# I am a Z4 Convert



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

The Z4 has only recently hit the shores of the UK so the only veiwing I have had was the media and pics posted here by owners. Those pictures never really impressed me, and I actually had a rather negative view of the styling. That was until this weekend...

I saw two on the road headed for seperate "unveiling" events and was impressed. I love the sides and the back end. The nose is starting to grow on me as well. I really like the stance and the styling that makes the car look much wider than the Z3. To me it appears to have a more agressive, masculine stance. No offence to anyone, but I always found the Z3 a little "femine". I liked the M Roadster and Coupe, but was a little cool to the base Z3. 

The design is a radical departure, but at least in the Z4 it isn't too bad. I still haven't come around to the new 7, and I am holding out judgment on the 5er since I have only see a taped up test mule in person.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Dec 4, 2002)

:thumbup:


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Anyone else see the review of the Z4 in the comparo test in C/D? Came in 4th of 5, in front of the TT but behind the Boxster, 350Z and S2000. C/D was critical not just of the styling, but of the ergonomics, steering, engine sound and overall driving feel. Really not very complimentary.


----------



## Closer (Apr 9, 2002)

JST said:


> *Anyone else see the review of the Z4 in the comparo test in C/D? Came in 4th of 5, in front of the TT but behind the Boxster, 350Z and S2000. C/D was critical not just of the styling, but of the ergonomics, steering, engine sound and overall driving feel. Really not very complimentary. *


I saw it :thumbdwn:  Damn you C/D


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Closer said:


> *I saw it :thumbdwn:  Damn you C/D *


It's not really surprising, IMHO. The S2k and the 350Z are way faster for a lot less money. And anyone who isn't fond of all the questionable design choices in the Z4 is NOT going to rank it above the Boxster.


----------



## Closer (Apr 9, 2002)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> *It's not really surprising, IMHO. The S2k and the 350Z are way faster for a lot less money. And anyone who isn't fond of all the questionable design choices in the Z4 is NOT going to rank it above the Boxster. *


Very true, but Im just used to seeing BMW's in first all the time (E46 & E39).


----------



## in_d_haus (Jan 2, 2002)

I didn't like 'em at first but, unlike the 7, they have grown on me. 
I still don't like the trunklid with the integral spoiler or the side markers.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Dec 4, 2002)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> *The S2k and the 350Z are way faster for a lot less money. *


Way faster? What are the tested 0-60s of the S2K and 350z? I'll admit the S2K and 350z are cheaper. But the base for the 350z convertable will be in the mid 30s. I drove the S2K and Boxster and liked the Z4 more. After I picked up my car I took it to my parents' house and my dad took it out for a spin. He has a Boxster and loves it. He said "I didn't think I'd find a car that is more fun than my Boxster." He wants a Z4 now.


----------



## Melissa (Aug 9, 2002)

I always thought the Z3 was "cute". The Z4 is sexxxy to me now! Cute....sexxxy...cute...sexxxy....I know which I'd prefer! 

Beautiful, Mr. Sparkle! :thumbup:


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Mr. Sparkle said:


> *Way faster? What are the tested 0-60s of the S2K and 350z? I'll admit the S2K and 350z are cheaper. But the base for the 350z convertable will be in the mid 30s. I drove the S2K and Boxster and liked the Z4 more. After I picked up my car I took it to my parents' house and my dad took it out for a spin. He has a Boxster and loves it. He said "I didn't think I'd find a car that is more fun than my Boxster." He wants a Z4 now. *


I'm not arguing. I LOVE the way the Z4 drives. (Although I'm not so fond of the engine subwoofer.)

But as long as it's styled by Bangle, it's going to get torn apart in the magazines.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

Well, framkly. Car & Driver can kiss my ass. If they had been with me mixing it up in the SoCal mountains with the M-roadsters, etc., they would have thought differently!!!
:thumbup: :drive: 
Remember, most of the "independent" magazines derive much of their revenue from various car makers. Some actually pay more than others and it is apparent when it comes to car reviews. BMW garners favor in other magazines for the same reason.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Dec 4, 2002)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> *I'm not arguing. I LOVE the way the Z4 drives. (Although I'm not so fond of the engine subwoofer.)
> 
> But as long as it's styled by Bangle, it's going to get torn apart in the magazines. *


I know you're not arguing. I just think the Z4 3.0 is plenty fast (mid 5 sec 0-60 depending on who tests it). I like the engine subwoofer. I don't know why. I'm sure the car mags will tear apart the Bangle designs, but in the end it is your own comparo that matters. I love the styling.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Jayhox said:


> *Well, framkly. Car & Driver can kiss my ass. If they had been with me mixing it up in the SoCal mountains with the M-roadsters, etc., they would have thought differently!!!
> :thumbup: :drive:
> Remember, most of the "independent" magazines derive much of their revenue from various car makers. Some actually pay more than others and it is apparent when it comes to car reviews. BMW garners favor in other magazines for the same reason. *


This charge is baseless. C/D waxes rhapsodic about BMWs just as often as any other car magazine, and they do so because BMWs are typically very good cars--indeed, they are often benchmarks in the class.

The Z4 is a polarizing car. Journalists are no more immune from this than are consumers. To accuse C/D of having been bought off by Porsche, Nissan and Honda just because they don't like the Z4 is silly.

Hell, I don't like the Z4, and Nissan, Honda and Porsche have never given me anything.


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually it is not baseless, but whatever. I respect all opinions. I would like to know what your opinion of the Z4 is based upon. Is it the looks? Have you ever driven one?

Look at the C&D stats of all cars. Then look at the final rankings. If they dropped the Z4 to 4th, it must be based upon looks alone.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Jayhox said:


> *Actually it is not baseless, but whatever. I respect all opinions. I would like to know what your opinion of the Z4 is based upon. Is it the looks? Have you ever driven one?
> 
> Look at the C&D stats of all cars. Then look at the final rankings. If they dropped the Z4 to 4th, it must be based upon looks alone. *


While it may generally be true that car magazines are influenced by advertisers, my point here is that there is no evidence of such a bias against BMW anywhere else in C/D. Note that while Audi beat the Ms in some recent comparos, in this test the Audi fell flat.

There's (much) more to a car than performance numbers. Driving feel and enjoyment, as a matter of fact, are almost completely independent of performance numbers. For example, I find the Miata far more fun to drive than the Z4, and it's markedly slower.

I've driven a Z4, and I thought that as a roadster it made a pretty good sedan. It feels like a BMW, but it doesn't really feel like a sports car, and so you end up with this weird sensation like you're driving a 330Ci that someone cut the top off of and stuck you in the back seat of. I think the ergonomics are sacrificed at the alter of trendy style; C/D's criticism of the gauge pods is right on. The steering wheel is too small and looks like something out of a bumper car. The suspension is needlessly stiff legged and crashy, thumping and whacking over bumps in a way that feels almost aftermarket.

I agree with Car and Driver; I'd buy an S2000, Boxster or 350Z long before I bought a Z4. I'd buy a Miata and have money left over before I bought a Z4. The fact that it's ugly as a stump is icing on the cake.


----------



## JakeC (Apr 21, 2002)

Z4 is one of the nicest cars on the road, period. 
Like this one:










picture from: http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e85/forum.php?postid=3414652&page=6


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow JST! I couldn't disagree more. Are the ergonomics on your M3 way off for a sports car??? The Z4 has all controls in the exact same places as your car. Isn't a sports car supposed to feel the road? Interesting thoughts.

I just spent the last weekend doing very spirited driving in the mountains with a group of M-Roadsters and the Z4 didn't miss a beat. The Z4 was outstanding at the limits and lived up to all of the other press reviews stating that the Z4 is now on par with the Boxter's performance.

"The steering wheel is too small and looks like something out of a bumper car." --- In my opinion, I think the M3 steering wheel could use the decrease in diameter of the Z4 steering wheel. Outstanding feel for performance turning. "Bumper car?" I guess three spoke bumper car wheels with thumb grips were lost on me as a kid.

"I think the ergonomics are sacrificed at the alter of trendy style." --- So, are you going to remove your side gills from the M3? They are style over function. My only complaint on ergonomics is the radio should be more vertical to the readout is not glared by the sun as easily.

"The suspension is needlessly stiff legged and crashy, thumping and whacking over bumps in a way that feels almost aftermarket." --- Then I might suggest you avoid hitting pot holes because the Z4 suspension handles variances in the road with outstanding performance. Not sure what you mean by "crashy" but this car communicates road anomolies to the driver while also leaving them behind with ease. Doesn't your comment on the suspension also conflict with your opnion that the Z4 makes a good sedan??? :dunno: 

"I'd buy a Miata and have money left over before I bought a Z4." --- OK, but will your friends be pissed off when they are waiting for you to catch up down the road???

"The fact that it's ugly as a stump is icing on the cake." -- The truth behind the opinion always comes out. Don't berate the performance of the car due to its looks. The two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## JST (Dec 19, 2001)

Jayhox said:


> *Wow JST! I couldn't disagree more. Are the ergonomics on your M3 way off for a sports car??? The Z4 has all controls in the exact same places as your car. Isn't a sports car supposed to feel the road? Interesting thoughts.
> *


No, the gauges in the E46 are much larger and more legible. The center stack in the E46 is oriented toward the driver; in the Z4 it sits, Buick-like, in an undifferentiated swath of flat metal. The window switches are in the wrong place on the Z4, as well.

*



I just spent the last weekend doing very spirited driving in the mountains with a group of M-Roadsters and the Z4 didn't miss a beat. The Z4 was outstanding at the limits and lived up to all of the other press reviews stating that the Z4 is now on par with the Boxter's performance.

"The steering wheel is too small and looks like something out of a bumper car." --- In my opinion, I think the M3 steering wheel could use the decrease in diameter of the Z4 steering wheel. Outstanding feel for performance turning. "Bumper car?" I guess three spoke bumper car wheels with thumb grips were lost on me as a kid.

Click to expand...

*This is a matter of preference, but to me, the wheel feels tiny.

*



"I think the ergonomics are sacrificed at the alter of trendy style." --- So, are you going to remove your side gills from the M3? They are style over function. My only complaint on ergonomics is the radio should be more vertical to the readout is not glared by the sun as easily.

Click to expand...

*You'll note that I've never praised the form over function elements of the M3. But that aside, frippery like the side gills can be forgiven because it doesn't actually impinge function (though I'd prefer they be absent entirely). Stylish tweaks like the interior of the Z4 (or the spare tire stealing four pipe muffler on the M3) are unacceptable, because they actually degrade the function of the vehicle in pursuit of aesthetics. 
*



"The suspension is needlessly stiff legged and crashy, thumping and whacking over bumps in a way that feels almost aftermarket." --- Then I might suggest you avoid hitting pot holes because the Z4 suspension handles variances in the road with outstanding performance. Not sure what you mean by "crashy" but this car communicates road anomolies to the driver while also leaving them behind with ease. Doesn't your comment on the suspension also conflict with your opnion that the Z4 makes a good sedan??? :dunno:

Click to expand...

*The M3's suspension is at the same time more compliant over harsh initial impacts and more competent in terms of handling. The Z4 feels like a pogo stick in comparison. My teeth were actually clicking together over some of the roads out here. A car doesn't have to be rock stiff to handle well.

The Z4 feels like a sedan (heavy, somewhat ponderous, great straight line stability) with a really stiff aftermarket suspension. Drive an S2000 or a Miata, and get a feel for what "flickable" means in the automotive context. The Z4 ain't it.

*



"I'd buy a Miata and have money left over before I bought a Z4." --- OK, but will your friends be pissed off when they are waiting for you to catch up down the road???

Click to expand...

*No. What other people think matters little in this context. But if I really got concerned, a turbo or supercharger would close the performance gap nicely, and still be well below the price of a Z4.

*



"The fact that it's ugly as a stump is icing on the cake." -- The truth behind the opinion always comes out. Don't berate the performance of the car due to its looks. The two are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

*I have two separate opinions: 1. The Z4 is ugly. 2. The Z4 is not fun to drive. One is not influenced by the other.

Contrast this with my thoughts on the E65: 1. The E65 is ugly. 2. The E65 is a blast to drive, and dynamically is a great leap forward for the segment.


----------



## SoonerE39 (Oct 10, 2002)

For the first few months of seeing the Z4 on the internet and in print, I really didn't like it. Now that I have seen it in person, it really looks good. I'm a convert


----------



## Jayhox (Jan 16, 2002)

"What other people think matters little in this context."

. . .Or to the entire context. 

"The center stack in the E46 is oriented toward the driver; in the Z4 it sits, Buick-like, in an undifferentiated swath of flat metal. The window switches are in the wrong place on the Z4, as well."

Still have not mentioned anything that has any significant impact on actually *driving* the car.

"The Z4 is not fun to drive."

OK. Just as long as you don't mind being in a very select minority in this regard. 

On a final note, I think what really makes this a sports car is that is is OK under normal driving conditions, but *really* comes into its own when pushing the car under performance conditions.


----------



## Mr. Bimmer (Apr 8, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> *Odd. Other car mags have been much more complimentary, comparing it seriously to the Boxster (despite that car's undoubtedly brilliant chassis) and complimenting the engine. A lot of people will prefer the Z4's (3.0 litre) engine note to the Boxster 2.7's. And the Z4 is faster in every discpline, which is enough for a lot of people, as we know  *


Yes, I agree. Anyways, the new issue of Automobile has a Boxster vs S2000 vs 350z vs Z4 shootout and the Z4 and Boxster come out on top( athough the Boxster wins by a photo-finish ).


----------



## brave1heart (Jan 7, 2002)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> *It's not really surprising, IMHO. The S2k and the 350Z are way faster for a lot less money. And anyone who isn't fond of all the questionable design choices in the Z4 is NOT going to rank it above the Boxster. *


They are not way faster but even if they were, C&D would not rank them higher based on that alone. C&D has always been big on handling and overall feel of the car and puts a lot less weight on straight-line acceleration.


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

In thinking about it, none of those roadsters really appeal to me that much:
-The Boxster is too expensive, and has an ugly interior
-The Z4 has an ugly interior/exterior and is too expensive
-the Z is ugly as a convertible, and has a cheap interior
-I like the S2000 the most, but would like a little more space and more torque.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

I just don't understand what's appealing about the Boxster mutant-dinner-plate exterior. Most Porsches are quite beautiful, but not that one. I recall a picture taken before the official debut at one of the Z4-and-competitors test drive that had the Boxter sitting next to the Z4... the greater aggressiveness of the Z4 styling was startling.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

The Roadstergal said:


> I just don't understand what's appealing about the Boxster mutant-dinner-plate exterior. Most Porsches are quite beautiful, but not that one. I recall a picture taken before the official debut at one of the Z4-and-competitors test drive that had the Boxter sitting next to the Z4... the greater aggressiveness of the Z4 styling was startling.


i generally agree with you on what a sports car is, but not about styling here. "aggressive" to me in this application means "overwrought". but i like the driving dynamics of the car well enough.

if i had to choose between any z4, however, and the turbo miata or "mazdaspeed miata" that is coming out shortly, i'd get the miata in a heartbeat. i make no arguments against the performance of the car because it's well done. all it ever needed was a nice rear suspension and now that it has one plus in general better power-to-weight ratios than the E46, it's a fun car to drive. i hate the interior and the exterior, though, and i still hate BMW's DBW programming. the wheels they put on them are unattractive to me (what's so wrong with classic BBS snowflake wheels?). i saw a panoz esperante just today driving into work.

that car has the opposite problem. it's pretty and is aluminum intensive, but has a plebian drivetrain. if BMW could find a way to satiate their need to differentiate their styling and edginess, but with simplicity, like the esperante, gosh, that would sell a lot of cars.......oh wait.....that's what they already have in the E46 and E39.........


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

The Esperante has a funy chubby-cheeked grin...

<img src=http://lucien.blight.com/~sparkle/z3/z3fest/sday42.jpg>​
Not that I have anything against them.  But for aggressive styling, I'd take the Panoz roadster...

<img src=http://lucien.blight.com/~sparkle/z3/z3fest/sday26.jpg>​
But it looks to me to be _more_ busy than the Z4. The Z4 just looks simple, graceful, and coherent to me.

Although of course I like Miatas.  I think you'd be better off getting an NA Miata for cheap and putting on a Flyin' Miata turbo, though; they've really got the system down pat, and will give you more power and tweakability than a from-Mazda setup.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

okay. i caught myself up on the reviews from automobile and C&D.

i am amazed at how well the S2000 did. consistently chosen as the best hardcore roadster. 

i guess i am happy that the z4 did "swell" considering how poorly the z3 always did in these comparisons.

but gentlemen and ladies, it is the newest chassis in the comparison and still was not able to nudge the very dated boxster chassis in both comparisons. on the one hand, we can take this with a grain of salt, right? because "they" are not us. but "they" do testdrive for a living and they also had all of the competition assembled simultaneously for objective testing as well as subjective feel. not to be taken too lightly.

and so, i personally conclude that the z4's pricing and looks were not the most negatives placed against it. it did not "win" because it could not supplant a car that has been on the market for some 7 years now. and there were "feel" as well as quantitative reasons for that. as far as cost is concerned, i note that the delta between the top of the line z4 and the entry level boxster stands at only $5000, not the $10,000 chasm often quoted here.


----------

