RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: BMW Z4 M Coupe
Discussion
snorkel sucker said:
Wolands Advocate said:
Having said that, I was intrigued to note that the chaps down at Munich Legends really don't seem to rate them. ML look after my cars for me and when I was in the other day, I happened to remark to one of them that the Z4M Coupe appealed only to be told that they considered it quite the worst M car ever made and that he wouldn't recommend getting one. Seems a pity if that's true.
Interesting.What reasons did they give?
I'm with CH on this one. I've had a 3.0 Z4C, a Z4MC a standard e46 M3 and an e46 CS. The e46s were better in almost every respect than the MC: more comfortable, more predictable when pressing on, better built, sounded better, better ride, more practical. I enjoyed the Z4M, for a time, but wouldn't have another, especially when a CS can be had for the same (or less) cash.
The only point I really take issue with CH on is the styling - I think they look ace.
The only point I really take issue with CH on is the styling - I think they look ace.
GroundEffect said:
Still, we're looking at it as it standard. Standard the Si has run-flats. And they're s
te.
The N52 is a nice engine - really torquey from bottom end but I don't think it's a sportscar engine. It's too linear and not a lot of fizzle at the top-end. It does pull really well...but never explodes like the S54 does at 5000rpm.
I've owned both cars. The Si was beautiful, smooth and a great cruiser but it all fell apart when you tried to drive it fast. The lack of LSD and that steering killed it for me
The steering does ruin it a little, I've put Eibach springs on though and that has improved things. Thinking about putting stiffer ARB's on at the front too.te.The N52 is a nice engine - really torquey from bottom end but I don't think it's a sportscar engine. It's too linear and not a lot of fizzle at the top-end. It does pull really well...but never explodes like the S54 does at 5000rpm.
I've owned both cars. The Si was beautiful, smooth and a great cruiser but it all fell apart when you tried to drive it fast. The lack of LSD and that steering killed it for me
It might not be quite as good as the M, but I went on a car limits day the other week and really took it by the scuff of the neck. I was pleasantly surprised at how quick it will push on past boundaries you'd stop at when on the road - it is very nicely balanced.
The N52 has enough to keep me smiling at the top end - I should probably leave the M alone. Either way - cracking cars both of them.
MissDarkside said:
It really is extremely simple. It does not matter one jot how well this car drives, it is simply, utterly, unavoidably ugly. Remove the bodyshell and replace it with one from a 10 year old Kia and at least your friends will no longer laugh at you.
You've waited 16 months and this is your first post? 
Hopefully it will be another 16 months before your next one!
Its often the flaws of a car that make you love them, and in some of your observations i'll agree.
The Z4M is a wayward muscle car of sorts and NOT a Porsche - if we all drove them then we may as well start cloning 'perfect' people before this christmas. (an exageration for a point!)
Looks worse than a Z3M though? Thats a push. I happen to think mines a handsome little roadster.
The Z4M is a wayward muscle car of sorts and NOT a Porsche - if we all drove them then we may as well start cloning 'perfect' people before this christmas. (an exageration for a point!)
Looks worse than a Z3M though? Thats a push. I happen to think mines a handsome little roadster.
Interesting review, i have just purchased a Z4 M roadster & i agree it looks terrible especially from the front, but i dont care, i love the engine enjoy the fact the gearbox is a bit of a pig & i enjoy the lively rearend, they are a challenge!
Having just come out of a cerb 4.5 i can see the comparisons to some TVRs, i feel the Z4 M has character & i always wanted the coupe but thought i would enjoy the sound of the engine with the roof down which i do!
I certainly like them & i enjoy the old school feel to them, i adore the e43 m3 aswell but they are a little too common imo.
Having just come out of a cerb 4.5 i can see the comparisons to some TVRs, i feel the Z4 M has character & i always wanted the coupe but thought i would enjoy the sound of the engine with the roof down which i do!
I certainly like them & i enjoy the old school feel to them, i adore the e43 m3 aswell but they are a little too common imo.
Gruber said:
I'm with CH on this one. I've had a 3.0 Z4C, a Z4MC a standard e46 M3 and an e46 CS. The e46s were better in almost every respect than the MC: more comfortable, more predictable when pressing on, better built, sounded better, better ride, more practical. I enjoyed the Z4M, for a time, but wouldn't have another, especially when a CS can be had for the same (or less) cash.
The only point I really take issue with CH on is the styling - I think they look ace.
Your current wheels display such excellent taste that I cannot take issue with anything you say!The only point I really take issue with CH on is the styling - I think they look ace.
Ugly?
Really?
Of course looks are subjective, and so is the review really. I do love mine, but I've not driven half the cars Chris has under his belt. I notice he references TVR a few times through the article, and that mirrors something I have said all along since I bought mine. I owned a Tuscan S back in 2002, and I said when I drove the Z that if the Germans had bought TVR when it went bust, the Z4M feels like it would have been the result. A TVR is not the ultimate driving tool either. But it does evoke a sense of occasion when you drive it. Something the Z4M will do over an M3 in spades.
I agree to a point about the standard suspension too, and mine wears Clubsports as a result. I have also made a few other tweaks to aid the handling and that "sense of occasion" (fixed bucket seats, a custom hand-built exhaust etc. Would I change it now? Well, it's the longest standing car in my garage for some time, which says something to me. And I think given the choice, I'd just buy something to go alongside it rather than sell.
Really?
Of course looks are subjective, and so is the review really. I do love mine, but I've not driven half the cars Chris has under his belt. I notice he references TVR a few times through the article, and that mirrors something I have said all along since I bought mine. I owned a Tuscan S back in 2002, and I said when I drove the Z that if the Germans had bought TVR when it went bust, the Z4M feels like it would have been the result. A TVR is not the ultimate driving tool either. But it does evoke a sense of occasion when you drive it. Something the Z4M will do over an M3 in spades.
I agree to a point about the standard suspension too, and mine wears Clubsports as a result. I have also made a few other tweaks to aid the handling and that "sense of occasion" (fixed bucket seats, a custom hand-built exhaust etc. Would I change it now? Well, it's the longest standing car in my garage for some time, which says something to me. And I think given the choice, I'd just buy something to go alongside it rather than sell.
Edited by sixspeed on Thursday 6th September 17:05
The USP the Z4M has is very simple.
It was this, that of its time and generation, it wasn't a M3 and that is why it has been popular with a section of enthusiasts.
Now the CH's will say, as above, that it is deficient and compromised and on any objective and subjective measure it doesn't compare to an M3 but I think he misses the subject of his point. It doesn't compare, it isn't meant to. It only does if you want to labour the M hierarchy debate.
Carry on here while I go get keys and start the Z4M and take a blast out to get some shopping for evening....
It was this, that of its time and generation, it wasn't a M3 and that is why it has been popular with a section of enthusiasts.
Now the CH's will say, as above, that it is deficient and compromised and on any objective and subjective measure it doesn't compare to an M3 but I think he misses the subject of his point. It doesn't compare, it isn't meant to. It only does if you want to labour the M hierarchy debate.
Carry on here while I go get keys and start the Z4M and take a blast out to get some shopping for evening....
Chris Harris said:
Especially keen to understand Z4M owners feelings towards the relationship between steering speed, spring rates and damping. I found the car nervous on turn-in, at speed. It didn't give me confidence.
Sure it's easily modified, just strange that BMW M signed it off like that.
It take a good few Ks to learn to lean on it for turn in........I'm sure it could be tweaked but couldn't be bothered rather rack up the miles driving and learning the car. My one observation is that at 120mph+ I felt the steering start to be vague. Sure it's easily modified, just strange that BMW M signed it off like that.
As a new owner of a Z4M Roadster my reasoning for purchasing were as follows:
- price and running costs, even from BMW with two years warranty, all consumables done, tax and recently serviced they are fairly cheap. 30+ mpg on a run with cruise although servicing can be fairly expensive.
- noise, sounds lovely even as standard especially with the roof down.
- power, 343bhp is surely satisfactory?
- manual gearbox, I don't like auto's in "sports" cars.
- two seater, I have no children and no need for extra seats.
- looks, I like the long bonnet and square shoulder line (CSL's and aero skirts definitely improve this area though).
- I think the handling can be a bit wayward but decent tyres make it more predictable and this makes it fun when accelerating hard or pushing on.
- what are the alternatives? Z3M is considerably older (although I love the coupe), s2000 considerably slower, 370z more expensive and I prefer everything about the M, SLK 55AMG more expensive to buy and run plus its an auto (sound great), TT (for the money just no)
, Boxster/Cayman more expensive although close on other fronts (I preferred the M to drive) and that leaves TVR's which are in a whole different ball park in terms of reliability (considering my car is warranted).
In short between the M and the Porsche Cayman/Boxster it's splitting hairs IMO as both offer fairly reasonable guarenteed running costs as they are fairly new, you can obtain warranty,etc so it's down to preference................ Although I'd love a TVR
- price and running costs, even from BMW with two years warranty, all consumables done, tax and recently serviced they are fairly cheap. 30+ mpg on a run with cruise although servicing can be fairly expensive.
- noise, sounds lovely even as standard especially with the roof down.
- power, 343bhp is surely satisfactory?
- manual gearbox, I don't like auto's in "sports" cars.
- two seater, I have no children and no need for extra seats.
- looks, I like the long bonnet and square shoulder line (CSL's and aero skirts definitely improve this area though).
- I think the handling can be a bit wayward but decent tyres make it more predictable and this makes it fun when accelerating hard or pushing on.
- what are the alternatives? Z3M is considerably older (although I love the coupe), s2000 considerably slower, 370z more expensive and I prefer everything about the M, SLK 55AMG more expensive to buy and run plus its an auto (sound great), TT (for the money just no)
, Boxster/Cayman more expensive although close on other fronts (I preferred the M to drive) and that leaves TVR's which are in a whole different ball park in terms of reliability (considering my car is warranted).In short between the M and the Porsche Cayman/Boxster it's splitting hairs IMO as both offer fairly reasonable guarenteed running costs as they are fairly new, you can obtain warranty,etc so it's down to preference................ Although I'd love a TVR
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff