Replacement for a Z4
Discussion
jm8403 said:
In extreme cases, you can recover a chunk of the money, i.e. if you turn to full race car. Look on race cars direct and you see the prices hold very firm. Even say race for KA's for example sitting at 4-6k. But yes, good post.
what do you mean by your last sentence?
I think you grossly underestimate the amount of money required to build a decent race car.what do you mean by your last sentence?
Edited by jm8403 on Monday 27th March 09:54
jm8403 said:
In extreme cases, you can recover a chunk of the money, i.e. if you turn to full race car. Look on race cars direct and you see the prices hold very firm. Even say race for KA's for example sitting at 4-6k. But yes, good post.
what do you mean by your last sentence?
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?what do you mean by your last sentence?
Edited by jm8403 on Monday 27th March 09:54
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
C70R said:
Shifter1 said:
It does sound tempting. But to keep in mind is the same conundrum as when modifying any car. Is it really worth it, if by the end, with all the money you spent you could have just bought a "better" car and not be bothered?
Only you can answer that. You have to really love the given car and think of it as a keeper of sorts. Not only because of the above, but because with most modified cars you never recover the money if you do sell it. One of the few exceptions are maybe BBR MX5s.
Still won't probably fully recover it. But Japanese car culture is way more open to mods. I'm not sure if Z4C buyers are more of the pristine original type, which they might as well be since the car is a bit rare.
But I totally understand wanting to solve a problem in a car, which if it wasn't there, would make the car perfect for you. It's just the part of it really solving the problem, plus how much to pay for that "solution".
In the case of the Z4C, I have the same concerns about the suspension, steering, handling, which keeps me from buying one. But for me personally, I don't think I would be willing to spend money and time in mods. Unless I could sit in and drive one which had the mods to make sure it really solves it. To each his own. But unlike the BBR cars which are proven, have reviews and indeed improve the MX5 by many folds, these mods for the Z4 have probably only been done by a handful of people, who all undoubtedly will say it solves the problem and is well worth it. Plus the "problem" with the MX5 for most is much easier to solve. As it's only power.
But not for me though. The BBR solves the power problem I have with the MX5, but still doesn't solve all problems I have with the car. This is why I don't have a MX5 either. See, to me a car is about its engine. Specially a sports car or weekend car. And I just can't get excited about 4 pots. No matter how high they rev or any of that. S2000 doesn't do much for me for the same reasons. Sure, it's fun. But while driving I'm always wishing it had a better engine note, better character etc, in the same way I'm always wishing a car was RWD even if it's a good FWD car. So with these things you really need to decide for yourself.
But if you gentlemen go ahead and do these mods with the Z4C, would be great if you could get the car in the hands of a few YT reviewers out there to get the word out.
If you do solve the Z4C problems, you might start something.
To me, the Z4C is the closest to be there from the usual suspects. If you want a small, not too heavy 2-seater sports car with more than a 4-pot, from the modern era. It's hard to do anything about the weight of a 350Z and that horrible uninspiring interior. 370Z adds external overstyled bad taste to a not so much nicer place to be. Despite more power is barely any quicker, because of the extra weight over the Z4C. A SLK350 is a pig and not easy to throw around curves and the weight will always be there, even if you sort the suspension. An engine swap in a MX5 MC is also way more messing around and money. Plus in the end you end up with a Frankenstein car. Apart from this there is not much else. A Boxster or Cayman despite boring me, are totally different cars with the mid engine.
This just adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way. Which is my beef. So I wish you gentlemen doing the mods to a Z4C a lot of luck and patience. And please do report back.
The challenge you have is that most Z4C buyers, like the OP, don't consider it a big enough problem. So the pool of people motivated to fix it, like me, is relatively small.Only you can answer that. You have to really love the given car and think of it as a keeper of sorts. Not only because of the above, but because with most modified cars you never recover the money if you do sell it. One of the few exceptions are maybe BBR MX5s.
Still won't probably fully recover it. But Japanese car culture is way more open to mods. I'm not sure if Z4C buyers are more of the pristine original type, which they might as well be since the car is a bit rare.
But I totally understand wanting to solve a problem in a car, which if it wasn't there, would make the car perfect for you. It's just the part of it really solving the problem, plus how much to pay for that "solution".
In the case of the Z4C, I have the same concerns about the suspension, steering, handling, which keeps me from buying one. But for me personally, I don't think I would be willing to spend money and time in mods. Unless I could sit in and drive one which had the mods to make sure it really solves it. To each his own. But unlike the BBR cars which are proven, have reviews and indeed improve the MX5 by many folds, these mods for the Z4 have probably only been done by a handful of people, who all undoubtedly will say it solves the problem and is well worth it. Plus the "problem" with the MX5 for most is much easier to solve. As it's only power.
But not for me though. The BBR solves the power problem I have with the MX5, but still doesn't solve all problems I have with the car. This is why I don't have a MX5 either. See, to me a car is about its engine. Specially a sports car or weekend car. And I just can't get excited about 4 pots. No matter how high they rev or any of that. S2000 doesn't do much for me for the same reasons. Sure, it's fun. But while driving I'm always wishing it had a better engine note, better character etc, in the same way I'm always wishing a car was RWD even if it's a good FWD car. So with these things you really need to decide for yourself.
But if you gentlemen go ahead and do these mods with the Z4C, would be great if you could get the car in the hands of a few YT reviewers out there to get the word out.
If you do solve the Z4C problems, you might start something.
To me, the Z4C is the closest to be there from the usual suspects. If you want a small, not too heavy 2-seater sports car with more than a 4-pot, from the modern era. It's hard to do anything about the weight of a 350Z and that horrible uninspiring interior. 370Z adds external overstyled bad taste to a not so much nicer place to be. Despite more power is barely any quicker, because of the extra weight over the Z4C. A SLK350 is a pig and not easy to throw around curves and the weight will always be there, even if you sort the suspension. An engine swap in a MX5 MC is also way more messing around and money. Plus in the end you end up with a Frankenstein car. Apart from this there is not much else. A Boxster or Cayman despite boring me, are totally different cars with the mid engine.
This just adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way. Which is my beef. So I wish you gentlemen doing the mods to a Z4C a lot of luck and patience. And please do report back.
Edited by Shifter1 on Monday 27th March 10:00
Those that want cars that deliver beyond 7/10ths typically buy Boxsters/Caymans or S2000s.
Shifter1 said:
Cheers. But do you enjoy throwing the Boxster around as much as the BBR MX5? This is where it's at for me. I don't. Mid-engine cars are about precision and shaving milisecs for me. Not for throwing around and having that kind of fun. Plus despite the Z4C being also German, the Boxster adds an extra layer of "Teutonics" for me which just pushes it away further from the party mood. They bore me and have always done. I know this is personal.
But I still feel mid engine cars are a different experience, so hard to be compared.
It seems you are selling your BBR though. So I wish you luck and hope you will recover some of your investment. Which one you have? BBR 225? For me, if I ever done it, would have to be one of the NA BBR kits.
If I could, I would just be keeping both, as the BBR will give different types of thrills.
To be honest I would probably say that the mx5 is actually more "fun" than the Boxster, but I don't really throw it around particularly. It's got quite a lot of grip (especially on its PS4 tyres) still and I don't feel confident enough in my own ability to be getting it sideways on every corner.But I still feel mid engine cars are a different experience, so hard to be compared.
It seems you are selling your BBR though. So I wish you luck and hope you will recover some of your investment. Which one you have? BBR 225? For me, if I ever done it, would have to be one of the NA BBR kits.
If I could, I would just be keeping both, as the BBR will give different types of thrills.
When I'm not hooning, I'm tiring of it's "tinniness", it feels quite harsh and unrefined which is to be expected and why I haven't gone for a lotus or vx220 - I should have done that when I was younger and had a higher tolerance to NVH.
Much like yourself, the engine is a big part of the experience for me, and while the BBR mods are excellent and make a big difference, it still just sounds like a 4 pot at the end of the day, albeit a fairly raucous one. I was planning an exhaust to give it a bit more of a voice but really that's just going to amplify what's already there, so I'm not sure it would really solve my problem although it would have been better I'm sure.
Mine is the BBR Super 200 (cams, manifold, panel filter, remap). I did think about the Super 225 with the ITBs and I'm sure that would have gone a long way to help but they're not without their downsides either and it's still really expensive.
I really like mid engine handling. I adored my mr2 roadster and the Boxster just feels like a big posh mr2 with a nice engine. Ultimately given my driving skill, my preferences and so on the Boxster just seemed like the ideal fit at this stage
and it was relatively cheap. I pick it up on Wednesday. 
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
Cheers. But do you enjoy throwing the Boxster around as much as the BBR MX5? This is where it's at for me. I don't. Mid-engine cars are about precision and shaving milisecs for me. Not for throwing around and having that kind of fun. Plus despite the Z4C being also German, the Boxster adds an extra layer of "Teutonics" for me which just pushes it away further from the party mood. They bore me and have always done. I know this is personal.
But I still feel mid engine cars are a different experience, so hard to be compared.
It seems you are selling your BBR though. So I wish you luck and hope you will recover some of your investment. Which one you have? BBR 225? For me, if I ever done it, would have to be one of the NA BBR kits.
If I could, I would just be keeping both, as the BBR will give different types of thrills.
To be honest I would probably say that the mx5 is actually more "fun" than the Boxster, but I don't really throw it around particularly. It's got quite a lot of grip (especially on its PS4 tyres) still and I don't feel confident enough in my own ability to be getting it sideways on every corner.But I still feel mid engine cars are a different experience, so hard to be compared.
It seems you are selling your BBR though. So I wish you luck and hope you will recover some of your investment. Which one you have? BBR 225? For me, if I ever done it, would have to be one of the NA BBR kits.
If I could, I would just be keeping both, as the BBR will give different types of thrills.
When I'm not hooning, I'm tiring of it's "tinniness", it feels quite harsh and unrefined which is to be expected and why I haven't gone for a lotus or vx220 - I should have done that when I was younger and had a higher tolerance to NVH.
Much like yourself, the engine is a big part of the experience for me, and while the BBR mods are excellent and make a big difference, it still just sounds like a 4 pot at the end of the day, albeit a fairly raucous one. I was planning an exhaust to give it a bit more of a voice but really that's just going to amplify what's already there, so I'm not sure it would really solve my problem although it would have been better I'm sure.
Mine is the BBR Super 200 (cams, manifold, panel filter, remap). I did think about the Super 225 with the ITBs and I'm sure that would have gone a long way to help but they're not without their downsides either and it's still really expensive.
I really like mid engine handling. I adored my mr2 roadster and the Boxster just feels like a big posh mr2 with a nice engine. Ultimately given my driving skill, my preferences and so on the Boxster just seemed like the ideal fit at this stage
and it was relatively cheap. I pick it up on Wednesday. I agree too. Exhaust would not have solved it.
I guess one of the Boxster's and for that matter its brother Cayman's biggest features is the 6-pot engine. If it was a 4-pot I guess it would cut down on the appeal considerably. To think of it, not really any other affordable mid engine with more than 4-pots. Exige costs way more and would not be as refined. Then you are at either 4-pots or exotica prices. So pretty much the same situation as with front engine RWD 2-seaters.
But if your problem with the MX5 was that it's too rough and unrefined, the engine doesn't sound good and you don't really use it's handling powers, I gather you might have enjoyed a SLK350 with a manual? Have you tried one? Yes, it won't handle like a Boxster but it seems to me you were ready to exchange handling for refinement and sound.
They are quick enough. Depending on which Boxster you have, quicker than a Boxster, V6 sound, although can use an exhaust, and are comfortable and refined compared to MX5. They are heavy and you feel in the corners though. But if you say you are not going that crazy around...jm8403 said:
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Edited by Shifter1 on Monday 27th March 10:54
jm8403 said:
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
What it actually did was prove that an affordable, two-seat convertible need not be wildly compromised, and we've never really seen that before.
MR2s and MX5s are wonderful cars for an hour on a sunny Sunday morning, but I wouldn't dream of taking them on an 8hr drive to Switzerland on rainy autoroutes. I'd hop into the Z4 and do that in a heartbeat tomorrow.
A 986/7 Boxster or Cayman is one of the best moderately-priced chassis you'll get in a two-seater with any refinement. However, I'd rather not deal with the running costs, parts prices and risk of IMS failure or bore score. The Z4 shares all its parts with BMW repmobiles.
An S2000 is a much purer FR sports car than the Z4, and represents a more grown-up alternative to an MX5. That said, you have to deal with 150lbft of torque, a chassis that needs millimetre-precise setup to get the benefit of it (and avoid going through a hedge), and it's not really all that comfortable for longer drives. It's a car that's fantastic being thrashed and mediocre when not.
A TVR Chimera 4.0 gives a sense of occasion that's almost impossible to match at this budget. They are also a pain to maintain (find one that doesn't have any chassis rust at this age/price), not exactly the last word in refinement (said as someone who's been to Le Mans in one), and take about 30secs to break into.
The Z4 is at least a 6-7/10 for everything, and that's the beauty of it. While it doesn't have a party piece like all of the alternatives, you don't have to compromise significantly anywhere. And that's why they sold so well.
Edited by C70R on Monday 27th March 11:11
Shifter1 said:
I see where you're coming from.
I agree too. Exhaust would not have solved it.
I guess one of the Boxster's and for that matter its brother Cayman's biggest features is the 6-pot engine. If it was a 4-pot I guess it would cut down on the appeal considerably. To think of it, not really any other affordable mid engine with more than 4-pots. Exige costs way more and would not be as refined. Then you are at either 4-pots or exotica prices. So pretty much the same situation as with front engine RWD 2-seaters.
But if your problem with the MX5 was that it's too rough and unrefined, the engine doesn't sound good and you don't really use it's handling powers, I gather you might have enjoyed a SLK350 with a manual? Have you tried one? Yes, it won't handle like a Boxster but it seems to me you were ready to exchange handling for refinement and sound. They are quick enough. Depending on which Boxster you have, quicker than a Boxster, V6 sound, although can use an exhaust, and are comfortable and refined compared to MX5. They are heavy and you feel in the corners though. But if you say you are not going that crazy around...
Yeah I agree if the Boxster didn't have a 6 pot it wouldn't have been as appealing, that said though having watched some videos of the 981 the 4 pot doesn't seem as bad as I expected in that and it offers excellent performance seemingly.I agree too. Exhaust would not have solved it.
I guess one of the Boxster's and for that matter its brother Cayman's biggest features is the 6-pot engine. If it was a 4-pot I guess it would cut down on the appeal considerably. To think of it, not really any other affordable mid engine with more than 4-pots. Exige costs way more and would not be as refined. Then you are at either 4-pots or exotica prices. So pretty much the same situation as with front engine RWD 2-seaters.
But if your problem with the MX5 was that it's too rough and unrefined, the engine doesn't sound good and you don't really use it's handling powers, I gather you might have enjoyed a SLK350 with a manual? Have you tried one? Yes, it won't handle like a Boxster but it seems to me you were ready to exchange handling for refinement and sound.
They are quick enough. Depending on which Boxster you have, quicker than a Boxster, V6 sound, although can use an exhaust, and are comfortable and refined compared to MX5. They are heavy and you feel in the corners though. But if you say you are not going that crazy around...The SLK didn't really appeal for me, just not my bag. If it had been a v8 manual for the same price then that would have changed things completely but as it is I just don't get on with them that much, I understand where you're coming from with it though
C70R said:
jm8403 said:
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
What it actually did was prove that an affordable, two-seat convertible need not be wildly compromised, and we've never really seen than before.
MR2s and MX5s are wonderful cars for an hour on a sunny Sunday morning, but I wouldn't dream of taking them on an 8hr drive to Switzerland on rainy autoroutes. I'd hop into the Z4 and do that in a heartbeat tomorrow.
A 986/7 Boxster or Cayman is one of the best moderately-priced chassis you'll get in a two-seater with any refinement. However, I'd rather not deal with the running costs, parts prices and risk of IMS failure or bore score. The Z4 shares all its parts with BMW repmobiles.
An S2000 is a much purer FR sports car than the Z4, and represents a more grown-up alternative to an MX5. That said, you have to deal with 150lbft of torque, a chassis that needs millimetre-precise setup to get the benefit of it (and avoid going through a hedge), and it's not really all that comfortable for longer drives.
A TVR Chimera 4.0 gives a sense of occasion that's almost impossible to match at this budget. They are also a pain to maintain (find one that doesn't have any chassis rust at this age/price), not exactly the last word in refinement (said as someone who's been to Le Mans in one), and take about 30secs to break into.
The Z4 is at least a 6-7/10 for everything, and that's the beauty of it. While it doesn't have a party piece like all of the alternatives, you don't have to compromise significantly anywhere. And that's why they sold so well.
But the Z4 did indeed compromise. It compromised as a sports car. But given it is a sports car in every other way, in my opinion this was the wrong compromise. We already have the 3/4 coupes and now the 2 coupe. I don't see need for a 2-seater to do the same. 2-seaters should be about sporting driving. This is my point.
I appreciate the Z4 roadster sold well. But that is a convertible. The Z4C didn't really sell that well, and the reason is probably because it made no sense. If what you need is a 2 door cruiser, might as well have more space and extra seats in the back and go for another of the 2 doors BMWs.
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
I see where you're coming from.
I agree too. Exhaust would not have solved it.
I guess one of the Boxster's and for that matter its brother Cayman's biggest features is the 6-pot engine. If it was a 4-pot I guess it would cut down on the appeal considerably. To think of it, not really any other affordable mid engine with more than 4-pots. Exige costs way more and would not be as refined. Then you are at either 4-pots or exotica prices. So pretty much the same situation as with front engine RWD 2-seaters.
But if your problem with the MX5 was that it's too rough and unrefined, the engine doesn't sound good and you don't really use it's handling powers, I gather you might have enjoyed a SLK350 with a manual? Have you tried one? Yes, it won't handle like a Boxster but it seems to me you were ready to exchange handling for refinement and sound. They are quick enough. Depending on which Boxster you have, quicker than a Boxster, V6 sound, although can use an exhaust, and are comfortable and refined compared to MX5. They are heavy and you feel in the corners though. But if you say you are not going that crazy around...
Yeah I agree if the Boxster didn't have a 6 pot it wouldn't have been as appealing, that said though having watched some videos of the 981 the 4 pot doesn't seem as bad as I expected in that and it offers excellent performance seemingly.I agree too. Exhaust would not have solved it.
I guess one of the Boxster's and for that matter its brother Cayman's biggest features is the 6-pot engine. If it was a 4-pot I guess it would cut down on the appeal considerably. To think of it, not really any other affordable mid engine with more than 4-pots. Exige costs way more and would not be as refined. Then you are at either 4-pots or exotica prices. So pretty much the same situation as with front engine RWD 2-seaters.
But if your problem with the MX5 was that it's too rough and unrefined, the engine doesn't sound good and you don't really use it's handling powers, I gather you might have enjoyed a SLK350 with a manual? Have you tried one? Yes, it won't handle like a Boxster but it seems to me you were ready to exchange handling for refinement and sound.
They are quick enough. Depending on which Boxster you have, quicker than a Boxster, V6 sound, although can use an exhaust, and are comfortable and refined compared to MX5. They are heavy and you feel in the corners though. But if you say you are not going that crazy around...The SLK didn't really appeal for me, just not my bag. If it had been a v8 manual for the same price then that would have changed things completely but as it is I just don't get on with them that much, I understand where you're coming from with it though
At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
Edited by Shifter1 on Monday 27th March 11:20
Shifter1 said:
Sure. But with the 4-pot Boxster, we are back at BBR MX5 where the performance of the 4-pot is not the problem.
At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
It's a moot point anyway as a 981 is definitely out of budget. And besides, if I was going to spend that much then I'm definitely going to want a nice engine otherwise I may as well just get another mx5 and get BBR to put a whopping great turbo on it and be done with it.At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
Ideally a Boxster or Cayman 4.0 GTS would do me nicely. I can dream, right?
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
Sure. But with the 4-pot Boxster, we are back at BBR MX5 where the performance of the 4-pot is not the problem.
At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
It's a moot point anyway as a 981 is definitely out of budget. And besides, if I was going to spend that much then I'm definitely going to want a nice engine otherwise I may as well just get another mx5 and get BBR to put a whopping great turbo on it and be done with it.At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
Ideally a Boxster or Cayman 4.0 GTS would do me nicely. I can dream, right?
But yeah, I agree. 4-pot would make no sense, specially at that price.
By the way, noted about the SLK. I particularly think the R171 looks nice. Better than both R170 and R172. Plus the grunt is welcome. R171 SLK350 feels supercharged somehow. The amusement of a V6 Mercedes with a manual also appeals somehow. And it's actually a nice gearbox and gear change IMO. My problem is the weight. The Brabus V6 is nice though.
Shifter1 said:
C70R said:
jm8403 said:
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
What it actually did was prove that an affordable, two-seat convertible need not be wildly compromised, and we've never really seen than before.
MR2s and MX5s are wonderful cars for an hour on a sunny Sunday morning, but I wouldn't dream of taking them on an 8hr drive to Switzerland on rainy autoroutes. I'd hop into the Z4 and do that in a heartbeat tomorrow.
A 986/7 Boxster or Cayman is one of the best moderately-priced chassis you'll get in a two-seater with any refinement. However, I'd rather not deal with the running costs, parts prices and risk of IMS failure or bore score. The Z4 shares all its parts with BMW repmobiles.
An S2000 is a much purer FR sports car than the Z4, and represents a more grown-up alternative to an MX5. That said, you have to deal with 150lbft of torque, a chassis that needs millimetre-precise setup to get the benefit of it (and avoid going through a hedge), and it's not really all that comfortable for longer drives.
A TVR Chimera 4.0 gives a sense of occasion that's almost impossible to match at this budget. They are also a pain to maintain (find one that doesn't have any chassis rust at this age/price), not exactly the last word in refinement (said as someone who's been to Le Mans in one), and take about 30secs to break into.
The Z4 is at least a 6-7/10 for everything, and that's the beauty of it. While it doesn't have a party piece like all of the alternatives, you don't have to compromise significantly anywhere. And that's why they sold so well.
But the Z4 did indeed compromise. It compromised as a sports car. But given it is a sports car in every other way, in my opinion this was the wrong compromise. We already have the 3/4 coupes and now the 2 coupe. I don't see need for a 2-seater to do the same. 2-seaters should be about sporting driving. This is my point.
I appreciate the Z4 roadster sold well. But that is a convertible. The Z4C didn't really sell that well, and the reason is probably because it made no sense. If what you need is a 2 door cruiser, might as well have more space and extra seats in the back and go for another of the 2 doors BMWs.
The coupe is an oddity in car design, because it didn't really have a direct competitor when new. Even the much slower Caymans were significantly more expensive, and the 350z significantly bigger and more lardy. You ended up having to almost double the original new budget up to things like an Aston Vantage V8 to find another two-seat coupe to compare it with.
The Vantage itself wasn't exactly sporty handling and only had two seats and a modest boot, yet it's often described as a "mini GT". Ditto the Jag F-Type. Why should that not apply to the Z4C too?
Edited by C70R on Monday 27th March 11:32
C70R said:
Shifter1 said:
C70R said:
jm8403 said:
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
What it actually did was prove that an affordable, two-seat convertible need not be wildly compromised, and we've never really seen than before.
MR2s and MX5s are wonderful cars for an hour on a sunny Sunday morning, but I wouldn't dream of taking them on an 8hr drive to Switzerland on rainy autoroutes. I'd hop into the Z4 and do that in a heartbeat tomorrow.
A 986/7 Boxster or Cayman is one of the best moderately-priced chassis you'll get in a two-seater with any refinement. However, I'd rather not deal with the running costs, parts prices and risk of IMS failure or bore score. The Z4 shares all its parts with BMW repmobiles.
An S2000 is a much purer FR sports car than the Z4, and represents a more grown-up alternative to an MX5. That said, you have to deal with 150lbft of torque, a chassis that needs millimetre-precise setup to get the benefit of it (and avoid going through a hedge), and it's not really all that comfortable for longer drives.
A TVR Chimera 4.0 gives a sense of occasion that's almost impossible to match at this budget. They are also a pain to maintain (find one that doesn't have any chassis rust at this age/price), not exactly the last word in refinement (said as someone who's been to Le Mans in one), and take about 30secs to break into.
The Z4 is at least a 6-7/10 for everything, and that's the beauty of it. While it doesn't have a party piece like all of the alternatives, you don't have to compromise significantly anywhere. And that's why they sold so well.
But the Z4 did indeed compromise. It compromised as a sports car. But given it is a sports car in every other way, in my opinion this was the wrong compromise. We already have the 3/4 coupes and now the 2 coupe. I don't see need for a 2-seater to do the same. 2-seaters should be about sporting driving. This is my point.
I appreciate the Z4 roadster sold well. But that is a convertible. The Z4C didn't really sell that well, and the reason is probably because it made no sense. If what you need is a 2 door cruiser, might as well have more space and extra seats in the back and go for another of the 2 doors BMWs.
The coupe is an oddity in car design, because it didn't really have a direct competitor when new. Even the much slower Caymans were significantly more expensive, and the 350z significantly bigger and more lardy. You ended up having to almost double the original new budget up to things like an Aston Vantage V8 to find another two-seat coupe to compare it with.
The Vantage itself wasn't exactly sporty handling and only had two seats and a modest boot, yet it's often described as a "mini GT". Ditto the Jag F-Type. Why should that not apply to the Z4C too?
Edited by C70R on Monday 27th March 11:32
My point is, "a car that you can live with daily" and 2 seats make no sense here. Speaking about coupe and at the size of the Z4C. This is a sports car form factor. I totally see the case for a Ferrari V12 2 seater for example. But that is a larger car, with a V12 and a totally different appeal. I also don't think a V8 Vantage compares at all either. At that size, V8, few would target B-roads. But as I've been saying the Z4 is basically MX5 sized.
But if you still can't see my point, I guess we would have to agree to disagree. Not much point in keeping at this.
For the record, I already said this, that the Z4C is pretty unique. So we agree there. Which is why it's a pity it wasn't a sports car. Small, 2 seater coupe, which normally would have a 4-pot, but had a 6 pot instead. Just a great proposition. Wasted opportunity in my view.
At its time, the Z4C only had one competitor which had the same ingredients. The Chrysler Crossfire coupe. Same idea. Even came from the same place, both being based on 2-seater German roadsters. The Crossfire though didn't really waste any opportunities as it was compromised from the get go, since it was based on another model, from another brand, which itself was compromised. It was just badge engineering of sorts and it never really had any choice. That recirculating ball steering makes the Z4 steering feel like a MX5 steering. But it was still the only actual competitor for the Z4C.
350Z was too big as was the Vantage etc.
F-type is from a different generation/era. Can't be compared.
Shifter1 said:
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
Sure. But with the 4-pot Boxster, we are back at BBR MX5 where the performance of the 4-pot is not the problem.
At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
It's a moot point anyway as a 981 is definitely out of budget. And besides, if I was going to spend that much then I'm definitely going to want a nice engine otherwise I may as well just get another mx5 and get BBR to put a whopping great turbo on it and be done with it.At least though, the 981 is a Boxer. So sounds nicer. Still, I guess I would never do it. I would rather probably have a 987. Personal I know.
Ideally a Boxster or Cayman 4.0 GTS would do me nicely. I can dream, right?
But yeah, I agree. 4-pot would make no sense, specially at that price.
By the way, noted about the SLK. I particularly think the R171 looks nice. Better than both R170 and R172. Plus the grunt is welcome. R171 SLK350 feels supercharged somehow. The amusement of a V6 Mercedes with a manual also appeals somehow. And it's actually a nice gearbox and gear change IMO. My problem is the weight. The Brabus V6 is nice though.
Although not necessarily the Brabus. But it does look good. Shifter1 said:
C70R said:
Shifter1 said:
C70R said:
jm8403 said:
Shifter1 said:
Do you mean my 3rd sentence removed from last? This: "adds to the pity of BMW's decision of building a small 2-seater car which is a sports car in every way but the actual way." ?
As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
Yes, that's what I meant, apologies. I agree in many ways. It is a little bit of a confused machine. I have done several 6-8hrs stints in it and find it very comfortable, I suppose its good for GT+twisty fun in that regard.As my real last sentence is pretty clear with "report back".
If you mean the above, I just mean that I feel sorry that despite the Z4C being clearly a sports car and having all the elements of one, from top to bottom, it doesn't handle or drives like one. So for me, the Z4C is not a 2-seater GT, Cruiser or whichever explanation one wants to use to describe why it doesn't drive like a sports car. To me the Z4C is a failed or incompetent sports car. Because every other aspect of it points to it being a sports car or the idea of it being it be a sports car. Design, size, number of seats, style etc.
What it actually did was prove that an affordable, two-seat convertible need not be wildly compromised, and we've never really seen than before.
MR2s and MX5s are wonderful cars for an hour on a sunny Sunday morning, but I wouldn't dream of taking them on an 8hr drive to Switzerland on rainy autoroutes. I'd hop into the Z4 and do that in a heartbeat tomorrow.
A 986/7 Boxster or Cayman is one of the best moderately-priced chassis you'll get in a two-seater with any refinement. However, I'd rather not deal with the running costs, parts prices and risk of IMS failure or bore score. The Z4 shares all its parts with BMW repmobiles.
An S2000 is a much purer FR sports car than the Z4, and represents a more grown-up alternative to an MX5. That said, you have to deal with 150lbft of torque, a chassis that needs millimetre-precise setup to get the benefit of it (and avoid going through a hedge), and it's not really all that comfortable for longer drives.
A TVR Chimera 4.0 gives a sense of occasion that's almost impossible to match at this budget. They are also a pain to maintain (find one that doesn't have any chassis rust at this age/price), not exactly the last word in refinement (said as someone who's been to Le Mans in one), and take about 30secs to break into.
The Z4 is at least a 6-7/10 for everything, and that's the beauty of it. While it doesn't have a party piece like all of the alternatives, you don't have to compromise significantly anywhere. And that's why they sold so well.
But the Z4 did indeed compromise. It compromised as a sports car. But given it is a sports car in every other way, in my opinion this was the wrong compromise. We already have the 3/4 coupes and now the 2 coupe. I don't see need for a 2-seater to do the same. 2-seaters should be about sporting driving. This is my point.
I appreciate the Z4 roadster sold well. But that is a convertible. The Z4C didn't really sell that well, and the reason is probably because it made no sense. If what you need is a 2 door cruiser, might as well have more space and extra seats in the back and go for another of the 2 doors BMWs.
The coupe is an oddity in car design, because it didn't really have a direct competitor when new. Even the much slower Caymans were significantly more expensive, and the 350z significantly bigger and more lardy. You ended up having to almost double the original new budget up to things like an Aston Vantage V8 to find another two-seat coupe to compare it with.
The Vantage itself wasn't exactly sporty handling and only had two seats and a modest boot, yet it's often described as a "mini GT". Ditto the Jag F-Type. Why should that not apply to the Z4C too?
Edited by C70R on Monday 27th March 11:32
My point is, "a car that you can live with daily" and 2 seats make no sense here. Speaking about coupe and at the size of the Z4C. This is a sports car form factor. I totally see the case for a Ferrari V12 2 seater for example. But that is a larger car, with a V12 and a totally different appeal. I also don't think a V8 Vantage compares at all either. At that size, V8, few would target B-roads. But as I've been saying the Z4 is basically MX5 sized.
But if you still can't see my point, I guess we would have to agree to disagree. Not much point in keeping at this.
For the record, I already said this, that the Z4C is pretty unique. So we agree there. Which is why it's a pity it wasn't a sports car. Small, 2 seater coupe, which normally would have a 4-pot, but had a 6 pot instead. Just a great proposition. Wasted opportunity in my view.
At its time, the Z4C only had one competitor which had the same ingredients. The Chrysler Crossfire coupe. Same idea. Even came from the same place, both being based on 2-seater German roadsters. The Crossfire though didn't really waste any opportunities as it was compromised from the get go, since it was based on another model, from another brand, which itself was compromised. It was just badge engineering of sorts and it never really had any choice. That recirculating ball steering makes the Z4 steering feel like a MX5 steering. But it was still the only actual competitor for the Z4C.
350Z was too big as was the Vantage etc.
F-type is from a different generation/era. Can't be compared.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff