Replacement for a Z4

[cerb4.5lee]

jm8403 said:

TameRacingDriver said:

I used to do trips from Newcastle to Glasgow in mine. Very comfortable and a nice car to do it in. 38 MPG as well

Oh....i get 26

I only used to get 23 mpg out of the Z4M, however that is still better than the 22 mpg that I get out of the 370Z though!

I did see 38 mpg out of the N52 engined E90 330i on a very steady long run once though(sitting at around 50/60 mph). My overall figure was only 26 mpg though, and I always thought that it was quite heavy on fuel for the performance that it offered. For example the F82 M4 is doing 29mpg currently and that is a far quicker car for sure. I know a lot of people don't like turbos, but you can't argue that they don't improve performance and improve the economy(on the proviso that you don't boot them absolutely everywhere!).

[Downshiftup]

TameRacingDriver said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

I don't know exactly why or how but I just felt I could push it hard with more confidence. It didn't feel quite as hard over bumpy roads and it just felt like the car rotated around me effectively. I think due to the position of the drivers seat being right in front of the back wheels in the z4, I didn't feel as though I had the same confidence in it somehow.

That sounds like the definition of good handling then for the M3. Is it the same with the other e46 cars aside from the M?

[Downshiftup]

cerb4.5lee said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

If my memory serves me well the E46 M3 is around 50-70kg heavier than the Z4M. However almost everyone who has driven both(and reviews back this up) say that the M3 is the much better overall car in terms of it being much more accomplished suspension/ride/chassis wise.

The M3 just flows down a nice british B road, whereas the Z4M crashes and bangs in comparison if you understand what I mean.

You wouldn't expect it from looking at the cars. That the larger saloon would be the better handling car. With all the talk about sports car or GT going in this thread, so are we to assume BMW wanted to make the M3 a sports car?

This whole GT or pocket GT deal is interesting. Because the Z3 was all sports car by all accounts. Clarkson loved it and in a Top Gear episode about the best handling car, Tiff and Mark Higgins chose the Z3 roadster over the Peugeot 306 GTI 6, Mitsubishi Evo and Ferrari 360 as the best handling and most fun car. BMW then went away from that with the Z4. Maybe based on marketing sales research? But I thought the Z3 had sold well enough. Who knows.

[C70R]

Downshiftup said:

TameRacingDriver said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

I don't know exactly why or how but I just felt I could push it hard with more confidence. It didn't feel quite as hard over bumpy roads and it just felt like the car rotated around me effectively. I think due to the position of the drivers seat being right in front of the back wheels in the z4, I didn't feel as though I had the same confidence in it somehow.

That sounds like the definition of good handling then for the M3. Is it the same with the other e46 cars aside from the M?

From my experience, no. My 330 Sport coupes were much less well-balanced. Like the Z4 (and most other 'sporty' non-M BMWs) it was overdamped, over-tyred, over-wheeled, and set up to bias towards understeer. The steering was good, but the rest was distinctly average.

[TameRacingDriver]

C70R said:

Downshiftup said:

TameRacingDriver said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

I don't know exactly why or how but I just felt I could push it hard with more confidence. It didn't feel quite as hard over bumpy roads and it just felt like the car rotated around me effectively. I think due to the position of the drivers seat being right in front of the back wheels in the z4, I didn't feel as though I had the same confidence in it somehow.

That sounds like the definition of good handling then for the M3. Is it the same with the other e46 cars aside from the M?

From my experience, no. My 330 Sport coupes were much less well-balanced. Like the Z4 (and most other 'sporty' non-M BMWs) it was overdamped, over-tyred, over-wheeled, and set up to bias towards understeer. The steering was good, but the rest was distinctly average.

I was actually talking about a lowly 328Ci and yes it did handle very well for what it was, it wasn't a sport though so maybe it had more forgiving damping. Let's just say I shocked a motorcyclist on the a686 hartside pass in mine. Even funnier, he thought I was undercover plod when I spoke to him in the cafe

[C70R]

TameRacingDriver said:

C70R said:

Downshiftup said:

TameRacingDriver said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

I don't know exactly why or how but I just felt I could push it hard with more confidence. It didn't feel quite as hard over bumpy roads and it just felt like the car rotated around me effectively. I think due to the position of the drivers seat being right in front of the back wheels in the z4, I didn't feel as though I had the same confidence in it somehow.

That sounds like the definition of good handling then for the M3. Is it the same with the other e46 cars aside from the M?

From my experience, no. My 330 Sport coupes were much less well-balanced. Like the Z4 (and most other 'sporty' non-M BMWs) it was overdamped, over-tyred, over-wheeled, and set up to bias towards understeer. The steering was good, but the rest was distinctly average.

I was actually talking about a lowly 328Ci and yes it did handle very well for what it was, it wasn't a sport though so maybe it had more forgiving damping. Let's just say I shocked a motorcyclist on the a686 hartside pass in mine. Even funnier, he thought I was undercover plod when I spoke to him in the cafe

That really surprises me. I took one of mine on the NC500, and while it could make decent cross-country pace, it wasn't really what I'd describe as engaging to drive.

[TameRacingDriver]

C70R said:

That really surprises me. I took one of mine on the NC500, and while it could make decent cross-country pace, it wasn't really what I'd describe as engaging to drive.

It wasn't engaging to drive at all to be fair, it was boring! It was very competent though. Mine did have refreshed suspension and whatnot. Dull as dishwater.

[Sticks.]

C70R said:

That really surprises me. I took one of mine on the NC500, and while it could make decent cross-country pace, it wasn't really what I'd describe as engaging to drive.

They were very tyre-sensitive, maybe that?

[C70R]

TameRacingDriver said:

C70R said:

That really surprises me. I took one of mine on the NC500, and while it could make decent cross-country pace, it wasn't really what I'd describe as engaging to drive.

It wasn't engaging to drive at all to be fair, it was boring! It was very competent though. Mine did have refreshed suspension and whatnot. Dull as dishwater.

That's what I was reflecting on as the difference to the M3. The M felt like it would reward me if I pushed it harder. The 330 just didn't seem to get any better the faster/harder I drove it - if anything, it exacerbated the issues.

[DaveZed]

Downshiftup said:

You wouldn't expect it from looking at the cars. That the larger saloon would be the better handling car. With all the talk about sports car or GT going in this thread, so are we to assume BMW wanted to make the M3 a sports car?

This whole GT or pocket GT deal is interesting. Because the Z3 was all sports car by all accounts. Clarkson loved it and in a Top Gear episode about the best handling car, Tiff and Mark Higgins chose the Z3 roadster over the Peugeot 306 GTI 6, Mitsubishi Evo and Ferrari 360 as the best handling and most fun car. BMW then went away from that with the Z4. Maybe based on marketing sales research? But I thought the Z3 had sold well enough. Who knows.

It's funny - I think not all of the BMW guys themselves were necessarily singing off the same hymn sheet either. In that press release document I quoted from earlier there is also the following paragraph from the MD of BMW UK at the time:

“Most cars in the sporting coupé sector try to be a jack of all trades…..and end up being the master of none,’ said Jim O’Donnell, Managing Director of BMW (UK) Ltd. “The Z4 Coupé is different – it is a focused sports car aimed fairly and squarely at drivers who love driving.”
The Z4 M Coupé, in particular, is an unashamed performance car as much at home on the race track as it is on the road,” he continued. “This is not a car trying to be all things to all men.”

So who knows?

I will say that I find my 3.0si to be a really good compromise. Not overly hard-core, and definitely not soft to the extent you'd expect a "GT" to be. I did, however, get rid of the runflats and that made a big difference. With runflats it tramlined badly and was very harsh on less than perfect roads. My E90 330i sport manual is more forgiving in the handling department, but certainly also very entertaining and perhaps a bit more compliant. It is also on non-runflat tyres. Both cars are currently on Goodyear Eagle F1's.

[zek]

C70R said:

That's what I was reflecting on as the difference to the M3. The M felt like it would reward me if I pushed it harder. The 330 just didn't seem to get any better the faster/harder I drove it - if anything, it exacerbated the issues.

Strange, I have always found the opposite with the E46 chassis, fantastic when driven hard and not much out there as rewarding for the money. A few suspension upgrades are transformative as well. I have an M3 as well as a 330ci - both are great.

[C70R]

zek said:

C70R said:

That's what I was reflecting on as the difference to the M3. The M felt like it would reward me if I pushed it harder. The 330 just didn't seem to get any better the faster/harder I drove it - if anything, it exacerbated the issues.

Strange, I have always found the opposite with the E46 chassis, fantastic when driven hard and not much out there as rewarding for the money. A few suspension upgrades are transformative as well. I have an M3 as well as a 330ci - both are great.

Do you not find them very different to drive, as I did?

[cerb4.5lee]

I remember when I first got the E92 M3 and I used to think why are they so much more expensive than the E90 330d that I'd previously had(I also had a E90 330i after the M3). However I genuinely could feel the difference in the steering/chassis in the M3 in comparison, and I didn't think that the 330d/330i were too bad in the first place to be fair.

You can tell/feel the difference between the M cars and the standard cars I reckon(and so you should really).

[Shifter1]

DaveZed said:

Downshiftup said:

You wouldn't expect it from looking at the cars. That the larger saloon would be the better handling car. With all the talk about sports car or GT going in this thread, so are we to assume BMW wanted to make the M3 a sports car?

This whole GT or pocket GT deal is interesting. Because the Z3 was all sports car by all accounts. Clarkson loved it and in a Top Gear episode about the best handling car, Tiff and Mark Higgins chose the Z3 roadster over the Peugeot 306 GTI 6, Mitsubishi Evo and Ferrari 360 as the best handling and most fun car. BMW then went away from that with the Z4. Maybe based on marketing sales research? But I thought the Z3 had sold well enough. Who knows.

It's funny - I think not all of the BMW guys themselves were necessarily singing off the same hymn sheet either. In that press release document I quoted from earlier there is also the following paragraph from the MD of BMW UK at the time:

“Most cars in the sporting coupé sector try to be a jack of all trades…..and end up being the master of none,’ said Jim O’Donnell, Managing Director of BMW (UK) Ltd. “The Z4 Coupé is different – it is a focused sports car aimed fairly and squarely at drivers who love driving.”
The Z4 M Coupé, in particular, is an unashamed performance car as much at home on the race track as it is on the road,” he continued. “This is not a car trying to be all things to all men.”

So who knows?

That's because it's all just marketing BS.

Alfa Romeo used to say on its UK website that the Giulia Quadrifoglio was the most powerful Alfa Romeo sports car ever created for road use. On which planet is the Giulia a sports car? On the U.S. site they had basically the same quote but called it the most powerful sports sedan, which is what it actually is. As we know, these corporate types are just salesmen. They will say anything they think might help sales. Even if it makes no sense. The general public will eat it all up anyways. Like politicians, they don't care about lying right up to your face.

Just like nobody who understands about cars would look at the Giulia and think it's a sports car just because it can go fast, looking at a Z4 and thinking it's a GT is absurd. And Pocket GT is the funniest marketing BS I ever heard. GT- Grand Turismo. Yeah, I want to cross the continent in a cramped sardine can. Sure it can take a couple of bags and is kind of comfortable, but GT it's not. And Pocket GT is a bit like saying this dink is kind of diet.

That huge and absurd contradiction on the same brochure is just proof of the obvious, which you can already see when you analyze the car, specially compared to other BMWs. They just didn't care what the Z4 was supposed to be. They can't even agree on it themselves apparently. Explains really well all the discrepancies if you think about it. Explains why it looks and is totally packaged as a sports car, but doesn't drive like one and why the bigger and heavier actual more GT like BMW cars can drive more like a sports car. I'm sure somewhere, some insider who was there from the genesis of the Z4 project could probably explain all these inconsistences with some accuracy. Maybe. But we here can only speculate and have some fun with the absurdity.

[Shifter1]

Downshiftup said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

If my memory serves me well the E46 M3 is around 50-70kg heavier than the Z4M. However almost everyone who has driven both(and reviews back this up) say that the M3 is the much better overall car in terms of it being much more accomplished suspension/ride/chassis wise.

The M3 just flows down a nice british B road, whereas the Z4M crashes and bangs in comparison if you understand what I mean.

You wouldn't expect it from looking at the cars. That the larger saloon would be the better handling car. With all the talk about sports car or GT going in this thread, so are we to assume BMW wanted to make the M3 a sports car?

This whole GT or pocket GT deal is interesting. Because the Z3 was all sports car by all accounts. Clarkson loved it and in a Top Gear episode about the best handling car, Tiff and Mark Higgins chose the Z3 roadster over the Peugeot 306 GTI 6, Mitsubishi Evo and Ferrari 360 as the best handling and most fun car. BMW then went away from that with the Z4. Maybe based on marketing sales research? But I thought the Z3 had sold well enough. Who knows.

IMO, the Z3 is more fun to drive. The 2.8, 3.0 and M of course. A bit of an unfair comparison because the Z3 kind of enjoys a good dose of nostalgia and oldschoolness. But the Z3 is one of those cars that has grown a lot on me and I think it amounts to so much more than the sum of its parts. Compared to the E85/E86, it's just more raw I guess you could say. It's closer to the MX-5 proposition than the Z4. With the Z4 they looked for more refinement and that might well be what cost it its sports car credentials. Sure the Z3 is more refined in some ways than the MX5 of its time. But it still kept that core, which the Z4 in many ways lost. And what the Z3 might give up to the MX5 in handling it takes back in spades with a much nicer engine and overall experience IMO.

[C70R]

Shifter1 said:

Downshiftup said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

If my memory serves me well the E46 M3 is around 50-70kg heavier than the Z4M. However almost everyone who has driven both(and reviews back this up) say that the M3 is the much better overall car in terms of it being much more accomplished suspension/ride/chassis wise.

The M3 just flows down a nice british B road, whereas the Z4M crashes and bangs in comparison if you understand what I mean.

You wouldn't expect it from looking at the cars. That the larger saloon would be the better handling car. With all the talk about sports car or GT going in this thread, so are we to assume BMW wanted to make the M3 a sports car?

This whole GT or pocket GT deal is interesting. Because the Z3 was all sports car by all accounts. Clarkson loved it and in a Top Gear episode about the best handling car, Tiff and Mark Higgins chose the Z3 roadster over the Peugeot 306 GTI 6, Mitsubishi Evo and Ferrari 360 as the best handling and most fun car. BMW then went away from that with the Z4. Maybe based on marketing sales research? But I thought the Z3 had sold well enough. Who knows.

IMO, the Z3 is more fun to drive. The 2.8, 3.0 and M of course. A bit of an unfair comparison because the Z3 kind of enjoys a good dose of nostalgia and oldschoolness. But the Z3 is one of those cars that has grown a lot on me and I think it amounts to so much more than the sum of its parts. Compared to the E85/E86, it's just more raw I guess you could say. It's closer to the MX-5 proposition than the Z4. With the Z4 they looked for more refinement and that might well be what cost it its sports car credentials. Sure the Z3 is more refined in some ways than the MX5 of its time. But it still kept that core, which the Z4 in many ways lost. And what the Z3 might give up to the MX5 in handling it takes back in spades with a much nicer engine and overall experience IMO.

Time and nostalgia have been kind to the Z3. Most contemporary roadtests didn't rate it, and I thought it was pretty pants when I drove an early 2.8. Wobbly, soft chassis, terrible seating and controls positions, and mostly underwhelming engines certainly didn't make it a 'grown up MX5' in my eyes.

That said, I could imagine a tweaked one might be fun if the issues were addressed.

[TameRacingDriver]

coldel said:

Thanks Shedding, will bear that in mind.

And good post Dave, yes thats what I expect from my Z4C and thats what I get. Hence why I didn't want to have a full on debate about it here whilst trying to decide what to get next.

I think I am currently sat something like this in this order

Boxster (never thought I would be looking at one but there you go!)
Renaultsport Megane 250 Cup
Z4R

Outsiders are something like a Mini JCW and SLK350

I've just picked up my £7k 986 Boxster S.

LOVE it.

Steering, handling, traction, ride, and engine are all sublime, car feels very old school and analogue, and delivers on the comfort front.

Definitely recommend trying one if you can.

[Shifter1]

C70R said:

Shifter1 said:

Downshiftup said:

cerb4.5lee said:

Downshiftup said:

Never driven an e46 M3. But how does it manage to be better than a Z4? I would think it's considerably heavier? Even if the M3 went on a diet compared to regular 3 series. With the Z4 using e46 underpinnings if I'm not wrong, how does the heavier car manage to be better?

If my memory serves me well the E46 M3 is around 50-70kg heavier than the Z4M. However almost everyone who has driven both(and reviews back this up) say that the M3 is the much better overall car in terms of it being much more accomplished suspension/ride/chassis wise.

The M3 just flows down a nice british B road, whereas the Z4M crashes and bangs in comparison if you understand what I mean.

You wouldn't expect it from looking at the cars. That the larger saloon would be the better handling car. With all the talk about sports car or GT going in this thread, so are we to assume BMW wanted to make the M3 a sports car?

This whole GT or pocket GT deal is interesting. Because the Z3 was all sports car by all accounts. Clarkson loved it and in a Top Gear episode about the best handling car, Tiff and Mark Higgins chose the Z3 roadster over the Peugeot 306 GTI 6, Mitsubishi Evo and Ferrari 360 as the best handling and most fun car. BMW then went away from that with the Z4. Maybe based on marketing sales research? But I thought the Z3 had sold well enough. Who knows.

IMO, the Z3 is more fun to drive. The 2.8, 3.0 and M of course. A bit of an unfair comparison because the Z3 kind of enjoys a good dose of nostalgia and oldschoolness. But the Z3 is one of those cars that has grown a lot on me and I think it amounts to so much more than the sum of its parts. Compared to the E85/E86, it's just more raw I guess you could say. It's closer to the MX-5 proposition than the Z4. With the Z4 they looked for more refinement and that might well be what cost it its sports car credentials. Sure the Z3 is more refined in some ways than the MX5 of its time. But it still kept that core, which the Z4 in many ways lost. And what the Z3 might give up to the MX5 in handling it takes back in spades with a much nicer engine and overall experience IMO.

Time and nostalgia have been kind to the Z3. Most contemporary roadtests didn't rate it, and I thought it was pretty pants when I drove an early 2.8. Wobbly, soft chassis, terrible seating and controls positions, and mostly underwhelming engines certainly didn't make it a 'grown up MX5' in my eyes.

That said, I could imagine a tweaked one might be fun if the issues were addressed.

Indeed. It also looks better now, to me, than it did years ago. It's basically a classic at this point, so I guess we just tend to judge classics with different eyes. It no longer matters if it's the ultimate last word in performance. The numbers just won't add up in the modern era anyways. So maybe we just tend to focus on the experience instead. At least this is how I would put it, if I had to analyze it. This is probably how we should look at cars in general anyways. But the temptation to benchmark it to death is too strong.

I can just say that the last time I drove a Z3 3.0 roadster I was like, "was it always this much fun"?

Now, I never drove one in period and it could be I might as well have hated it. But now, I think it's a lot of fun to drive and puts a smile on your face and looks stunning, specially the ones with the wide rear hunches and deep dish rims at the rear. The long bonnet, the side gills. Dare I say it looks exotic. I think it looks way better than the contemporary TVRs.

But was it really not rated during its time? I think the 4-pots was criticized, but that was always the "wrong" engine for that car. But I have seen the Top Gear episodes the other poster mentioned and indeed they loved it. Motor Week also liked the 6 cylinders a lot. Maybe the people who didn't rate it were comparing it to the MX5's handling. Then, yeah.

Talking about soft, I never driven the Z3 M roadster. But I would think it would be quite a bit "harder"? Have you?

[Shifter1]

TameRacingDriver said:

coldel said:

Thanks Shedding, will bear that in mind.

And good post Dave, yes thats what I expect from my Z4C and thats what I get. Hence why I didn't want to have a full on debate about it here whilst trying to decide what to get next.

I think I am currently sat something like this in this order

Boxster (never thought I would be looking at one but there you go!)
Renaultsport Megane 250 Cup
Z4R

Outsiders are something like a Mini JCW and SLK350

I've just picked up my £7k 986 Boxster S.

LOVE it.

Steering, handling, traction, ride, and engine are all sublime, car feels very old school and analogue, and delivers on the comfort front.

Definitely recommend trying one if you can.

Congratulations. Hope you will enjoy it.

Would be interesting to see a comparison in running costs with your Z4C once you have owned the Porsche for like a year or so. Having never owned a Z4 I have heard conflicting info on how cheap or expensive they are to run. But maybe the people saying it's expensive had the M.

[TameRacingDriver]

Shifter1 said:

Congratulations. Hope you will enjoy it.

Would be interesting to see a comparison in running costs with your Z4C once you have owned the Porsche for like a year or so. Having never owned a Z4 I have heard conflicting info on how cheap or expensive they are to run. But maybe the people saying it's expensive had the M.

Thanks mate.

I only had my z4 coupe a year, and it was generally pretty reliable. One thing that went wrong was a coil pack which caused a misfire and loss of power. The big one though was when the auto box started misbehaving. At first I paid £400 for a gearbox service but that didn't solve the issue and I was quoted £2500 for a rebuild. A manual car would have been fine, I'm sure.

I was told to keep a close eye on the water pump, apparently they're quite fragile. I think they were a few hundred to fix apparently but the danger was you not noticing the engine overheat with potentially catastrophic consequences.