New Z4 M

Messages
40
Likes
0
Location
Tybee Island, GA
#1
Well, by now a few of you have read the various reviews in C&D, R&D and elsewhere. It seems most think the Boxster S is still the better sports car even though the M is a few ticks faster to 60 and through the quarter mile. Unfortunately (for me), I tend to agree even though I really enjoy my Z and think the 3.0 is a better value. What strikes me as odd is that R&T starts off describing the 3.0 as "wimpy" even though their own figures put the 3.0 slightly less than 1 sec. behind the M and the 3.0 has a better skid pad number as well as shorter braking from 60. Sure the tires have something to do with this, but I've never thought the Bridgestone RFs were anything to brag about and the M comes with Contis, same size and ratings (the rears may be 265/35 instead of 255/35?). C&D likes the ride of the M over the 3.0 they long-term tested and that really is due to the stiff sidewalls on the RFs, I think. In any event, the M is $55k with just about anything (Premium Pkg., heated seats, etc.), a good $14k more than the 3.0 I bought last year. The M's price puts it within $4-5k of a Boxster S, so it will be a tough decision for some, maybe. Of course, the Boxster's price will not include free maintenance for the term of the warranty and that will add $2k to the Boxster at a minimum from what I've heard. The M has only one change that is a small negative in my view. The rear now has undercar diffusers (that will help with lift at speeds over 130 probably which most will never see unless on a track day) that eliminate the well in the trunk floor. The battery is now on the rear shelf in the trunk along with the tire kit since RFs don't come on the M. Won't mean a lot to most, but with the current trunk I can get a set of clubs AND a folding cart in the trunk. The cart won't fit in the M. Other than that, I couldn't find any significant differences beyond the front clip (good) and the tail lights (bad). I suppose I'm just a little disappointed that the suspension changes along with 105 more hp didn't produce a significantly faster car. The M will be classed in SS by SCCA for AX. That put it in competition with Lotus, Z06, etc, were it won't stand a chance in hell of winning. The 3.0 can't beat the Boxsters or the S2000 now! I really hoped for something outstanding and it didn't happen. I guess this is what BMW means by its new "NO" ad campaign! [chair]
 
Messages
82
Likes
0
Location
Los Angeles, CA
#2
It seems that the biggest compaint the Z4 has been getting is its ride... Yes, it's stiff, but that's what I prefer in my sports cars; maybe that's just me...

Anyway, I haven't driven the Z4m yet; but so far, I've been reading a lot of the same: they say it's nice, but the boxster is still better... While I would also agree that the boxster is a more refined sports car; the raw, adolescent, agressiveness of the Z makes it, in my opinion, a more fun car to actually drive. The Boxster seems to predictable for its own good, it does what it should- and does it well, but it doesnt have the same agressiveness that keeps putting a smile on my face every time i get in the Z.

It is however, disconcerning to hear that the Z4M is somewhat of a letdown. The 3.0 already drives like it's on rails... Add 100 more hp in a little car like that and youve got a hardcore little sports car... How could they have possibly screwed that up?!
 
Messages
40
Likes
0
Location
Tybee Island, GA
#3
shadymilkman said:
It seems that the biggest compaint the Z4 has been getting is its ride... Yes, it's stiff, but that's what I prefer in my sports cars; maybe that's just me...

Anyway, I haven't driven the Z4m yet; but so far, I've been reading a lot of the same: they say it's nice, but the boxster is still better... While I would also agree that the boxster is a more refined sports car; the raw, adolescent, agressiveness of the Z makes it, in my opinion, a more fun car to actually drive. The Boxster seems to predictable for its own good, it does what it should- and does it well, but it doesnt have the same agressiveness that keeps putting a smile on my face every time i get in the Z.

It is however, disconcerning to hear that the Z4M is somewhat of a letdown. The 3.0 already drives like it's on rails... Add 100 more hp in a little car like that and youve got a hardcore little sports car... How could they have possibly screwed that up?!
I couldn't agree more. I really like my Z and it does ride stiff, but a lot of that is attributable to the RFs. I for one can't wait until they wear out so I can get some Michelin's or Goodyears, not for the ride but for the performance. In the "real world" of daily driving, the 3.0 suits me fine and no one beats me away from the traffic light... and I'm still getting 27-28 mpg. The M could have been better IMHO, much better.
 
Messages
499
Likes
0
Location
TX
#4
That's unfortunate...but I think BMW has bigger plans for this model, non-M and M.

I would say give it two or three years. I'm sure they are planning to churn out a monster, or atleast a Boxster-eater if nothing else.

I've never driven the Boxster, but I do prefer its styling over the Z4. However, I think that the Z4 does win in the "fun to drive" category. I used to drive a bunch around when I worked at the local BMW dealership, and boy these things are little jets on wheels!
 


Top