rounded classic looks, even the Z3 roadster when I see one I think, that's a lovely roadster and I don't even like soft top cars :-)
especially this one, which has a V8 under the bonnet and a 50/50 weight balance, you have the V8 grunt of a TVR but the more smoothness (engine) and reliability of a BMW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roquyq0W2xk
but then a lot will find the M coupe ugly and not pretty, well, I find it pretty ugly
love them, way more then a Z4, I love the more rounded classic looks, even the Z3 roadster when I see one I think, that's a lovely roadster and I don't even like soft top cars :-)
especially this one, which has a V8 under the bonnet and a 50/50 weight balance, you have the V8 grunt of a TVR but the more smoothness (engine) and reliability of a BMW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roquyq0W2xk
Edited by GTRene on Friday 7th September 10:43
Chris,
You of all people should know better. Since when has been BMW designing cars for the UKs utterly rubbish B-roads? Drive a Z4MC/R on track and that's where it really shines. Drive a Z4MC/R on any German/French/Italian A or B road, and you will not be disapointed.
Granted, it is a parts bin special, but that's where the charm is. It is the last skunk works project of the ///M division of old. Why are you comparing it to an M3 - because it cost a similar amount of money at launch? What a lot of tosh. When I bought mine in April 2007 I had a choice between a CSL or a Z4MC. I went specifically with the Z, because I wanted a 2 seat coupe, which looked different. Financially I lost out, but who cares. Nobody bought one of these looking for practicality or depreciation profness. And if you think that a Z4MC is not significantly quicker than a cooking E46 M3, including the jumped up CS, then you are very, very wrong. An earlier poster nailed on the head - you see one on the road, you know the driver actually wanted to buy one.
As to the original Z3MC being better - stock, I found its chasis slow and dim-witted. I liked the looks, but in my opinion the Z3MC is so ugly, it is actually beautiful, while the Z4MC is still the best looking coupe on the market. The only area where the Z3MC wins hands down is the interior.
Any car which can lap the Ring in sub 8s (BTG) and keep CSLs and GT3s honest with small mods is worthy some praise in my books...
You of all people should know better. Since when has been BMW designing cars for the UKs utterly rubbish B-roads? Drive a Z4MC/R on track and that's where it really shines. Drive a Z4MC/R on any German/French/Italian A or B road, and you will not be disapointed.
Granted, it is a parts bin special, but that's where the charm is. It is the last skunk works project of the ///M division of old. Why are you comparing it to an M3 - because it cost a similar amount of money at launch? What a lot of tosh. When I bought mine in April 2007 I had a choice between a CSL or a Z4MC. I went specifically with the Z, because I wanted a 2 seat coupe, which looked different. Financially I lost out, but who cares. Nobody bought one of these looking for practicality or depreciation profness. And if you think that a Z4MC is not significantly quicker than a cooking E46 M3, including the jumped up CS, then you are very, very wrong. An earlier poster nailed on the head - you see one on the road, you know the driver actually wanted to buy one.
As to the original Z3MC being better - stock, I found its chasis slow and dim-witted. I liked the looks, but in my opinion the Z3MC is so ugly, it is actually beautiful, while the Z4MC is still the best looking coupe on the market. The only area where the Z3MC wins hands down is the interior.
Any car which can lap the Ring in sub 8s (BTG) and keep CSLs and GT3s honest with small mods is worthy some praise in my books...
Edited by Cheburator mk2 on Friday 7th September 11:20
Neil_M said:
Chris,
The steering I found was very light, in fact I found it a bit crap really. Same as I do with the E46 M3s.
This comes up a lot in discussions and I don't think it's entirely fair. I've had an E46 M3 for over 2 years now and it's not as cut and dried as some people make out.The steering I found was very light, in fact I found it a bit crap really. Same as I do with the E46 M3s.
Edited by Neil_M on Friday 7th September 10:16
Edited by Neil_M on Friday 7th September 10:20
As an aside:
Drive an E46 M3 from cold and the engine will be a little stiff, gearshift a touch notchy (1st to 2nd) and steering lightish and a touch remote. These sensations will persist for about 10 minutes or so until oil temps reach 80-100. It then settles down. If you continue to pootle then it remains in a relaxed state without noticable fizz. It's perfectly acceptable but it's not especially rewarding. However, extended drives at speed (why bother with an M3 if you're adverse to dropping the hammer) then it all makes sense. These cars really are wonderful (for a 10 year +, 4 door coupe weighing over 1500kg) on fast roads. The steering does have *plenty* of feel whilst feeling *benign/neutral*, which is a good thing. The key point here is that it works so well with the balanced nature of the car. It's confidence inspiring and urges you to drive faster. As a package it works very well indeed, more so at speed, which is all I'm concerned about. I've had some terrific drives on the continent and rural England in this car. It consumes long distances easily and stays pumped, agile and feelsome
- it still puts a smile on my face. 
The z4m has arguably the world greatest mass produced engine. It is absolutely sublime, out and out race engine which was used in many forms and perfected over the years until it came to the Z4m.
Styling is so personal that discussing it is not really worth it, it does look different in flesh to pictures though i think.
Handling is not clinical like a boxster or a 911 but once you live with it you learn the little quirks of it.
Ok may not be the best all rounder you can by but keeps me interested more than any other car ive owned. Has that 60's racer feel.
The best all rounder is arguably things like the 996 etc and look at how much that got slated. The worst 911 in history as claimed by the porsche hardcore. Even things like the 997 turbo which is amaizing all round car just gets a luke warm reception from the press as being "too perfect and lifeless"
Im not slating porsche as i like them and have owned them. My point is theres just more to a car than well balanced this and that, its simply how much fun it is, how it makes you feel.
Styling is so personal that discussing it is not really worth it, it does look different in flesh to pictures though i think.
Handling is not clinical like a boxster or a 911 but once you live with it you learn the little quirks of it.
Ok may not be the best all rounder you can by but keeps me interested more than any other car ive owned. Has that 60's racer feel.
The best all rounder is arguably things like the 996 etc and look at how much that got slated. The worst 911 in history as claimed by the porsche hardcore. Even things like the 997 turbo which is amaizing all round car just gets a luke warm reception from the press as being "too perfect and lifeless"
Im not slating porsche as i like them and have owned them. My point is theres just more to a car than well balanced this and that, its simply how much fun it is, how it makes you feel.
So let me start this post with a couple of statements.
1) I own a TVR Sagaris. This means I'm biased
2) I've never driven a Z4M, but personally I love the way it looks (I seem to have a thing for breadvans) and it was on my short list when I bought the Sag.
3) I'm not a professional peddler by a looooong stretch, I do the odd trackday here and there but that's about it so my comments on general car dynamics should be taken with a pinch of salt.
4) This post is intended as a bit of fun, so keep your hair on ladies
So what I want to talk about is this:
"It's kind of a German TVR Sagaris - a little bit wild and the perfect antidote to a Boxster or Cayman."
I'm sorry, it's just not in the same league. (Does someone want to get the popcorn out).
1) Chris, you open the article saying how conventional the the Z4M looks (to your eyes). Have you *seen* a Sagaris? They're breadvans, comparison ends there. Z4M owners, as per above, I disagree with Chris, I think the car looks great and certainly not conventional BUT, its is definately a lot more mainstream than the Sagaris.
2) The Z4M was built by one of the worlds largest car companies with almost infinite resources. The Sag was built in Blackpool by a bunch of (talented) people with hammers. My point is the Z4 is a mass production vehicle, the TVR is a handbuilt, low volume vehicle. Arbitrary comparison - look at the interiors, tell me which one is more 'special'.
3) Top Trumps time On paper, the TVR outpunches the Z on pretty much every level.
element / z4m / sag
engine / 3.2l str8six / 4.0l str8six
bhp / 338 (real) / 400 quoted (more like 380 usually)
torque / 365 Nm / 473 Nm
weight / 1,495kg / 1078kg
0-60 / 5.0 / 3.9
0-100 / 11.3 / < 9 (seen everything from 8.1 to 9 quoted, so who knows).
Top Speed / 150 / 175-190 (again, little official data).
And finally, the true, scientific test to end all tests.
top gear lap time / 1:26.0 / 124.6
All statistics gleaned from official sources (i.e. random internet trawling).
4) 'A little bit wild'. The Z4m comes with ABS, traction control and airbags. The TVR comes with a bit of leather around the steering wheel to cushion impact and a long throttle pedal for 'traction control'...
5) Exclusivity. Sags are rare as hens teeth - ~120 still around. Production numbers for the Z4M are ~9000 globally. (only 532 in the UK though).
It does sound like the Z4M suffered from some of the same issues as the Sag though. When I first got it a took it on a track, I was horrified. I'd just stepped out of an Elise and into an understeering nightmare. The gear ratios / diff setup didnt seem quite right, the brake pads fell to bits, the gear change is ... agricultural etc.
So it turns out TVR delivering a car 80% finished is pretty much true. Cue nitron suspension and eibach springs, a full geo setup, diff change from 3.94 to 3.71 and more aggressive pad compounds. Different car. Turns in properly, can adjust the dampers for road vs track, stops on a six-pence, no understeer, progressive oversteer when you want it. Lots of fun.
So Chris, I have an idea for a video. Z4M vs Sagaris. I'll put my car up for TVR side of the equation. You can drive em both back to back, see what you think. Fancy it?
1) I own a TVR Sagaris. This means I'm biased
2) I've never driven a Z4M, but personally I love the way it looks (I seem to have a thing for breadvans) and it was on my short list when I bought the Sag.
3) I'm not a professional peddler by a looooong stretch, I do the odd trackday here and there but that's about it so my comments on general car dynamics should be taken with a pinch of salt.
4) This post is intended as a bit of fun, so keep your hair on ladies
So what I want to talk about is this:
"It's kind of a German TVR Sagaris - a little bit wild and the perfect antidote to a Boxster or Cayman."
I'm sorry, it's just not in the same league. (Does someone want to get the popcorn out
).1) Chris, you open the article saying how conventional the the Z4M looks (to your eyes). Have you *seen* a Sagaris? They're breadvans, comparison ends there. Z4M owners, as per above, I disagree with Chris, I think the car looks great and certainly not conventional BUT, its is definately a lot more mainstream than the Sagaris.
2) The Z4M was built by one of the worlds largest car companies with almost infinite resources. The Sag was built in Blackpool by a bunch of (talented) people with hammers. My point is the Z4 is a mass production vehicle, the TVR is a handbuilt, low volume vehicle. Arbitrary comparison - look at the interiors, tell me which one is more 'special'.
3) Top Trumps time
On paper, the TVR outpunches the Z on pretty much every level.element / z4m / sag
engine / 3.2l str8six / 4.0l str8six
bhp / 338 (real) / 400 quoted (more like 380 usually)
torque / 365 Nm / 473 Nm
weight / 1,495kg / 1078kg
0-60 / 5.0 / 3.9
0-100 / 11.3 / < 9 (seen everything from 8.1 to 9 quoted, so who knows).
Top Speed / 150 / 175-190 (again, little official data).
And finally, the true, scientific test to end all tests.
top gear lap time / 1:26.0 / 124.6
All statistics gleaned from official sources (i.e. random internet trawling).
4) 'A little bit wild'. The Z4m comes with ABS, traction control and airbags. The TVR comes with a bit of leather around the steering wheel to cushion impact and a long throttle pedal for 'traction control'...
5) Exclusivity. Sags are rare as hens teeth - ~120 still around. Production numbers for the Z4M are ~9000 globally. (only 532 in the UK though).
It does sound like the Z4M suffered from some of the same issues as the Sag though. When I first got it a took it on a track, I was horrified. I'd just stepped out of an Elise and into an understeering nightmare. The gear ratios / diff setup didnt seem quite right, the brake pads fell to bits, the gear change is ... agricultural etc.
So it turns out TVR delivering a car 80% finished is pretty much true. Cue nitron suspension and eibach springs, a full geo setup, diff change from 3.94 to 3.71 and more aggressive pad compounds. Different car. Turns in properly, can adjust the dampers for road vs track, stops on a six-pence, no understeer, progressive oversteer when you want it. Lots of fun.
So Chris, I have an idea for a video. Z4M vs Sagaris. I'll put my car up for TVR side of the equation. You can drive em both back to back, see what you think. Fancy it?
Edited by redseal on Friday 7th September 13:07
redseal said:
So let me start this post with a couple of statements.
1) I own a TVR Sagaris. This means I'm biased
2) I've never driven a Z4M, but personally I love the way it looks (I seem to have a thing for breadvans) and it was on my short list when I bought Sag.
3) I'm not a professional peddler by a looooong stretch, I do the odd trackday here and there but that's about it so my comments on general car dynamics should be taken with a pinch of salt.
4) This post is intended as a bit of fun, so keep your hair on ladies
So what I want to talk about is this:
"It's kind of a German TVR Sagaris - a little bit wild and the perfect antidote to a Boxster or Cayman."
I'm sorry, it's just not in the same league. (Does someone want to get the popcorn out).
1) Chris, you open the article saying how conventional the the Z4M looks (to your eyes). Have you *seen* a Sagaris? They're breadvans, comparison ends there. Z4M owners, as per above, I disagree with Chris, I think the car looks great and certainly not conventional BUT, its is definately a lot more mainstream than the Sagaris.
2) The Z4M was built by one of the worlds largest car companies with almost infinite resources. The Sag was built in Blackpool by a bunch of (talented) people with hammers. My point is the Z4 is a mass production vehicle, the TVR is a handbuilt, low volume vehicle. Arbitrary comparison - look at the interiors, tell me which one is more 'special'.
3) Top Trumps time On paper, the TVR outpunches the Z on pretty much every level.
element / z4m / sag
engine / 3.2l str8six / 4.0l str8six
bhp / 338 (real) / 400 quoted (more like 380 usually)
torque / 365 Nm / 473 Nm
weight / 1,495kg / 1078kg
0-60 / 5.0 / 3.9
0-100 / 11.3 / < 9 (seen everything from 8.1 to 9 quoted, so who knows).
Top Speed / 150 / 175-190 (again, little official data).
And finally, the true, scientific test to end all tests.
top gear lap time / 1:26.0 / 124.6
All statistics gleaned from official sources (i.e. random internet trawling).
4) 'A little bit wild'. The Z4m comes with ABS, traction control and airbags. The TVR comes with a bit of leather around the steering wheel to cushion impact and a long throttle pedal for 'traction control'...
5) Exclusivity. Sags are rare as hens teeth - ~120 still around. Production numbers for the Z4M are ~9000 globally. (only 532 in the UK though).
It does sound like the Z4M suffered from some of the same issues as the Sag though. When I first got it a took it on a track, I was horrified. I'd just stepped out of an Elise and into an understeering nightmare. The gear ratios / diff setup didnt seem quite right, the brake pads fell to bits, the gear change is ... agricultural etc.
So it turns out TVR delivering a car 80% finished is pretty much true. Cue nitron suspension and eibach springs, a full geo setup, diff change from 3.94 to 3.71 and more aggressive pad compounds. Different car. Turns in properly, can adjust the dampers for road vs track, stops on a six-pence, no understeer, progressive oversteer when you want it. Lots of fun.
So Chris, I have an idea for a video. Z4M vs Sagaris. I'll put my car up for TVR side of the equation. You can drive em both back to back, see what you think. Fancy it?
He did say 'kind of'...1) I own a TVR Sagaris. This means I'm biased
2) I've never driven a Z4M, but personally I love the way it looks (I seem to have a thing for breadvans) and it was on my short list when I bought Sag.
3) I'm not a professional peddler by a looooong stretch, I do the odd trackday here and there but that's about it so my comments on general car dynamics should be taken with a pinch of salt.
4) This post is intended as a bit of fun, so keep your hair on ladies
So what I want to talk about is this:
"It's kind of a German TVR Sagaris - a little bit wild and the perfect antidote to a Boxster or Cayman."
I'm sorry, it's just not in the same league. (Does someone want to get the popcorn out
).1) Chris, you open the article saying how conventional the the Z4M looks (to your eyes). Have you *seen* a Sagaris? They're breadvans, comparison ends there. Z4M owners, as per above, I disagree with Chris, I think the car looks great and certainly not conventional BUT, its is definately a lot more mainstream than the Sagaris.
2) The Z4M was built by one of the worlds largest car companies with almost infinite resources. The Sag was built in Blackpool by a bunch of (talented) people with hammers. My point is the Z4 is a mass production vehicle, the TVR is a handbuilt, low volume vehicle. Arbitrary comparison - look at the interiors, tell me which one is more 'special'.
3) Top Trumps time
On paper, the TVR outpunches the Z on pretty much every level.element / z4m / sag
engine / 3.2l str8six / 4.0l str8six
bhp / 338 (real) / 400 quoted (more like 380 usually)
torque / 365 Nm / 473 Nm
weight / 1,495kg / 1078kg
0-60 / 5.0 / 3.9
0-100 / 11.3 / < 9 (seen everything from 8.1 to 9 quoted, so who knows).
Top Speed / 150 / 175-190 (again, little official data).
And finally, the true, scientific test to end all tests.
top gear lap time / 1:26.0 / 124.6
All statistics gleaned from official sources (i.e. random internet trawling).
4) 'A little bit wild'. The Z4m comes with ABS, traction control and airbags. The TVR comes with a bit of leather around the steering wheel to cushion impact and a long throttle pedal for 'traction control'...
5) Exclusivity. Sags are rare as hens teeth - ~120 still around. Production numbers for the Z4M are ~9000 globally. (only 532 in the UK though).
It does sound like the Z4M suffered from some of the same issues as the Sag though. When I first got it a took it on a track, I was horrified. I'd just stepped out of an Elise and into an understeering nightmare. The gear ratios / diff setup didnt seem quite right, the brake pads fell to bits, the gear change is ... agricultural etc.
So it turns out TVR delivering a car 80% finished is pretty much true. Cue nitron suspension and eibach springs, a full geo setup, diff change from 3.94 to 3.71 and more aggressive pad compounds. Different car. Turns in properly, can adjust the dampers for road vs track, stops on a six-pence, no understeer, progressive oversteer when you want it. Lots of fun.
So Chris, I have an idea for a video. Z4M vs Sagaris. I'll put my car up for TVR side of the equation. You can drive em both back to back, see what you think. Fancy it?
Cheburator mk2 said:
Any car which can lap the Ring in sub 8s (BTG) and keep CSLs and GT3s honest with small mods is worthy some praise in my books...
THIS.For those that were interested in the more technical side of the debate and my earlier post, here are the differences between the stock Z4MC alignment specs vs the M3 CSL, figures are in degrees and minutes.
Front total Toe (in) – 0 deg 4' vs 0 deg 10' - Z4M has more toe in up front
Front Camber – 1.45 vs 1.00 - Z4m has less negative camber
Caster (non adjustable) – 7.3 vs approx 5.7 – CSL steering as a result will be harder to turn, i.e. stiffer.
Rear total toe (in) – 0 deg 4' vs 0 deg 28' – significantly more toe in, the Zed is set up to be much safer at the back, which results in more understeer.
Rear Camber – 1.50 vs 1.50 - Equal but you can see the CSL is set up to be more neutral front and rear where has the Z4M has 50% more camber at the rear.
The rear toe and the camber difference front and rear is what I believe to be the main reason behind the stange understeer/oversteer phenonmen described by Chris. £100 for a hunter alignment session and some better rubber and you have a much improved car that reacts in a more coherent fasion. I believe BMW hampered the handling to give a safer drive, they were however, kind enough to make it easily adjustable.
Edited by daz4m on Friday 7th September 12:12
My two cents :
Z4M's look cool. Not as good as they could have done, but sportscar/roadster cool.
The handling is poor over non smooth roads, as such they are slower an M3 on pretty much anything other than a track with a good driver. The chassis feels compromised and as Chris says I am not sure how M signed it off for the UK market at least.
The sound is nowhere near as raucous/raspy as an M3's, not sure how people reach the opposite conclusion.
The layout and driving position etc are much more of an event than an M3, and for many that offsets the chassis flaws that are accepted as 'character'. That's fine in my book, who wants a boring car ?
The engine is awesome.
I love sixspeed's Z4M'CSL' - BMW should have made it, revised suspension, wheels, carbon roof, bucket seats and some carbon air box induction. Imagine driving that !
Z4M's look cool. Not as good as they could have done, but sportscar/roadster cool.
The handling is poor over non smooth roads, as such they are slower an M3 on pretty much anything other than a track with a good driver. The chassis feels compromised and as Chris says I am not sure how M signed it off for the UK market at least.
The sound is nowhere near as raucous/raspy as an M3's, not sure how people reach the opposite conclusion.
The layout and driving position etc are much more of an event than an M3, and for many that offsets the chassis flaws that are accepted as 'character'. That's fine in my book, who wants a boring car ?
The engine is awesome.
I love sixspeed's Z4M'CSL' - BMW should have made it, revised suspension, wheels, carbon roof, bucket seats and some carbon air box induction. Imagine driving that !
Chris you are right.
I owned a z4mc for 3 years from new and as a standard car, it is not as good as it could have or should have been. This is precisely why many of them are lightly modified. There is a post a couple above showing one with Eibach springs and CSL wheels. Actually the tyre compound an Eibach springs is what makes the real difference. Add to that a modified clutch delay valve, panel filter and at least new back boxes and all of a sudden you have removed the cost savings that BMW made and dramatically improved it to where is should have been.
If you really want to get the most, you can go down the route that Sixspeed has (white car in much earlier post) and alter the suspension, improve on the poor standard brakes as per every CSL, mess with adjustable cambers, GruppeM air filters, light mapping and improving air flow and then you can create something really special, on a par with the CSL - which I have also owned.
So, to summarise, Mr Harris I believe you are correct when you state that the z4m as it rolled off the production line was a missed opportunity but with just a small amount of expenditure (tyres, springs at least), you can really make it far better.
As for the looks, they are a little marmite but that is also what marks it out. For me, the right car on the right wheels with the ride height sorted looks awesome.
Oh, i've also owned 2 z3mc as well and they don't compare. Marmite looks as well but not on a par dymaically. Any one who tels you different is either rose tinted or not got experience of both machines. It's like saying the e30 M3 is better than the e46 m3........
I owned a z4mc for 3 years from new and as a standard car, it is not as good as it could have or should have been. This is precisely why many of them are lightly modified. There is a post a couple above showing one with Eibach springs and CSL wheels. Actually the tyre compound an Eibach springs is what makes the real difference. Add to that a modified clutch delay valve, panel filter and at least new back boxes and all of a sudden you have removed the cost savings that BMW made and dramatically improved it to where is should have been.
If you really want to get the most, you can go down the route that Sixspeed has (white car in much earlier post) and alter the suspension, improve on the poor standard brakes as per every CSL, mess with adjustable cambers, GruppeM air filters, light mapping and improving air flow and then you can create something really special, on a par with the CSL - which I have also owned.
So, to summarise, Mr Harris I believe you are correct when you state that the z4m as it rolled off the production line was a missed opportunity but with just a small amount of expenditure (tyres, springs at least), you can really make it far better.
As for the looks, they are a little marmite but that is also what marks it out. For me, the right car on the right wheels with the ride height sorted looks awesome.
Oh, i've also owned 2 z3mc as well and they don't compare. Marmite looks as well but not on a par dymaically. Any one who tels you different is either rose tinted or not got experience of both machines. It's like saying the e30 M3 is better than the e46 m3........
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff