BMW z3 2.8i turbo conversion.....?

[anonymous-user]

NiceCupOfTea said:

Still missing the point I'm afraid! Not sure where to start - what does "better" mean?

It's unquantifiable, my better isn't yours obviously.... I am not the one missing the point. An Mx5 IMO is great drive, ticks boxes whereas i found the Smart annoying if I am honest. It's not one element.

[Evil.soup]

300bhp/ton said:

Evil.soup said:

I am not trying to get into a debate on this one as I have been there before on the smart/300 topic but I have to agree that even though it may be classed as a "sports car", on paper and via reports it seems to lack any performance ability compared with other cars that fit in the same bracket.

The trouble with sports cars is that there doesn't seem to be any clear rules as to what it takes to be a sports car, half the time it just seems to be a matter of opinion!

If it's not a sports car, then neither is an MX-5, MGF, MGTF, MR2 MK1/3, Fiat x1/9 or anything classic like a Spridgit, TR, GT6, MGB, MGC, etc etc.

I agree the smart Roadster isn't fast... but it feels a lot faster than it actually is. The 0-60mph time is also somewhat of a misnomer. As to perform 0-60mph in it you simply floor the throttle, it disengages the clutch builds the revs to 3500rpm and releases the clutch.

In a regular manual with a m/r or r/r layout you'd probably dial in 5000rpm+ and then ride the clutch to prevent it bogging or wheelspinning. You can' do this in the Roadster, so from a standing start the stats look worse than they are. The "in-gear" performance is certainly better than it's 0-60mph time would hint at.

That said it's still no rocket ship, but last time I looked neither is one of the worlds best sports cars the MX-5.

I didn't say it wasn't a sports car as it does fit into the sports car box, I am just agreeing that it doesn't really stand out as a very good one in a strong market. I am not the biggest fan of the MX-5 to be honest either, its a good car but doesn't really ring my bell.

[TEKNOPUG]

I'm sure that the OP is thrilled at all your discussions about what constitutes a sports car, as it has no doubt informed him greatly as to the tuning potential of his Z3 2.8i......

[XitUp]

Welcome to the internet.

[300bhp/ton]

Evil.soup said:

I didn't say it wasn't a sports car as it does fit into the sports car box, I am just agreeing that it doesn't really stand out as a very good one in a strong market. I am not the biggest fan of the MX-5 to be honest either, its a good car but doesn't really ring my bell.

Fair cop. Just curious, what would you consider as "good" sports cars in thie sector/price?

[300bhp/ton]

yonex said:

XitUp said:

Many sports cars will be shown up by hatchbacks.
Are you missing the point on purpose?

Sorry you don't agree but the gearbox, ride and feel of the car doesn't make it sporty in my eyes. The fact it's also pretty gutless just adds to the negatives. The point is a sports car should be 'better' than a warm hatch, it isn't.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but are you sure you know what a smart Roadster is and you aren't confusing it with the ForTwo?

The gearbox - ok I can see why 'some' won't like it. But drive with it and it works well enough, it's certainly not really any slower than an LT77 that you'll find in many a V8 sports car.

But the ride and feel - here you totally lose me. The car sits a LOT lower than an MX-5, infact pull up next to an MX-5 at the traffic lights and you'll have to tilt your head backwards to see the driver. The seating position is low, the wheel is right in front of you rather than below you like a hatchback and the pedals are in front of you.

In fact sitting in one reminds me very much of sitting in an MGB GT.

The steering has electronic assist, which I admit makes it very light at parking speeds, although the assistance shuts off at 20mph or so. It's not the most fealsome steering I've encountered, but it's better than almost every PAS equipped hatch I've been in.

The car also feels tiny and nimble on the road, so much so that it makes an MGF or MX-5 feel wide and bloated. There's almost no body roll at all and I found the stock damping to be far superior to most hatchbacks I've been in. The steering is very direct with good turn in although pushes to understeer in the wet if you drive it wrong. Provoke it and it'll step the back out far more progressively than a rear engined car deserves to be.

The ESP is over agressive, but it has an OFF switch, so isn't a problem.

Gutless, this is something it doesn't feel. The turbo motor makes it punchy, although PEAK power is around 5200-5300rpm, so there's often little point ringing it out to the red line.

Mines been remapped which has seen a 20% increase in rwhp at 3500rpm and gutless it isn't. In the damp it'll spin the wheels in 3rd while cornering if provoked.

[Evil.soup]

300bhp/ton said:

Evil.soup said:

I didn't say it wasn't a sports car as it does fit into the sports car box, I am just agreeing that it doesn't really stand out as a very good one in a strong market. I am not the biggest fan of the MX-5 to be honest either, its a good car but doesn't really ring my bell.

Fair cop. Just curious, what would you consider as "good" sports cars in thie sector/price?

I guess something like the MR2 Roadster, S2000 or the Elise, although that is streaching the budget a little. The MR2 for example still isn't super quick, although still quicker than an MX-5, but it handles like a dream and for me is far more involving than an MX-5.

I guess much of it is opinion and preference so there will always be those that cannot agree on a subject such as this.