Replacement for a Z4
Discussion
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.
The V8 Vantage "size" thing, for example. It's 8cm wider than the Z4 (the Z4 itself being 6cm wider than the NC MX5). Why would that make it any less likely to "target B-roads"? The Vantage boot is 30L larger than the Z4C, so why does that make it more reasonable to be called a "mini GT"?
The F-Type was launched in 2013 and the Z4C finished production in 2009. I don't know what your definition of being "from a different generation/era" is, but 4 years doesn't match mine.
C70R said:
Shifter1 said:
some of the larger BMW cars behave more like sports cars
Really???The Z4M was unpredictable and not very compliant, whereas the M3 soaked the road up well and it gave you a lot of confidence in comparison. What I am trying to get at is BMW spent a lot of money getting it right, whereas the Z4M is/was a bit of a bodge up in comparison for me.
So basically the M3 gave you the feedback that you want from a sporty car, whereas BMWs actual sports car(the Z4M) was actually a bit of a pup if you know what I mean in comparison.
My e46 328Ci handled better than the z4 coupe in my opinion, and believe it or not.
Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
C70R said:
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.
The V8 Vantage "size" thing, for example. It's 8cm wider than the Z4 (the Z4 itself being 6cm wider than the NC MX5). Why would that make it any less likely to "target B-roads"? The Vantage boot is 30L larger than the Z4C, so why does that make it more reasonable to be called a "mini GT"?
The F-Type was launched in 2013 and the Z4C finished production in 2009. I don't know what your definition of being "from a different generation/era" is, but 4 years doesn't match mine.
Vantage is heavier. The combination of extra weight, extra size and specially extra wheelbase will affect dynamics. It doesn't grow linearly. It's physics. You are talking about tuning your suspension, so I'm sure you understand or have to understand this. I wouldn't expect a car the size and weight of the Vantage to be a B-road attacking machine. While at the size and weight of a Z4C, it's still feasible and easier. With a larger than 4-pot engine in the 2000s, I'm not sure it could have been smaller or much lighter, unless going full exotica nuts on the construction.
Like I said, we just need to agree to disagree.
Fine by me. I wish you the best of luck with solving the Z4C shortcomings. Please let us know what you get. C70R said:
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.
The V8 Vantage "size" thing, for example. It's 8cm wider than the Z4 (the Z4 itself being 6cm wider than the NC MX5). Why would that make it any less likely to "target B-roads"? The Vantage boot is 30L larger than the Z4C, so why does that make it more reasonable to be called a "mini GT"?
The F-Type was launched in 2013 and the Z4C finished production in 2009. I don't know what your definition of being "from a different generation/era" is, but 4 years doesn't match mine.
Shifter1 said:
C70R said:
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.
The V8 Vantage "size" thing, for example. It's 8cm wider than the Z4 (the Z4 itself being 6cm wider than the NC MX5). Why would that make it any less likely to "target B-roads"? The Vantage boot is 30L larger than the Z4C, so why does that make it more reasonable to be called a "mini GT"?
The F-Type was launched in 2013 and the Z4C finished production in 2009. I don't know what your definition of being "from a different generation/era" is, but 4 years doesn't match mine.
Vantage is heavier. The combination of extra weight, extra size and specially extra wheelbase will affect dynamics. It doesn't grow linearly. It's physics. You are talking about tuning your suspension, so I'm sure you understand or have to understand this. I wouldn't expect a car the size and weight of the Vantage to be a B-road attacking machine. While at the size and weight of a Z4C, it's still feasible and easier. With a larger than 4-pot engine in the 2000s, I'm not sure it could have been smaller or much lighter, unless going full exotica nuts on the construction.
Like I said, we just need to agree to disagree.
Fine by me. I wish you the best of luck with solving the Z4C shortcomings. Please let us know what you get. cerb4.5lee said:
C70R said:
Shifter1 said:
some of the larger BMW cars behave more like sports cars
Really???The Z4M was unpredictable and not very compliant, whereas the M3 soaked the road up well and it gave you a lot of confidence in comparison. What I am trying to get at is BMW spent a lot of money getting it right, whereas the Z4M is/was a bit of a bodge up in comparison for me.
So basically the M3 gave you the feedback that you want from a sporty car, whereas BMWs actual sports car(the Z4M) was actually a bit of a pup if you know what I mean in comparison.
TameRacingDriver said:
My e46 328Ci handled better than the z4 coupe in my opinion, and believe it or not.
Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models. Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
Shifter1 said:
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models.
Yeah I was quite happy to take my z4c out for a hoon on the weekend, as it felt special, went very well (in a straight line) and it did sound very nice with that n52 under its considerable snout.The 328 could certainly be hustled along very well but I never really fancied going out in it for the sake of it. Felt like a rep mobile with good handling, which is what it was ultimately.
I guess this is why a lot of people say the e46 M3 was ultimately a better steer than the Z4MC.
Shifter1 said:
TameRacingDriver said:
My e46 328Ci handled better than the z4 coupe in my opinion, and believe it or not.
Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models. Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
"Traction is huge. There’s no M diff, so you won’t be emerging from corners crossed-up with both rear arches filled with thick white smoke, but the 3.0si is a deeply absorbing partner down a favourite road, and the way you feel part of the car is almost Caterham-like. It has undoubtedly been engineered for people who want to drive, not just pose."
He, however, agrees with me that it wasn't a great tool for B-roads.
"but with the front feeling much more direct and eager to snuffle out an apex. Unusually for a small BMW, this means that on a bumpy B-road it’s the front rather than the rear that commands your attention, the nose hunting out cambers and imperfections."
How many miles did you manage in one before deciding that it wasn't for you?
C70R said:
You seem very keen to ignore the views of one of motoring's most respected journalists on how it drove. https://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/z4/6440/bmw-z4-30si-coup...
"Traction is huge. There’s no M diff, so you won’t be emerging from corners crossed-up with both rear arches filled with thick white smoke, but the 3.0si is a deeply absorbing partner down a favourite road, and the way you feel part of the car is almost Caterham-like. It has undoubtedly been engineered for people who want to drive, not just pose."
He, however, agrees with me that it wasn't a great tool for B-roads.
"but with the front feeling much more direct and eager to snuffle out an apex. Unusually for a small BMW, this means that on a bumpy B-road it’s the front rather than the rear that commands your attention, the nose hunting out cambers and imperfections."
How many miles did you manage in one before deciding that it wasn't for you?
I think you'll find the 17s make a big difference to the car. That review even states they don't know why anyone would want to go bigger. Though I must admit they do look better on 18s or 19s but it depends whether you want a car that drives right or is there to pose. "Traction is huge. There’s no M diff, so you won’t be emerging from corners crossed-up with both rear arches filled with thick white smoke, but the 3.0si is a deeply absorbing partner down a favourite road, and the way you feel part of the car is almost Caterham-like. It has undoubtedly been engineered for people who want to drive, not just pose."
He, however, agrees with me that it wasn't a great tool for B-roads.
"but with the front feeling much more direct and eager to snuffle out an apex. Unusually for a small BMW, this means that on a bumpy B-road it’s the front rather than the rear that commands your attention, the nose hunting out cambers and imperfections."
How many miles did you manage in one before deciding that it wasn't for you?
TameRacingDriver said:
C70R said:
You seem very keen to ignore the views of one of motoring's most respected journalists on how it drove. https://www.evo.co.uk/bmw/z4/6440/bmw-z4-30si-coup...
"Traction is huge. There’s no M diff, so you won’t be emerging from corners crossed-up with both rear arches filled with thick white smoke, but the 3.0si is a deeply absorbing partner down a favourite road, and the way you feel part of the car is almost Caterham-like. It has undoubtedly been engineered for people who want to drive, not just pose."
He, however, agrees with me that it wasn't a great tool for B-roads.
"but with the front feeling much more direct and eager to snuffle out an apex. Unusually for a small BMW, this means that on a bumpy B-road it’s the front rather than the rear that commands your attention, the nose hunting out cambers and imperfections."
How many miles did you manage in one before deciding that it wasn't for you?
I think you'll find the 17s make a big difference to the car. That review even states they don't know why anyone would want to go bigger. Though I must admit they do look better on 18s or 19s but it depends whether you want a car that drives right or is there to pose. "Traction is huge. There’s no M diff, so you won’t be emerging from corners crossed-up with both rear arches filled with thick white smoke, but the 3.0si is a deeply absorbing partner down a favourite road, and the way you feel part of the car is almost Caterham-like. It has undoubtedly been engineered for people who want to drive, not just pose."
He, however, agrees with me that it wasn't a great tool for B-roads.
"but with the front feeling much more direct and eager to snuffle out an apex. Unusually for a small BMW, this means that on a bumpy B-road it’s the front rather than the rear that commands your attention, the nose hunting out cambers and imperfections."
How many miles did you manage in one before deciding that it wasn't for you?
Evo said much the same as I've found when they tested the Z4 (running 18s) against the 350z. https://www.evo.co.uk/nissan/350z/14184/bmw-z4-v-n...
"Every control seems to be responsive yet damped to take any jerkiness out of your inputs. The clutch action, the engine’s low-speed temperament and the brake feel are all superb and highly flattering. Add in nicely judged steering weight, a wristy, direct gearshift and strong, silky power from low down, and the 3-litre Z4 is a very desirable car."
"With no bumps to befuddle it, the Z4’s handling is balanced and responsive, nuances of feedback and feel subsumed by the straight-forward need to stop, turn and go as directly as possible."
"But the Nissan deals with lumpy B-roads with much greater aplomb. Very occasionally a severe bump thumps through, but otherwise it feels firm but absorbent enough. The BMW is much busier, the front end distracted by scalloped verge edges while the rear… well, it’s frequently in turmoil, especially through bumpy corners."
"Every control seems to be responsive yet damped to take any jerkiness out of your inputs. The clutch action, the engine’s low-speed temperament and the brake feel are all superb and highly flattering. Add in nicely judged steering weight, a wristy, direct gearshift and strong, silky power from low down, and the 3-litre Z4 is a very desirable car."
"With no bumps to befuddle it, the Z4’s handling is balanced and responsive, nuances of feedback and feel subsumed by the straight-forward need to stop, turn and go as directly as possible."
"But the Nissan deals with lumpy B-roads with much greater aplomb. Very occasionally a severe bump thumps through, but otherwise it feels firm but absorbent enough. The BMW is much busier, the front end distracted by scalloped verge edges while the rear… well, it’s frequently in turmoil, especially through bumpy corners."
TameRacingDriver said:
C70R said:
The exact reason I'll be swapping 17s, shod with brand new Goodyear Assy 6s, onto mine this evening.
Let us know how you find it 
I have Snetterton booked on Friday, and the weather currently looks appalling. Not sure what I'm going to learn, but I'll give it a bash nonetheless.
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models.
Yeah I was quite happy to take my z4c out for a hoon on the weekend, as it felt special, went very well (in a straight line) and it did sound very nice with that n52 under its considerable snout.The 328 could certainly be hustled along very well but I never really fancied going out in it for the sake of it. Felt like a rep mobile with good handling, which is what it was ultimately.
I guess this is why a lot of people say the e46 M3 was ultimately a better steer than the Z4MC.
I think that it has always boiled down to volume sales though, and BMW can't afford to get the 3 and 5 series wrong, whereas it doesn't really matter if the Z3/Z4 aren't very good in comparison because they hardly sell any in fairness.
I'm not wanting to deliberately kick the Z4 because I do really like them(especially the Z4 Coupe/Z4M Coupe, but I'm just sharing my experience having had both a Z4M and a couple of M cars that's all.
C70R said:
Evo said much the same as I've found when they tested the Z4 (running 18s) against the 350z. https://www.evo.co.uk/nissan/350z/14184/bmw-z4-v-n...
"Every control seems to be responsive yet damped to take any jerkiness out of your inputs. The clutch action, the engine’s low-speed temperament and the brake feel are all superb and highly flattering. Add in nicely judged steering weight, a wristy, direct gearshift and strong, silky power from low down, and the 3-litre Z4 is a very desirable car."
"With no bumps to befuddle it, the Z4’s handling is balanced and responsive, nuances of feedback and feel subsumed by the straight-forward need to stop, turn and go as directly as possible."
"But the Nissan deals with lumpy B-roads with much greater aplomb. Very occasionally a severe bump thumps through, but otherwise it feels firm but absorbent enough. The BMW is much busier, the front end distracted by scalloped verge edges while the rear… well, it’s frequently in turmoil, especially through bumpy corners."
I've experienced that/have a very similar view having had a Z4M Roadster and now have the 370Z Roadster. The 370Z is miles more composed down a nice B road than the Z4M ever was. "Every control seems to be responsive yet damped to take any jerkiness out of your inputs. The clutch action, the engine’s low-speed temperament and the brake feel are all superb and highly flattering. Add in nicely judged steering weight, a wristy, direct gearshift and strong, silky power from low down, and the 3-litre Z4 is a very desirable car."
"With no bumps to befuddle it, the Z4’s handling is balanced and responsive, nuances of feedback and feel subsumed by the straight-forward need to stop, turn and go as directly as possible."
"But the Nissan deals with lumpy B-roads with much greater aplomb. Very occasionally a severe bump thumps through, but otherwise it feels firm but absorbent enough. The BMW is much busier, the front end distracted by scalloped verge edges while the rear… well, it’s frequently in turmoil, especially through bumpy corners."
C70R said:
Shifter1 said:
TameRacingDriver said:
My e46 328Ci handled better than the z4 coupe in my opinion, and believe it or not.
Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models. Just seemed to feel better balanced, maybe that was due to the position of the driving seat relative to the rear wheels. It also had more compliant suspension.
That said, the z4 was much more interesting and satisfying to own despite that.
"Traction is huge. There’s no M diff, so you won’t be emerging from corners crossed-up with both rear arches filled with thick white smoke, but the 3.0si is a deeply absorbing partner down a favourite road, and the way you feel part of the car is almost Caterham-like. It has undoubtedly been engineered for people who want to drive, not just pose."
He, however, agrees with me that it wasn't a great tool for B-roads.
"but with the front feeling much more direct and eager to snuffle out an apex. Unusually for a small BMW, this means that on a bumpy B-road it’s the front rather than the rear that commands your attention, the nose hunting out cambers and imperfections."
How many miles did you manage in one before deciding that it wasn't for you?
About respected journalists, no, couldn't care less about their opinion. Do you let their opinions affect yours? Specially on new cars, they almost have to say something nice. Besides just because they are journalists doesn't mean they are right. Chris Harris notoriously doesn't care for the MX5. We all know despite the only "shortcoming", the 4-pot, it's a brilliant car. Should I start disliking the MX5, because Harris, now on Top Gear doesn't seem to care much for it? I think not.
In the end of the day, you can make any excuses for the Z4 you want. Even if you don't want to concede it looks, sounds and quacks like a sports car, so it should be one, you have to at least find it ridiculous that heavier 2 door saloons are a better steer.
Anyways, like I said, good luck with improving your Z4, the car which apparently is at no fault, but still needs improvement. You are being unfair to it. Trying to force the poor "mini-GT" to be a sports car.
But let us know how you get on. If you crack it, I might follow suit. I keep saying that. Which means I actually like the car and see the potential. But your defensive replies keep coming across as you think I'm putting the car down.cerb4.5lee said:
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models.
Yeah I was quite happy to take my z4c out for a hoon on the weekend, as it felt special, went very well (in a straight line) and it did sound very nice with that n52 under its considerable snout.The 328 could certainly be hustled along very well but I never really fancied going out in it for the sake of it. Felt like a rep mobile with good handling, which is what it was ultimately.
I guess this is why a lot of people say the e46 M3 was ultimately a better steer than the Z4MC.
I think that it has always boiled down to volume sales though, and BMW can't afford to get the 3 and 5 series wrong, whereas it doesn't really matter if the Z3/Z4 aren't very good in comparison because they hardly sell any in fairness.
I'm not wanting to deliberately kick the Z4 because I do really like them(especially the Z4 Coupe/Z4M Coupe, but I'm just sharing my experience having had both a Z4M and a couple of M cars that's all.
TameRacingDriver said:
Shifter1 said:
And I think your last sentence is basically why it sold and why most people didn't care much. It was a cute BMW open top that looks different and looks like a sports car. In all fairness, should have driven like one too. Or at least better than the non sports car models.
Yeah I was quite happy to take my z4c out for a hoon on the weekend, as it felt special, went very well (in a straight line) and it did sound very nice with that n52 under its considerable snout.The 328 could certainly be hustled along very well but I never really fancied going out in it for the sake of it. Felt like a rep mobile with good handling, which is what it was ultimately.
I guess this is why a lot of people say the e46 M3 was ultimately a better steer than the Z4MC.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff