RE: BMW Z4 M40i: Driven

[Ares]

borat52 said:

It’s double the price of a MX5, I can’t quite get my head around that particularly as the MX5 is suject to import duty.

It's double the price of a base model Mx-5 with a 130 bhp 1.5 litre engine and no spec - £21,585 on the road.

For a bigger, studier, less-tinny, mini-GT style sports car with over 2.5 times the power, I wouldn't have thought that was that unreasonable.

[Ares]

Liquid Knight said:

All the ingredients are there for a great drivers car apart from a couple of things.

As I pointed out on Facebook it's named after the M40 London to Birmingham commuter route.

I does not have a proper gearbox.

Okay I get it some super/hyper/hype cars need an automatic or flappy paddle autotragic because they make too much power for a conventional clutch or there isn't room for a third pedal etc (Alfa 4C) and okay the Z4 has never been a B road barnstormer and BMW haven't made a fun car since the Z3 but why compare it the Porsche Boxster when it's much more of a mile munching cruiser?

Yes the Z4 or Zee4 is aimed at the US market where an eight speed ZF auto' is sadly the norm but how about a manual option for those of us who enjoy driving?

No the 'mericanized Zee4 only has the ZF box on the options list and BMW have stated there will be no manual option.

No wonder they named it after a boring, soulless, tedious, monotonous, life absorbing, stretch of 60's council spec' motorway.

So, if they stuck a manual gearbox in it, you'd march down to the dealer and part with £45k for one?

[Ares]

CarAbuser said:

It's hard to say there's a lack of demand for a manual when they aren't even offered. I agree that the demise of the manual in most German saloons is driven by lack of demand, but on something like the Supra which has a massive cult following of stereotypical car anoraks I'm not so sure.

The demand was non-existent when they offered both! 99% of the people that bh about no manual gearboxes are those that never spend anymore than £5k on a car, and never look at a car until it is 10yrs old.


People that actually buy these cars new, on the whole, buy the automatic.

[otolith]

mikey k said:

otolith said:

CarAbuser said:

It's hard to say there's a lack of demand for a manual when they aren't even offered. I agree that the demise of the manual in most German saloons is driven by lack of demand, but on something like the Supra which has a massive cult following of stereotypical car anoraks I'm not so sure.

I fear that the truth is that the cult followers can't afford to spec a new one, so if the market doesn't want to buy manuals they're not going to get them anyway.

It's not just that
The CO2 emissions drive a lot of ownership decisions now and an auto is lower than a manual as it whizzes up the box to get to the lowest revs possible as soon as possible, reducing CO2 output.

That's another incentive, but again it's an incentive for the first buyer (and the manufacturer). People in the dump valve fraternity will have to get what someone else chose.

[cerb4.5lee]

Ares said:

People that actually buy these cars new, on the whole, buy the automatic.

They do and they have for a number of years now. When I think back to the E9x M3 the majority of those sold were DCT and same for the M4. Porsche even went through a phase of dropping the manual and focused on the PDK. Ferrari turned their back on the manual gearbox as well years ago. The Alpine A110 is a breath of fresh air in the sports car market and a manual gearbox is nowhere to be seen.

I always have a moan at the lack of manual gearboxes on offer, but the simple fact is that punters who buy new cars just don't want them. A manual gearbox is classed as old fashioned/slow/worse on fuel, so it is a no brainer to go for the auto for the majority in fairness.

[thecremeegg]

Liquid Knight said:

All the ingredients are there for a great drivers car apart from a couple of things.

As I pointed out on Facebook it's named after the M40 London to Birmingham commuter route.

I does not have a proper gearbox.

Okay I get it some super/hyper/hype cars need an automatic or flappy paddle autotragic because they make too much power for a conventional clutch or there isn't room for a third pedal etc (Alfa 4C) and okay the Z4 has never been a B road barnstormer and BMW haven't made a fun car since the Z3 but why compare it the Porsche Boxster when it's much more of a mile munching cruiser?

Yes the Z4 or Zee4 is aimed at the US market where an eight speed ZF auto' is sadly the norm but how about a manual option for those of us who enjoy driving?

No the 'mericanized Zee4 only has the ZF box on the options list and BMW have stated there will be no manual option.

No wonder they named it after a boring, soulless, tedious, monotonous, life absorbing, stretch of 60's council spec' motorway.

You know the Z4 was always designed and made in the US right? It's no different from all other manufacturers, the manual is dead in all but the purest sports cars now.

[Liquid Knight]

Ares said:

So, if they stuck a manual gearbox in it, you'd march down to the dealer and part with £45k for one?

Nope. See my comment about the crazy person generic jigsaw styling.

If I had £45,000 and it had to be a new car the Z4 wouldn't be in the top ten even with a manual. If I didn't have to buy new I doubt it would be in my top fifty to a hundred.

The whole range is missing something. I can't look at any new BMW and think "Wow! I really like that". I have no idea what BMW are trying to do these days but they haven't made "The Ultimate Driving Machine" for quite some time.

[JuanGandini]

It appears to me that there's not been much mention on this thread yet about the cost. £49K!

I just couldn't justify that to myself in the knowledge that a new M140i could be had for £20K less. Well, until they stop making them later this year anyway!

[CABC]

it's heavy and sad.
we can do so much better, so why don't we?

[cerb4.5lee]

JuanGandini said:

It appears to me that there's not been much mention on this thread yet about the cost. £49K!

Iirc my Z4M Roadster was £43k new back in 2006(I got it used though), so I guess the price of this compared to that isn't bad at all.

[Wiltshire Lad]

CABC said:

it's heavy and sad.
we can do so much better, so why don't we?

Even more depressing if you look at the original concept......from beauty to beast.

[croyde]

Get a Mustang GT. Manual box and a 5.0 litre n/a engine.

Not as cheap as mine was in 2016 but still can be had for just over £40k.

Add another £4k for a cloth top I believe.

[Ares]

Liquid Knight said:

Ares said:

So, if they stuck a manual gearbox in it, you'd march down to the dealer and part with £45k for one?

Nope. See my comment about the crazy person generic jigsaw styling.

If I had £45,000 and it had to be a new car the Z4 wouldn't be in the top ten even with a manual. If I didn't have to buy new I doubt it would be in my top fifty to a hundred.

The whole range is missing something. I can't look at any new BMW and think "Wow! I really like that". I have no idea what BMW are trying to do these days but they haven't made "The Ultimate Driving Machine" for quite some time.

So why do you care?

And which mainstream manufacturer is better?

[cerb4.5lee]

croyde said:

Get a Mustang GT. Manual box and a 5.0 litre n/a engine.

I'd love one with a manual big time yet I've looked on Auto Trader and there are more autos for sale than manuals. So that backs up how autos have become the more preferred option.

A V8 Mustang would be one of the last cars I'd personally want with an auto, but I suppose it is a GT/cruiser so I guess(begrudgingly) that the auto suits its remit.

[va1o]

Ninja59 said:

ellingtj said:

'the older engine in the m140i' what? It's exactly the same, technical knowledge, not a required attribute for journalists clearly.

No it is not.

Whilst they are both B58, they are different in technical terms and I think the cars now have proper hardware changes as opposed to just software.

In addition there are actually differences in engine specification between EU and US and Z4 M40i and Supra to the extent that engine codes are completely different after the B58 part.

Frustratingly here in the UK we will not see the US spec Z4 M40i which apparently is a little more powerful. I suspect the GPF might have something to do with it in a decent percentage but unlikely to be all of it.

I've got a 68-plate M240i at the moment and I'm quite sure my Z4 M40i will have the same engine, the specs are identical.The Z4 should be a tiny bit more economical according to the stats but can't see any other differences.

limpsfield said:

Congratulations! Be interesting to hear what you think about it after a few weeks.

mikey k said:

Please post on here a bit of feed back once you've run it for a while!

Will do!

[glasso]

sorry but.... crap looking car.

[fido]

cerb4.5lee said:

When I think back to the E9x M3 the majority of those sold were DCT and same for the M4.

It wasn't really a fair fight though as the DCT had an extra cog and the manual wasn't that great (IMO). I went for a DCT reluctantly because to wring out all the bhp from 8300rpm using an average 6-speed manual versus letting DCT do it with 7 was a no-brainer. For this Z4, or indeed an M2C, the wider torque-band would work nicely with a 6-speed manual. Even better if it had a 7-speed manual ala Porsche or Corvette - but BMW seem to prefer making endless versions of a similar car - which is a shame.

Edited by fido on Monday 25th March 10:45

[cerb4.5lee]

fido said:

cerb4.5lee said:

When I think back to the E9x M3 the majority of those sold were DCT and same for the M4.

It wasn't really a fair fight though as the DCT had an extra cog and the manual wasn't that great (IMO). I went for a DCT reluctantly because to wring out all the bhp from 8300rpm using an average 6-speed manual versus letting DCT do it with 7 was a no-brainer.

Having a V8 engine mated to a manual gearbox was a pretty rare thing even back then, and that drew me towards going for the manual. But I completely understand why the DCT out sold the manual, and I agree that the manual isn't that great and the DCT does suit the engines characteristics far more.

I just used to get a bit frustrated that Ford/Honda/Mazda etc could make a decent manual gearbox...yet BMW have found it so difficult to do. It doesn't matter anymore though because auto is the go to choice(only option in most cases) now anyway.

[Limpet]

carparkno1 said:

The engine is what makes these cars, that B58 is a stunner.

I love mine (440i), one minute effortless cruiser, the next, noisy straight six with buckets of torque and revs to 7k+

Couldn't have a 4 pot again I don't think.

Totally agree. Fantastic road car engine. Everything your say, plus efficient too.

It's why I can't get excited about the M140i replacement. I don't care if it's faster or more capable, it just won't have the soundtrack or that lovely silky delivery.

[Ares]

fido said:

cerb4.5lee said:

When I think back to the E9x M3 the majority of those sold were DCT and same for the M4.

It wasn't really a fair fight though as the DCT had an extra cog and the manual wasn't that great (IMO). I went for a DCT reluctantly because to wring out all the bhp from 8300rpm using an average 6-speed manual versus letting DCT do it with 7 was a no-brainer. For this Z4, or indeed an M2C, the wider torque-band would work nicely with a 6-speed manual. Even better if it had a 7-speed manual ala Porsche or Corvette - but BMW seem to prefer making endless versions of a similar car - which is a shame.

Edited by fido on Monday 25th March 10:45

...but that same thing happened with the M3/M4?