RE: BMW Z4 M40i: Driven
Discussion
cerb4.5lee said:
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.
And DCT and even more full auto gearboxes have got so much better since the E9x M3...!JuanGandini said:
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!
Which could make them an even better purchase.. imagine owning a m140i that doesn't depreciate! 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!
Speed_Demon said:
Surely this would be an infinitely better prospect with 15% less weight and 15% less power. A 1.5 ton 2 seater sports car?
So I guess its not the pure version of a sports car, but it does leave a good for a model that is a bit more focused. Cant see BMW filling it however.
It would likely cost way more than 15% more though....and so wouldn't sell in anything like the number needed to be viable....so it would be more like 30% more as a CSL variant.So I guess its not the pure version of a sports car, but it does leave a good for a model that is a bit more focused. Cant see BMW filling it however.
Begs the question, infinitely better for who? Those that want a focused sports car will not look at a Z4/TT/SLK. They will look towards Lotus/Alpine/Boxster etc.
Ares said:
It would likely cost way more than 15% more though....and so wouldn't sell in anything like the number needed to be viable....so it would be more like 30% more as a CSL variant.
Begs the question, infinitely better for who? Those that want a focused sports car will not look at a Z4/TT/SLK. They will look towards Lotus/Alpine/Boxster etc.
Yep agreed, baring perhaps the odd GTS here or there, BMW don't really make focused stuff anymore and arguably haven't for a very long time. They make sporty-ish cars for the mainstream masses which means heavy, auto gearbox and all the mod cons.Begs the question, infinitely better for who? Those that want a focused sports car will not look at a Z4/TT/SLK. They will look towards Lotus/Alpine/Boxster etc.
Guvernator said:
Ares said:
It would likely cost way more than 15% more though....and so wouldn't sell in anything like the number needed to be viable....so it would be more like 30% more as a CSL variant.
Begs the question, infinitely better for who? Those that want a focused sports car will not look at a Z4/TT/SLK. They will look towards Lotus/Alpine/Boxster etc.
Yep agreed, baring perhaps the odd GTS here or there, BMW don't really make focused stuff anymore and arguably haven't for a very long time. They make sporty-ish cars for the mainstream masses which means heavy, auto gearbox and all the mod cons.Begs the question, infinitely better for who? Those that want a focused sports car will not look at a Z4/TT/SLK. They will look towards Lotus/Alpine/Boxster etc.
The E30 M3 might have been close, but that was more down to homologation rules. Ditto the 190-2.3/2.5.
BMW are in the business of making cars that people buy.
Ares said:
Have they ever really made focused sports cars? It isn't really their gig?
The E30 M3 might have been close, but that was more down to homologation rules. Ditto the 190-2.3/2.5.
BMW are in the business of making cars that people buy.
No you are probably right and perhaps it's a bit of rose tinted specs but it feels like they used to make a bit more of an effort to make their cars more focused\sporty or perhaps the more relaxed regulations of the time just made it that bit easier. Nowadays they seem to have mostly given up and think sporty just means upping the power and making the ride really stiff. They haven't quite reached Audi like levels of driver isolation and occasionally they but they aren't too far off tbh. Occasionally they come up with a cracking car, almost like a tease but it usually seems more luck then judgement these days.The E30 M3 might have been close, but that was more down to homologation rules. Ditto the 190-2.3/2.5.
BMW are in the business of making cars that people buy.
I liked the Z3 the 1.9 was a match for the MX5/MGF/Alfa Spider of the time and the 2.8 was great even though it had old underpinnings. The Z4 was more of a GT than sports car a Z3 for grown ups. The Z3M? Reliant Scimitar (Princess Ann had one of those you know?) styling aside was more of an M car than the E46 M3. Well more focused fun than the E46 M3 and later arguably M3 V8.
The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
Liquid Knight said:
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
I briefly considered the M4 Convertible but it's quite dated now, costs about £17k more than the Z4 M40i and the 0-60 time is actually the same.For me the Z4 should be both a good weekend toy and daily commuter
Liquid Knight said:
I liked the Z3 the 1.9 was a match for the MX5/MGF/Alfa Spider of the time and the 2.8 was great even though it had old underpinnings. The Z4 was more of a GT than sports car a Z3 for grown ups. The Z3M? Reliant Scimitar (Princess Ann had one of those you know?) styling aside was more of an M car than the E46 M3. Well more focused fun than the E46 M3 and later arguably M3 V8.
The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
I don’t really see your line of thinking there.The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
In either case the choice would be more about personal circumstances.
If you only need 2 seats why buy an even heavier 4 seat convertible?
We all buy what we want, not what other people think we should buy.
HighwayStar said:
Liquid Knight said:
I liked the Z3 the 1.9 was a match for the MX5/MGF/Alfa Spider of the time and the 2.8 was great even though it had old underpinnings. The Z4 was more of a GT than sports car a Z3 for grown ups. The Z3M? Reliant Scimitar (Princess Ann had one of those you know?) styling aside was more of an M car than the E46 M3. Well more focused fun than the E46 M3 and later arguably M3 V8.
The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
I don’t really see your line of thinking there.The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
In either case the choice would be more about personal circumstances.
If you only need 2 seats why buy an even heavier 4 seat convertible?
We all buy what we want, not what other people think we should buy.
DoubleD said:
HighwayStar said:
Liquid Knight said:
I liked the Z3 the 1.9 was a match for the MX5/MGF/Alfa Spider of the time and the 2.8 was great even though it had old underpinnings. The Z4 was more of a GT than sports car a Z3 for grown ups. The Z3M? Reliant Scimitar (Princess Ann had one of those you know?) styling aside was more of an M car than the E46 M3. Well more focused fun than the E46 M3 and later arguably M3 V8.
The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
I don’t really see your line of thinking there.The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
In either case the choice would be more about personal circumstances.
If you only need 2 seats why buy an even heavier 4 seat convertible?
We all buy what we want, not what other people think we should buy.
Liquid Knight said:
I liked the Z3 the 1.9 was a match for the MX5/MGF/Alfa Spider of the time and the 2.8 was great even though it had old underpinnings. The Z4 was more of a GT than sports car a Z3 for grown ups. The Z3M? Reliant Scimitar (Princess Ann had one of those you know?) styling aside was more of an M car than the E46 M3. Well more focused fun than the E46 M3 and later arguably M3 V8.
The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
£20k difference, and a pretty different concept though.The thing is though why get a Z4 when the M3 was available as a convertible so you could us it more and it's a better drive?
Would you get new Z4 M40 over an M4 convertible if you were looking for something more than a weekend car?
limpsfield said:
DoubleD said:
I dont know why, but I hate 4 seater convertibles.
Me too. It's a tricky look to carry off
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff