RE: BMW M4 AC Schnitzer ACS4: Review
Discussion
Tankslider said:
ACS power upgrades also maintain the manufacturer's warranty. That's some development work, and where the money goes. You get what you pay for - and if I had a new M4, I know where I'd be happier spending my money.
This fact is the winner....and was for me. I could have had the power upgrade on mine for £600-£1000. The Schnitzer kit was £2500....but with double warranty protection and a non-remap, it swayed me.....but the real chance on mine, as above, is the suspension.
t aftermarkets styling tweaks.Liamst said:
Id probably wager money that BMS do more tuning and development with JB4 than ACS given that they release updates non stop, even now they still developing n54 platform. And you can send them data logs at any time of the day and they reply quickly with individual settings to perfect the experience.
And a good set of coilovers corner weghted for your needs will be just as good.
However this over gts! But why do both this and gts have such horrible wheels!
I would still wager that ACS have greater tech capability....I don't think BMW have ever outsourced tech work to BMS? And only one protects the manufacturer warranty, the other just says "Don't worry, we can always removed all traces of it."And a good set of coilovers corner weghted for your needs will be just as good.
However this over gts! But why do both this and gts have such horrible wheels!
cerb4.5lee said:
BMW do make some well regarded cars(3 series/M5/original M3 for example) yet they failed by some margin on their sports car which if I am honest has often baffled me and I do think the base that they started with was flawed.
I haven't driven a base Z4 but the Z4M wasn't anything special in terms of how it drove yet on paper it had most of the ingredients to hit the spot, so it is pretty disappointing really.
Sports cars, or sports saloons? The latter has provided the sports saloon benchmark for 20+ years in most marks.I haven't driven a base Z4 but the Z4M wasn't anything special in terms of how it drove yet on paper it had most of the ingredients to hit the spot, so it is pretty disappointing really.
If you are then going to compare a £50/60k 4-door/4-seater sports saloon with a £80/90k sports car, then yes, the sports saloon may well be seen as a failure
Ares said:
Sports cars, or sports saloons? The latter has provided the sports saloon benchmark for 20+ years in most marks.
If you are then going to compare a £50/60k 4-door/4-seater sports saloon with a £80/90k sports car, then yes, the sports saloon may well be seen as a failure
He's wondering how a company so good at making M3's, M5's etc. manage to miss the mark when it actually comes to the one that could be considered a sports car, the Z4M.If you are then going to compare a £50/60k 4-door/4-seater sports saloon with a £80/90k sports car, then yes, the sports saloon may well be seen as a failure
BlueEyedBoy said:
cerb4.5lee said:
Now I suppose you could look at it in a couple of ways and say they either wanted it to have a few flaws so that it gave a different driving experience or they just don't know how build a brilliant "sports car".
Looking at the fact they haven't really made many "sports cars" points to the latter for me.
dunc_sx said:
Struggling to think of any std road car that couldn't be improved by chucking on tricker suspension and/or tweaking the geometry so a bit harsh saying BMW have missed the mark etc. Everything is build with compromise.
It's generally reasonably easy to make a car either ride better on poor roads or handle better on smooth ones but if you can easily make a car do both, the originally manufacturer has either screwed something up or seriously cut corners (or both). For me the whole point of M-cars used to be that they managed to give both better handling and better ride than the cheaper cars based on the same platforms. You could feel the amount of effort that had gone into fine-tuning the suspension components to make them work properly together. For example, I think it would be very hard for an aftermarket tuner to significantly improve both the ride and the handling of the E46 M3.
ETA: Not really a criticism - I'm sure BMW know their market and have decided that the extra they'd have to spend to set the car up "properly" simply wouldn't appeal to enough people to make it worth the cost. Ultimately they're a business.
Edited by kambites on Monday 21st December 14:27
kambites said:
dunc_sx said:
Struggling to think of any std road car that couldn't be improved by chucking on tricker suspension and/or tweaking the geometry so a bit harsh saying BMW have missed the mark etc. Everything is build with compromise.
It's generally reasonably easy to make a car either ride better on poor roads or handle better on smooth ones but if you can easily make a car do both, the originally manufacturer has either screwed something up or seriously cut corners (or both). For me the whole point of M-cars used to be that they managed to give both better handling and better ride than the cheaper cars based on the same platforms. You could feel the amount of effort that had gone into fine-tuning the suspension components to make them work properly together. For example, I think it would be very hard for an aftermarket tuner to significantly improve both the ride and the handling of the E46 M3.
ETA: Not really a criticism - I'm sure BMW know their market and have decided that the extra they'd have to spend to set the car up "properly" simply wouldn't appeal to enough people to make it worth the cost. Ultimately they're a business.
Knowing they'll be selling tens of thousands of units, then suspension specced the same as this modded stuff probably would cost literally pounds extra at their costs end.
I often think journalist opinions fall well short of the full gamut of information and feedback that an OEM would actually get from a proper engineer/road tester.
I remember years back reading how the Clio Sport Cup test drivers literally drove the cars until strut top turrets were destroyed. I wonder if AC Schintzer actually tested this KW suspension to destruction, or just fitted it to an M4 and made it look low and cool, and a journalist just thought it 'drove better' because they probably didn't know better.
Really you can't fairly judge the M4 oem and M4 with this kit until you know what M4 wanted from the suspension, otherwise you just unfairly judge it.
Personally I'd say if it's lower and stiffer then it's generally going to be worse on bumpy roads. There is no getting around the fundamentals of high wheel rates which are necessary for low ride heights.
True, but from what I've seen reviews of the current M3/M4's suspension have been pretty much universally critical or at best damning with faint praise. Previous M3 reviews were almost universally positive with respect to the suspension calibration and for good reason - they were genuinely exceptional cars.
Now of course I should drive the new cars before I form a solid opinion, but it seems pretty categorical that either BMW have screwed the calibration up or the vast majority of journalists have changed their tastes and/or bias. The former seems more likely than the latter, really.
Now of course I should drive the new cars before I form a solid opinion, but it seems pretty categorical that either BMW have screwed the calibration up or the vast majority of journalists have changed their tastes and/or bias. The former seems more likely than the latter, really.
kambites said:
True, but from what I've seen reviews of the current M3/M4's suspension have been pretty much universally critical or at best damning with faint praise. Previous M3 reviews were almost universally positive with respect to the suspension calibration and for good reason - they were genuinely exceptional cars.
Now of course I should drive the new cars before I form a solid opinion, but it seems pretty categorical that either BMW have screwed the calibration up or the vast majority of journalists have changed their tastes and/or bias. The former seems more likely than the latter, really.
It'd be good to get some proper reviews.Now of course I should drive the new cars before I form a solid opinion, but it seems pretty categorical that either BMW have screwed the calibration up or the vast majority of journalists have changed their tastes and/or bias. The former seems more likely than the latter, really.
There is quantitative review, and qualitative review, and the former would be just as interesting as the latter. This article is very much full of qualitative, and from someone who probably doesn't even know some fundamental basics of suspension kinematics either... so there is little I can take from the review except a costly suspension change (not upgrade), makes a difference. Sensational
Edmonds used to do some great suspension walkarounds and other technical reviews, and even Evo did weigh-ins vs claimed weights, and dyno tests at one time.
Maybe I'm a rarity, but if you're gonna review a suspension pack for a sports car like the M4, put some real effort into it. A day at Millbrook, some high speed stuff, track stuff, road stuff, etc etc...
Maybe do some track times side by side with an OEM car and things!?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff