RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: BMW Z4 M Coupe

[blearyeyedboy]

Hedgehog, I imagined the point of the Tell Me I'm Wrong thingy was to spark discussion. 18 pages in, this particular thread seems to have been successful in that aim.

[playalistic]

custardkid said:

icepop said:

playalistic said:

The pervading memory of these is definitely understeer when pushed hard. Also the jittery bouncy (and confidence sapping) ride over anything other than a perfectly laid road surface. Oh also, the massively over-invasive traction control.

Other than that, they are superb machines and have a real x-factor that is hard to explain. With some choice suspension mods they can be made great.

You can't possible site that level off critisism, at the car, and then round it off by saying what a wonderful machine it is. If it understeers when pushed, has confidence sapping handling, and the driver aids cut in far too early, then, sorry, but that ain't a top notch performance car, in anyones book.

Under steer???

Seriously? There must have been something wrong with you set up or driver??

Mine had super fast turn in and a mobile rear end, much more stable on oversteer than a friend E46 M3

Custard

Yeah you're right, the driver is st and the car was set up completely wrong. I'm the first person to ever say the car suffers understeer too.

[playalistic]

icepop said:

playalistic said:

The pervading memory of these is definitely understeer when pushed hard. Also the jittery bouncy (and confidence sapping) ride over anything other than a perfectly laid road surface. Oh also, the massively over-invasive traction control.

Other than that, they are superb machines and have a real x-factor that is hard to explain. With some choice suspension mods they can be made great.

You can't possible site that level off critisism, at the car, and then round it off by saying what a wonderful machine it is. If it understeers when pushed, has confidence sapping handling, and the driver aids cut in far too early, then, sorry, but that ain't a top notch performance car, in anyones book.

So what you've turned this into is a critique on my choice of language?

[Dave Hedgehog]

blearyeyedboy said:

Hedgehog, I imagined the point of the Tell Me I'm Wrong thingy was to spark discussion. 18 pages in, this particular thread seems to have been successful in that aim.

but it also risks turning him into a live radio "shock jock" type idiot, randomly picking a cult car and then slagging it off is beyond him imo

[blearyeyedboy]

Playalistic, you seem to really like the car. Can you explain what else makes you happy about it that you can look past understeer, a bouncy ride and overinvasive driver aids? Or is it simply a case of "it makes me smile and I don't know why" (which would be fair enough!).

[blearyeyedboy]

Dave Hedgehog said:

but it also risks turning him into a live radio "shock jock" type idiot, randomly picking a cult car and then slagging it off is beyond him imo

If that's what he's doing, then I see your point. But I took these articles as taking cars he genuinely didn't get a buzz for in the same way as a collection of enthusiasts and using the articles as a way of opening dialogue with the great PH unwashed.*

Presumably there are a finite number of cars he can do that for without the concept becoming contrived, but I don't see it getting that way yet.

* And some of us are very smelly and unwashed. Really.

[Dave Hedgehog]

blearyeyedboy said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

but it also risks turning him into a live radio "shock jock" type idiot, randomly picking a cult car and then slagging it off is beyond him imo

If that's what he's doing, then I see your point. But I took these articles as taking cars he genuinely didn't get a buzz for in the same way as a collection of enthusiasts and using the articles as a way of opening dialogue with the great PH unwashed.*

Presumably there are a finite number of cars he can do that for without the concept becoming contrived, but I don't see it getting that way yet.

* And some of us are very smelly and unwashed. Really.

looks at this topic by monkey

[playalistic]

blearyeyedboy said:

Playalistic, you seem to really like the car. Can you explain what else makes you happy about it that you can look past understeer, a bouncy ride and overinvasive driver aids? Or is it simply a case of "it makes me smile and I don't know why" (which would be fair enough!).

The jittery ride can be mostly dealt with by just keeping your foot in. That's a great over simplification but you get the picture.

When talking about over-invasive driver aids I was only referring to the TC. This is coupled with the jittery ride as it likes to hop a wheel. Easily countered by turning TC off. Job done.

The understeer can be dialled out with a bit more camber and just making sure the car isn't standing on its nose mid corner. On track it is completely a "brake - turn - apex - power" car i.e. slow in fast out, whereas the Noble for example benefits from breaking deeper into the turn.

It is a great package when you consider what it is. It's not meant to be an out and out drivers car and fails on some points but when you add it all up it's definitely greater than the sum of its parts. As I said, with a few choice mods you can dial out most of the main flaws.

[Herbs]

blearyeyedboy said:

Playalistic, you seem to really like the car. Can you explain what else makes you happy about it that you can look past understeer, a bouncy ride and overinvasive driver aids? Or is it simply a case of "it makes me smile and I don't know why" (which would be fair enough!).

It really is a case of "It makes me smile and I don't know why"

I have owned a few cars that I have always wanted over the last couple of years including a Merecedes SL500, Porsche 911 C4S, numerous Lotus Elise's and an Aston Martin Vantage roadster which I sold earlier this year to get a Q7 for work purposes.


And the one I miss the most?





The Z4M by a country mile............

I cannot explain it, leave the CDV in and it buckaroo's like a bh when pulling away, the TC is invasive to the extreme and the suspension is ok but not in the same league as the Lotus but it has a charm and a edge to it that you cannot describe. It is one of only a few cars that even a year down the line I still felt that I was still learning how to drive it to the best of it's ability.

It just has that "something" about it.

I'd have another in a heartbeat over any of my previous cars (the Lotus would be first but too compromised for a daily driver now i'm not in my 20's anymore )

[Polariz]

Crikey this thread has awakened again which is great. Thanks for the advice all.

I think that I've gotta be honest, the running costs of the M will muller me, simply down to annual mileage. The M seems to be winning more fans here but I think that moving from an MX5 1.8 to a 3.0Si, I'm going to enjoy myself immensely with M power or not!

[Froomee]

The M is epic! I have just had a Hayward and Scott x-pipe fitted and backboxes and the sound is immense.

Night and day between the two cars especially with DSC off.

All cars suffer from the laws of diminishing returns but for the money the M is a performance bargain at the moment and 30-33mpg is achieveable on a run with cruise which can be useful.......

[Herbs]

Polariz said:

Crikey this thread has awakened again which is great. Thanks for the advice all.

I think that I've gotta be honest, the running costs of the M will muller me, simply down to annual mileage. The M seems to be winning more fans here but I think that moving from an MX5 1.8 to a 3.0Si, I'm going to enjoy myself immensely with M power or not!

Only if you drive it hard (which is hard to refrain from) as fuel economy isn't vastly different in normal day to day - probably only 2-3 mpg if I remember correctly.

Servicing is more but again over the course of a year this isn't too bad and then there is depreciation. A Si is going to continue to drop whereas an M is not far off the bottom of its depreciation curve.

A bit of man maths and the difference over a 2 year period will be smaller than you think. (My Z4 3.0 cost me more in total than the Z4M did over the same period)

[Polariz]

Herbs said:

Only if you drive it hard (which is hard to refrain from) as fuel economy isn't vastly different in normal day to day - probably only 2-3 mpg if I remember correctly.

Servicing is more but again over the course of a year this isn't too bad and then there is depreciation. A Si is going to continue to drop whereas an M is not far off the bottom of its depreciation curve.

A bit of man maths and the difference over a 2 year period will be smaller than you think. (My Z4 3.0 cost me more in total than the Z4M did over the same period)

Cheers for the reply Herbs, much appreciated. Would you mind attempting to put some figures on the cost of servicing and what not you had, on both cars?

Presently in my 120D I'm currently getting 48MPG, requiring around £300 a month on the fuel bill. Driving economically is not my speciality (usually because I'm late going to places!), so I tend to eat tyres a bit too. Obviously they're smaller (16") alloys on the 1 series than they will be on the Z, so this cost will go up - any idea how much per corner? Also (a stupid question probably), but does the M come with gunk for filling up your tyre in the event of a puncture? Assuming non run-flat tyres?

If I can make the M fit, I will.

Thanks!

[Herbs]

Polariz said:

Cheers for the reply Herbs, much appreciated. Would you mind attempting to put some figures on the cost of servicing and what not you had, on both cars?

Presently in my 120D I'm currently getting 48MPG, requiring around £300 a month on the fuel bill. Driving economically is not my speciality (usually because I'm late going to places!), so I tend to eat tyres a bit too. Obviously they're smaller (16") alloys on the 1 series than they will be on the Z, so this cost will go up - any idea how much per corner? Also (a stupid question probably), but does the M come with gunk for filling up your tyre in the event of a puncture? Assuming non run-flat tyres?

If I can make the M fit, I will.

Thanks!

No worries. With the M I was averaging 20-22 around town, 18-19 pushing on and 25-28 on a dual/motorway.

I found the vredstein Ultrac Sesstanta's to be much better than the standard ones (approx £150 per corner.)

Servicing is usual BMW made up of Inspection 1,2 and oil service so only due a big service every 4 years or so also it is based on mileage. Only the big service is really expensive - approx £800 but can be much cheaper if use an indie.

It's been a few years since I had one so if anyone else has slightly more accurate figures please correct me as it is slightly hazy.

The only real problems are rear springs snapping - not a biggie, MAF sensors approx £300 and I had a window module go which was £400 and that was it in total during my ownership. I'm not sure if these are M specific or Z4 in general but engine wise they are pretty bulletproof


Oh and to comment on the debate between the 3.0 and M, my comment after the first month was "I cannot believe how much difference 200cc makes"

[Herbs]

Forgot to mention cannot remember if space saver or tyre weld as never had cause to use it.

[Pulse]

Herbs said:

Forgot to mention cannot remember if space saver or tyre weld as never had cause to use it.

Tyre weld.

[Herbs]

Pulse said:

Tyre weld.

How do my MPG's compare to yours?

[Polariz]

Ok thanks for that buddy, I need to start writing this all down. A slight complication for affordability is that I'll be getting my missus to sell her snotter and use that as a deposit for something a little nicer that I'll be paying for on a monthly basis. I'll need to use this if I need to shift boxes around the country for work.

So we're basically saying that I'm looking at £600 a month for fuel, based on your MPG quotes. Ooer.

[Pulse]

Herbs said:

Pulse said:

Tyre weld.

How do my MPG's compare to yours?

Mine (based on OBC readings) are in my profile, but they are skewed. The 3.0si I used to drive normally, whereas in the time I had the M, I babied it quite a bit.

I don't think, based on book figure of 8mpg worse, that is quite true. I'd say it's nearer to 4mpg difference.

[Pulse]

Herbs said:

The only real problems are rear springs snapping - not a biggie, MAF sensors approx £300 and I had a window module go which was £400 and that was it in total during my ownership. I'm not sure if these are M specific or Z4 in general but engine wise they are pretty bulletproof

Rear springs are across the range, and as you say, not a big problem at all.

MAF sensors go on the M, not on the 3.0si; but the 3.0si has other problems to contend with (lifters, mainly).

Window modules are also quite common, but not really a concern I ever had.

With either car, you won't be disappointed, that's for sure. The M is absolutely epic, and if you buy one, you will find it very hard to replace without spending 2-3 times the amount. That is why so many people have kept theirs - just look on Z4-Forum for examples of people who've had them 4-5 years.