Z4 Coupe to Z4M Coupe Questions?

[buzyg]

Sounds like you deserve some special fun back in your life. Go for it, the ///M is so much more of an event to drive that the standard cars, great though they are.

For sure it will cost a bit more to run than your 3ltr, but way less that a on old porker. As for the V8 M3. Nah just a nice fast 3 series.

[Mr Tidy]

The power differences between the 3.0Si and the M are only really felt above 5000rpm, the penalty you pay for that is the M engine is a little less refined, especially when cold... and there are a few more maintenance worries with the S54. As others have said though, the driving experience feels significantly more different than the parts list would suggest.

It's not a perfect comparison but I regularly drive the S54 (in E46 M3 guise) and 3.0Si back to back and find it almost impossible to pick a favourite powertrain. The M3 ride and handling is leagues ahead but as it's a different chassis it's not comparing apples with apples. I love the top end urgency of the S54 but prefer the low down response of the N52. The N52 is considerably more fuel efficient too if you care about that.

You are going to have to drive both cars in close succession to make any kind of objective assessment. Overall for me the 3.0Si was just the slightly better ownership proposition.

That's interesting, but after my drive in an MC on Tuesday to me it felt more keen to get moving well before 5,000 rpm. But then I only drove it 12 miles, but with no salesperson accompanying me it meant once warmed up I was able to "stretch it's legs"! Then I drove a long route home in my 3.0Si for a comparison.

As you say the driving experience is definitely more different than the parts list suggests - much better steering feel, no tramlining, less crashy ride.

I know the E46 M3 has the same S54 engine, but you're still sitting in an E46. My daily is an E90 330i so has the same engine as my Z4C, but just doesn't feel nearly as special.

Based on this my 2nd test drive of an MC I'd love to have one, but as I only do about 4,000 miles a year in my Z4 it would seem to make more sense to buy a low miler and at present that is sadly not in budget.

Maybe I retired too early? :rolleyes:

[buzyg]

The power differences between the 3.0Si and the M are only really felt above 5000rpm, the penalty you pay for that is the M engine is a little less refined, especially when cold... and there are a few more maintenance worries with the S54. As others have said though, the driving experience feels significantly more different than the parts list would suggest.

It's not a perfect comparison but I regularly drive the S54 (in E46 M3 guise) and 3.0Si back to back and find it almost impossible to pick a favourite powertrain. The M3 ride and handling is leagues ahead but as it's a different chassis it's not comparing apples with apples. I love the top end urgency of the S54 but prefer the low down response of the N52. The N52 is considerably more fuel efficient too if you care about that.


You are going to have to drive both cars in close succession to make any kind of objective assessment. Overall for me the 3.0Si was just the slightly better ownership proposition.

That's interesting, but after my drive in an MC on Tuesday to me it felt more keen to get moving well before 5,000 rpm. But then I only drove it 12 miles, but with no salesperson accompanying me it meant once warmed up I was able to "stretch it's legs"! Then I drove a long route home in my 3.0Si for a comparison.

As you say the driving experience is definitely more different than the parts list suggests - much better steering feel, no tramlining, less crashy ride.

I know the E46 M3 has the same S54 engine, but you're still sitting in an E46. My daily is an E90 330i so has the same engine as my Z4C, but just doesn't feel nearly as special.

Based on this my 2nd test drive of an MC I'd love to have one, but as I only do about 4,000 miles a year in my Z4 it would seem to make more sense to buy a low miler and at present that is sadly not in budget.

Maybe I retired too early? :rolleyes:

The second noticeable cam change on the vanos in the S54 is at 4.5k. If I'm pushing on in mine I keep it up above that all the time and it keeps many a super car honest. Bare in mind it,s a chunk lighter than an M3.

Low down torque is fun for a few seconds here and there on the daily commute. But once you open up the taps properly revs and hp are so much more fun. Also why I am a very long way from buying an electric sports car. It's about how much they make you smile.

[Felix79]

I've had my E85 M for a year now and it's really impressed me with just how in sync/balanced it feels with the calibration. The throttle response, the weight of the steering, the sound, but most importantly it's a real Jekyll and Hyde car. It can happily cruise on the motorway or potter about running errand, but as soon as I take it out on some B roads, it just comes alive and is so much fun to drive. My car still feels tight and put together really well, even with me just going past 100,000 miles a few months ago.

Like others have said, the S54 really has to be revved to get that extra power over the N54, but my god it really sings. But the downside it jut how brutal some of the running costs are. just had to renew my tax for a year and it hurt! At least my insurance has gone down £300 this year, but still higher than my modified Impreza P1 use to cost me. Only car I would replace my M Roadster with, would be the M Coupe if I was in the position to do so.

[ph001]

That's interesting, but after my drive in an MC on Tuesday to me it felt more keen to get moving well before 5,000 rpm.

Assuming similar gearing, the 'seat of the pants' acceleration force comes down to the torque to weight ratio. I did a few stats on this in another thread which showed very interesting results:

Peak torque to weight ratio (higher is better)

3.0Si - 0.181 lbft/kg
Z4M - 0.186 lbft/kg
E46 M3 - 0.167 lbft/kg

You can see how close the N52 and S54 are. But perhaps also as important is at what rpm peak torque is:

S54 - 4900 rpm
N52 - 2750 rpm

What really stands out here is how low down in the rev range the N52 makes peak torque, in fact that is truly exceptional for a normally aspirated engine and I doubt there is another na engine in the world that makes peak torque so low down. Looking specifically at that point in the rev range:

S54 @ 2750rpm = 220lbft / 115bhp
N52 @ 2750rpm = 232lbft / 121bhp

...but also remember that M is at least 50Kg heavier and the difference becomes even more pronounced - the N52 is the clear winner.

As mentioned above, all the S54 gains are after the second vanos changeover point around 4500rpm. Fundamentally it only really makes more power because it revs higher, but I agree it's all the more exciting for it!

[Muckinonthesofa]

Bought mine knowing the MC’’s competent but not the fastest nor best handling car on the planet, but for more emotive reasons...

- the very last M car of what’s becoming the nostalgic benchmark, manual, a Coupe & normally aspirated
- its Bangles flame surface shape
- the raw & ragged way it involves you every time you drive
- its sound
- benefit of a LSD even if a bit intrusive
- its reliability (when looked after & compared to similar marque bhp output cars)
- the minimalistic though highly focused driver layout interior which in leather still looks fresh today
- its increasing rarity
- my wife hates it so ....
- thinking if Steve McQueen were alive today, he’d probably have one in his garage

Similar to me, I was well aware of it's reported flaws but I don't care, the rest of it, as you've listed, more than makes up for it. Also, having upgraded the suspension, improved the gearchange and fitted a Gruppe M, I love it even more.

[Argenta]

Peak torque to weight ratio (higher is better)

3.0Si - 0.181 lbft/kg
Z4M - 0.186 lbft/kg
E46 M3 - 0.167 lbft/kg

You can see how close the N52 and S54 are. But perhaps also as important is at what rpm peak torque is:

S54 - 4900 rpm
N52 - 2750 rpm

Of course, acceleration figures stem from power/weight, not torque (common misconception). So even with 50kg extra the M is faster due to it's added 78hp.

[ph001]

Of course, acceleration figures stem from power/weight, not torque (common misconception). So even with 50kg extra the M is faster due to it's added 78hp.

No, assuming the same gearing, accelerative G comes from torque to weight ratio, not power to weight ratio (although in essence if you are looking at any particular rpm they are the same thing as they are linked by a constant which is 5252). You have to look at the whole power curve to determine which will be quicker to a particular speed.

It's only more top speed that comes from more power.

The M revs considerably higher and holds on to it's torque better than the N52 above 5000rpm so if you are saying perhaps 0-60mph it wins. Conversely if you said 30-50mph in 4th gear, the N52 would probably win.

[Mavster]

I would drive the Porsche and Z4M.

I think all non turbo 997 regardless of gen 1 or 2 or manual/ auto transmissions can suffer from Bore score. Perhaps look at early one with a rebuild to take care of the problem. I had a 996 turbo S once and that really handled like it was on rails The 997 is meant to be better. Incidentally, If you get a standard gen 2 997 with PDK, I think the road tax is also around £300 a year vs £500+ for the Z4M or 997's. Get the one your heart tells you to get and enjoy. Good time of year to be buying too

[mr wilks]

I would drive the Porsche and Z4M.

I think all non turbo 997 regardless of gen 1 or 2 or manual/ auto transmissions can suffer from Bore score. Perhaps look at early one with a rebuild to take care of the problem. I had a 996 turbo S once and that really handled like it was on rails The 997 is meant to be better. Incidentally, If you get a standard gen 2 997 with PDK, I think the road tax is also around £300 a year vs £500+ for the Z4M or 997's. Get the one your heart tells you to get and enjoy. Good time of year to be buying too

The gen2 997 are a totally different engine (DFI ) & to date borescoring has not been recognised as a issue though other possibly routine fails are beginning to surface suggesting they may not be as bulletproof buy over the gen1 cars as previously assumed by many .
There is a thread running on 911uk regarding injector problem / coked up valves which has resulted in engine out to determine
Link for anyone interested http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=136674

[Jembo]

Bought mine knowing the MC’’s competent but not the fastest nor best handling car on the planet, but for more emotive reasons...

- the very last M car of what’s becoming the nostalgic benchmark, manual, a Coupe & normally aspirated
- its Bangles flame surface shape
- the raw & ragged way it involves you every time you drive
- its sound
- benefit of a LSD even if a bit intrusive
- its reliability (when looked after & compared to similar marque bhp output cars)
- the minimalistic though highly focused driver layout interior which in leather still looks fresh today
- its increasing rarity
- my wife hates it so ....
- thinking if Steve McQueen were alive today, he’d probably have one in his garage

Similar to me, I was well aware of it's reported flaws but I don't care, the rest of it, as you've listed, more than makes up for it. Also, having upgraded the suspension, improved the gearchange and fitted a Gruppe M, I love it even more.

Ditto... it turns an angry car into a more manageable weapon

[Jembo]

I would drive the Porsche and Z4M.

I think all non turbo 997 regardless of gen 1 or 2 or manual/ auto transmissions can suffer from Bore score. Perhaps look at early one with a rebuild to take care of the problem. I had a 996 turbo S once and that really handled like it was on rails The 997 is meant to be better. Incidentally, If you get a standard gen 2 997 with PDK, I think the road tax is also around £300 a year vs £500+ for the Z4M or 997's. Get the one your heart tells you to get and enjoy. Good time of year to be buying too

The gen2 997 are a totally different engine (DFI ) & to date borescoring has not been recognised as a issue though other possibly routine fails are beginning to surface suggesting they may not be as bulletproof buy over the gen1 cars as previously assumed by many .
There is a thread running on 911uk regarding injector problem / coked up valves which has resulted in engine out to determine
Link for anyone interested http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=136674

So the question is will you ever now return to the M fold?

[Argenta]

It's only more top speed that comes from more power.

I'm afraid that is incorrect.
Hence for example why a diesel car with more torque but less power, then the petrol version, is indeed slower 0-60mph.
Of course, with the S54 narrow powerband you have to "shoot straight" and match it to use it.

[mr wilks]

I would drive the Porsche and Z4M.

I think all non turbo 997 regardless of gen 1 or 2 or manual/ auto transmissions can suffer from Bore score. Perhaps look at early one with a rebuild to take care of the problem. I had a 996 turbo S once and that really handled like it was on rails The 997 is meant to be better. Incidentally, If you get a standard gen 2 997 with PDK, I think the road tax is also around £300 a year vs £500+ for the Z4M or 997's. Get the one your heart tells you to get and enjoy. Good time of year to be buying too

The gen2 997 are a totally different engine (DFI ) & to date borescoring has not been recognised as a issue though other possibly routine fails are beginning to surface suggesting they may not be as bulletproof buy over the gen1 cars as previously assumed by many .
There is a thread running on 911uk regarding injector problem / coked up valves which has resulted in engine out to determine
Link for anyone interested http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=136674

So the question is will you ever now return to the M fold?

I would never say never but highly unlikely to return to any Z of any designation & the M2 against a similar priced 911 isn't a option id consider either
can only see me navigating my way through the Porsche market for the forseeable future , most likely a 981 Cayman next spring , then back to 997 with a gen2 year after or possibly even a 991 depending on where they are price wise over the next 2 years .

[ph001]

I'm afraid that is incorrect.
Hence for example why a diesel car with more torque but less power, then the petrol version, is indeed slower 0-60mph.

You are being over-simplistic. The only reason diesel cars tend to be slower to 60 is that they cannot maintain the high torque over a very wide rev range. In terms of acceleration force (or G-force if you like) from 2000 - 4000 rpm they tend to wipe the floor compared to na petrol engines. Like I said earlier, you have to look at the whole power curve to determine which will be quicker to a particular speed.