Why so unloved?

[IslandDawgZ4]

I'm at a loss here. My BMW history includes an '85 325e and an '88 535is. I recently purchased a new Z4 after lots of soul searching. I've owned 2 Miatas and an RX-8. I AX both of those cars, but traded them (an '02 Miata and an '04 RX-8). The last Miata was a 6sp and didn't do as well as a good 5sp in AX. The RX-8 was "ok" but used oil (I know, they all do that), sucked gas when driven anywhere near its potential for fun, the a/c sucked big time, etc. I got close to an S2000 but just couldn't live with the racket on a daily basis; cheap interior, radio, etc., but a great track car. A Boxster was also considered but the nearest dealer is over 30 miles and I just didn't like the rep for rear main seals, $170 oil changes, etc. Besides, BMW was offering a great deal and I got a 3.0 6sp, premium, sport pkgs, xenon and heated seats for $300 over invoice.
This is a very good car! [headbang] After 3000 miles and one AX, it has performed very well. I bested acouple of S2000s and two Boxsters in the AX on street tires. They had Kumos! I didn't win but finished 24th out of 78 cars in PAX and midpack in A Stock. This was a better performance than I ever got out of the Miata or RX-8. And I get 25+ mpg in normal driving, better than both Mazdas. It is comfortable and runs with anything on the street (not that I race on the street . The Bluetooth is really neat, too. The trunk holds my golf clubs with ease and the top works flawlessly. About the only thing I can complain about is it won't take my IPod. For some unknown reason, the IPod is compatible with the premium radio! No one knew it until they installed the connector and no sound came out (the IPod played and charged) because the Carver amplifier is in the trunk. The only indication that the IPod was compatible was on the installation instructions for the part. The service manager and the sales folks had no clue.
Ok, so some folks think it is a little "weird" looking, but for the most part, everyone loves the way it looks, particularly the girls...of all ages. I'll admit that when they first came out, I was more than a little put off by the "Bangled" styling. But I've grown to really like it...classic raodster proportions, but not just another boring lump like the 350Z or the potato-shaped Boxster (a fine car nonetheless).
So, what's the problem? No one seems to AX cross them outside of clubs; only TC Kline races it with limited success; after market performance parts are all but non-existant. Dinan can only get 11 hp more out of it for $3-5k. I just don't get it.
Maybe if BMW had produced an M version...? But it's a comfortable, fast, very good handling car without the other stuff. Maybe the price is a little steep, but deals can be had (BMW was giving dealer a $4500 marketing incentive).
Aside from the Ipod issue, I have no complaints. And it's a very good BMWto boot! I have no regrets, but can't help to wonder why it's so unloved.

 

[Stitch]

1st Welcome aboard IslandDawgZ4.
2nd I am with you. I love Z4, too. Everytime I see a Z4, I can't get my eyes off from her. [bmwdance] [bmwdance] [bmwdance]
3rd you are so damn funny -- 350Z or the potato-shaped Boxster (a fine car nonetheless)

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

The reason why it doesn't sell so well is the price, and the engine options. BTW that 3.0ltr inline 6 is from the previous generation of BMW engines and 225hp is just about all it's worth even BMW could only get another 10hp out of it for the ZHP 330i (235hp). I wonder if the incentives are because BMW is putting in the new engines...

That means the 2006 Z4 2.5 will be almost as fast as your 2005 3.0, and the 2006 3.0 is probably gonna be pulling 5.5 seconds to 60...

It's funny how BMW doesn't even allow you to build the X3 2.5 anymore, they're probably embarassed of its 10 second + performance to 60.... Goodbye 184hp 2.5 ltr engine, North America won't be missing you.

 

[Greydog]

I still like my '98 Z3 2.8 Individual better than the Z4's. A more classic, old school roadster design in my opinion. And currenty faster than any Z4 I've come up against...

 

[IslandDawgZ4]

The reason why it doesn't sell so well is the price, and the engine options. BTW that 3.0ltr inline 6 is from the previous generation of BMW engines and 225hp is just about all it's worth even BMW could only get another 10hp out of it for the ZHP 330i (235hp). I wonder if the incentives are because BMW is putting in the new engines...

That means the 2006 Z4 2.5 will be almost as fast as your 2005 3.0, and the 2006 3.0 is probably gonna be pulling 5.5 seconds to 60...

It's funny how BMW doesn't even allow you to build the X3 2.5 anymore, they're probably embarassed of its 10 second + performance to 60.... Goodbye 184hp 2.5 ltr engine, North America won't be missing you.

I won't deny the price was a factor but I only paid $41k for mine. And it will pull 0-60 in 5.5 by my stopwatch , and according to R&T and others. BMW said 5.9. But drag racing isn't the function of a sports car, handling at speed is more important. Boxsters aren't that fast in a 0-60 race either, but they go like stink in a slalom...same for an S2000. But the S2000 is crude at best [bmwkick] and the base Boxster is $10k more similarly equipped. The new engines are definitely a plus but their torque is not much more. The low rated 3.0 is 215 hp since it doesn't have variable valve timing; the 255 hp engine has 3x Vanos(?) and may be a little faster to 60 depending on the driver. BMW says the new 330i does 0-60 in something like 6.7. Reviews of the pre 06 Z4 gave it great marks in performance but either loved or hated the look. So, maybe the price is an issue, but it is a BMW and the quality level is high, ALL maintenance is included, etc. I think it has more to do with marketing than anything else. BMW just didn't market the car as they do with the "bread and butter" 3 series; or the X3, X5, which have an even greater markup. It has to do with just how much they can make on the car...IMHO. [bmwdance]

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

Im sure the new 255hp engine will definately make the Z4 significantly quicker, maybe low 5's then regardless of the driver (unless he or she is incapable of flooring it)...

BTW the new 330i does 0-60 in 6.1 manual and 6.3 auto according to BMW. The new 325i does 0-60 in 6.7 manual and 7.2 auto which is impressive for a 215hp 3500lb car...

Never undercut a little more Bavarian ponies under the hood, they always make a significant difference [bmwkick]... I do agree that the Z4 needs to be marketed a little better, but then again its always had a small distinguished niche.

 

[jmcant1]

I have a white Z4 2.5, white with tan top and interior. Very classy looking and my wife loves it (it's her daily driver). I don't drive it often, unless we elect to take it on trips or something, but I am impressed every time I get in it. We'll have it a long, long time! Most quiet soft top I have ever been in.

 

[IslandDawgZ4]

As for the Z4 3.0 performance, CU (which I don't put any stock in) has a comparison between the new Boxster, 'Vette, S2000, 350Z, SLK 350, Elise, Audi and Z4. They ranked the Boxster #1, the SLK #2, 'Vette #3, S2000 #4, 350Z #5, Z4 #6, Elise and Audi. Interestingly, Only the "Vette and the Elise were faster 0-60 that the Z4 (6.0 they said)! They gave the Z4 low marks for handling (said other BMW sedans handle better?) even though it was in the top 3-4 though their "avoidance" test. Of course, the Elise was fastest, beating the 'Vette by .1 (4.9 v 5.0). I didn't see if the Z4 had the sport suspension package. Anyway, it was a bit of a bummer, but I still think the Z is better than any S2000 or 350Z and the Elise is a roller skate with 190 hp...track car only.
As for the 330i, even with 255 hp it gives up 500 lbs. to the Z. Normally, the higher hp makes itself felt at higher speeds, but torque is what counts down low. So I wouldn't expect the new engines to make a lot of difference below 80-100 mph. Guess we'll see if someone tests the 2006 Z with the 255 hp 3.0. The real difference will show up in the new Z4 coupe when it arrives since it should be a 100 lbs. lighter than the roadster. Regardless, I still like my Z and think it was a good choice. When all those other guys are paying for routine maintenance, I think the price difference will fade when it comes to the S2000, 350Z and, yes, the Boxster, too.

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

Take the G35C and the M3 for example both have 260 torque yet the M3 has 50 more hp 333 vs 280... The M3 does 60 in 4.8 while the G35C does it in 5.8, since they both weigh about the same (3350lbs) , have similiar drag coefficients, and have 6 speeds in them, it has to be the 50hp which accounts for that 1 second difference. Going by that you can assume that the 30 more hp found in the new 255hp engine would make it .5-.6 seconds quicker to 60. I can imagine BMW posting a NEW 0-60 time of 5.4-5.5 seconds for the Z4 roadster and coupe (the coupe probably pulling even lower 5's) as soon as the new engines are fitted.

 

[IslandDawgZ4]

Take the G35C and the M3 for example both have 260 torque yet the M3 has 50 more hp 333 vs 280... The M3 does 60 in 4.8 while the G35C does it in 5.8, since they both weigh about the same (3350lbs) , have similiar drag coefficients, and have 6 speeds in them, it has to be the 50hp which accounts for that 1 second difference. Going by that you can assume that the 30 more hp found in the new 255hp engine would make it .5-.6 seconds quicker to 60. I can imagine BMW posting a NEW 0-60 time of 5.4-5.5 seconds for the Z4 roadster and coupe (the coupe probably pulling even lower 5's) as soon as the new engines are fitted.

You could be right, but I think the G35c weighs a little more. SCCA doesn't class them together. Rear end ratios as well as the transmission ratios can make a big difference, too. In the current R&T Summary, they say the M3 Comp. get s 0-60 in 4.8, the G35c in 5.9 and the Z4 3.0 in 5.5 sec. To 100, they are 12.0 (M3), 14.2(G35c), and 14.5 (Z4). So with a 45 hp edge, the G35c is .4 slower to 60 than the Z4; but .3 faster to 100 as the hp pays off. The edge is the same in the 1/4 mile. I don't know all the weights but the Z4 is right at 3,000+lbs. and is probably 400-500 lbs lighter than the G35c which is about the same as the 350Z. Even the 350Z (300hp Anniversary) is .1 behind the Z4 to 60, but .8 ahead to 100 and only .4 in the 1/4.
So, I think that shows what the hp will do generally, but weight, gear ratios, and weather conditions at time of test will all have some effect. All things being equal, torque plays a bigger role at the low end and hp at the high end. But none of that really explains the poor sales of the Z4 since most folks don't care about the close differences. They simply think "my is faster than yours." Take them to an AX and see what happens when the big pigs start to fly. At our last event, FTD went to a '72 Porsche 911T running in B Stock (local hero driving); next was an M3 driven by a former nat'l champ beating out a Lotus Elise no less. [bmwdance]

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

The G35C (3512lbs) is 97 lbs heavier than the M3 (3415lbs), yet its drag coefficient is a 0.29/0.28 depending on configuration while the M3's is a 0.33. I'm fairly confident that the gear ratios are tuned for obtaining maximum performance from the engines in both cars, so I'm not going to factor that in. IMO (I'm no expert at this) the significantly (.05) lower drag coeficient does something to even out the weight advantage of about 100lbs and even if it doesn't it wouldn't account for more than a 10th of a second anyway. The 50 more hp still gives the M3 1 second more in the 0-60 time slot.

That might not account for slow sales of a pleasure/weekend car, but it does prove my point. Also the Z4 shouldn't really be compared to the G35C as it is 500lbs lighter, and that 5.5 R&T time seems like BS to me... a 225hp 3000lb convert doing 0-60 in 5.5 seconds seems out there... REMEMBER BMW offsets the calibration of their speedomters so if you think you hit 60 you've probably hit 57-58. Now imagine if they put the 333hp M3 engine in it if they make an M Z4 roadster, then we're talking a 4 second flat 0-60 time???? Looks like the near 3900lb 500hp M6 wont be the fastest BMW ever built anymore then...

 

[IslandDawgZ4]

The G35C (3512lbs) is 97 lbs heavier than the M3 (3415lbs), yet its drag coefficient is a 0.29/0.28 depending on configuration while the M3's is a 0.33. I'm fairly confident that the gear ratios are tuned for obtaining maximum performance from the engines in both cars, so I'm not going to factor that in. IMO (I'm no expert at this) the significantly (.05) lower drag coeficient does something to even out the weight advantage of about 100lbs and even if it doesn't it wouldn't account for more than a 10th of a second anyway. The 50 more hp still gives the M3 1 second more in the 0-60 time slot.

That might not account for slow sales of a pleasure/weekend car, but it does prove my point. Also the Z4 shouldn't really be compared to the G35C as it is 500lbs lighter, and that 5.5 R&T time seems like BS to me... a 225hp 3000lb convert doing 0-60 in 5.5 seconds seems out there... REMEMBER BMW offsets the calibration of their speedomters so if you think you hit 60 you've probably hit 57-58. Now imagine if they put the 333hp M3 engine in it if they make an M Z4 roadster, then we're talking a 4 second flat 0-60 time???? Looks like the near 3900lb 500hp M6 wont be the fastest BMW ever built anymore then...

I'm no expert either but I don't think the drag coefficient is a significant factor until you reach 100+mph. Below that,it's effect is marginal IMHO. The 0-60 times for the Z4 have been reported in 5.5 range by other than R&T. And I don't think R&T relies on speedometers. They and C&D, Automobile, et al, use more sophisticated timing equipment. BMW has had a reputation for optimistic speedos. (But they also have a rep for understating hp too.) I recall at least one article reporting 10%+ speedo errors. But even if R&T times were exaggerated (I don't think so), it would all be relative since all the cars would be tested the same way. I'm sure my speedo is 2 mph fast based on radar where I live. We have a year round radar sign which is calibrated weekly by the PD. My car consistantly reads 60 mph with the cruise on and the sign shows 58 mph. My wife's Benz is dead on by the digital speedo, but 2 mph fast by the regular speedo.
On the gearing issue, sure the manufactureres strive for an optimum performance, but that "optimum" differs. Do they want just the fastest 0-60? 1/4mile? Top speed? I think most try to achieve some balance, but look mostly for low end go since most folks don't do track days or drive much faster than 80 mph for very long. There are a few "idgits" like me who want to see what the car will do, but I backed out at 135 with the Z4 and the Benz. I know there is more there, but I'll likely never use it. As an example of gearing, I'd use the Benz (CLS 500)as an example. It has a 7 speed trans with 302 hp and weighs in at 3800+lbs. It reportedly does 0-60 in 5.4, 0-100 in 13.7, 1/4 in 13.9, all faster than the G35c, Z4 and others. But it's a torque monster, more torque (339 ft.lbs.) than hp and the gearing takes advantage of that. Cruising down the highway at 75 mph, it gets 23 mpg because the 7th gear is so high. BMW is moving in that same direction with the 750.
So, I don't think you've countered the torque or gearing arguments. HP pays off most at high speeds...80+ or higher.

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

Oh but I did, I still proved my point that 50 more hp is what makes the M3 1 second faster to 60 than the G35C, and the 100lbs in extra weight only reduces the 0-60 by 1/8th of a second. 50 more HP means roughly 1 second quicker, sure torque is what helps the car get moving and pushes you back in your seat, but HP does make the car significantly quicker.

 

[epj3]

I would wait for an M-Z4.

 

[andreyiv]

What about the torque curve? Anyone ever took that into consideration?

 

[epj3]

What about the torque curve? Anyone ever took that into consideration?

Dude, saying that here is like explaining how a DVD works to a 90 year old woman.

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

What about the torque curve? Anyone ever took that into consideration?

The torque curves are similar in both engines, I'm comparing the 3.5 Infiniti V6 to the 3.2 BMW I6, not the 3.0 engine.

I seriously do not understand why nobody wants to admit that the 50 more HP is the primary reason for the near 1 second quicker 0-60 time on the M3, this is getting rediculous. Even if the 100lbs weight and other factors accounted for say .5 of a second (and im being very generous here), that still leaves .5 completely attributed to the additional HP.

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

Dude, saying that here is like explaining how a DVD works to a 90 year old woman.

I'd challenge you to explain in technical terms to anyone, just exactly how one works. I don't mean stick into the disc drive and hit play here, I'm talking about the technical details. (although that wouldn't be fair as you could copy and paste using the internet) It is a valid comparison considering most 90 year olds will never own a DVD and niether will you ever own any of the aforementioned cars.

 

[andreyiv]

... and niether will you ever own any of the aforementioned cars.

Neither will you.

 

[Bmw 325i 7803]

Neither will you.

Really? I won't own a 35,000 G35? A 40,000 Z4? A 50,000 M3?

I already own a $45,000 330i... I find your comment downright hillarious, and I refuse to bite back. I'll let it slide afterall this is just a message board, and incase you were wondering I don't finance my cars.