Anyone moved from 3.0 Si to 35is?
- Thread starter James Junior
- Start date
pvr said:If you like an automatic, then the 35is would be a perfect upgrade
I test drove one, and it is a nice cruiser.
And Quadracer has proved it can be tweaked into a serious track car.
I like them a lot,
A
Anonymous
Guest
TitanTim said:
Possibly hasn't had her 'fix' today
Back on topic
I went from an E85 3.0 to a 35iS and they are a fantastic car, if your not bothered about outright speed then get an "M", the 35iS with 500NM is incredible and the DCT is just the icing on the cake
GBG said:TitanTim said:
Possibly hasn't had her 'fix' today
Back on topic
I went from an E85 3.0 to a 35iS and they are a fantastic car, if your not bothered about outright speed then get an "M", the 35iS with 500NM is incredible and the DCT is just the icing on the cake
lol, it would be interesting to track both cars in standard form and see how they compared. Personally I would go E89 but thats just because its a nicer place to sit which is probably more important personally than outright handling/performance
Depends what you want. Tim.
JustCruzin
Member
I have been the most fortunate owner of a 35is LCi since late September. My immediate predecessor was a much less powerful but real fun to drive 2005 SE 2.0 manual gearbox. I was really very much in two minds about the DCT transmission of the 35is having been a religious manual person since I passed my driving test some 25 years ago (gosh was it that long ago...! 
) but LOVE the DCT now.
As you pointed out earlier the other rather off-putting bit was the mediocre reviews in some rather well known auto magazines/shows and as Garvin & Tim said earlier the Z4 will always be stalked by the Boxster as a painful reminder of how a well made chassis can make all the difference. The Boxster is also comparably priced. I have never driven a Boxster but certainly want to see why it outshines the 35is in many areas.
But hey, I still went for the Zed, why? Looks to start with. It is IMHO the best looking roadster available and it is in every way a classic roadster. The power increase in the 35is moving up from a 2.0 astounding (maybe not so much for a 3.0 owner like you). It is great fun to floor it when you're being tailgated on the motorway and watch the car behind diminish to nothing in your rear view mirror while you hang on to your hairpiece (I call this 'dusting').
I have not driven better than a 35is but I am sure there are many better cars that handle better at speed but I didn't buy this model for handling alone. It is comfortable, looks amazing, and in a straight line when floored really does take off.
It isn't cheap and fuel economy can be painful if your zipping around a lot. Fast, oh yes it is, but it is not for the timid
) but LOVE the DCT now.As you pointed out earlier the other rather off-putting bit was the mediocre reviews in some rather well known auto magazines/shows and as Garvin & Tim said earlier the Z4 will always be stalked by the Boxster as a painful reminder of how a well made chassis can make all the difference. The Boxster is also comparably priced. I have never driven a Boxster but certainly want to see why it outshines the 35is in many areas.
But hey, I still went for the Zed, why? Looks to start with. It is IMHO the best looking roadster available and it is in every way a classic roadster. The power increase in the 35is moving up from a 2.0 astounding (maybe not so much for a 3.0 owner like you). It is great fun to floor it when you're being tailgated on the motorway and watch the car behind diminish to nothing in your rear view mirror while you hang on to your hairpiece (I call this 'dusting').
I have not driven better than a 35is but I am sure there are many better cars that handle better at speed but I didn't buy this model for handling alone. It is comfortable, looks amazing, and in a straight line when floored really does take off.
It isn't cheap and fuel economy can be painful if your zipping around a lot. Fast, oh yes it is, but it is not for the timid
JustCruzin said:
I read a lot of these so-called reviews regards the 35is and it's always been compared to the Boxster not what it should be compared to, the SLK! The Boxster\Cayman is a different car, it's more involving and handles better than the Zed, the 35is is more of a GT which is what I like (I'm a lazy driver) also I wanted something better specced and trimmed than the Porsche, also with an engine that wasn't going to go bang! the spectre of IMS failure was always in the back of your mind in the earlier models (if it goes it's almost certain the engine is wrecked) and the very mention of it on the Boxa forum induced mass hysteria\paranoia this is why I chopped mine in for the 35is, believe me there are a lot of niggles with the Boxster\Cayman more so than I read on here regards the Z4.
JustCruzin
Member
MickJ said:
Now that is useful information from a previous Boxster driver. Didn't know about this IMS failure, that sounds rather too scary to even think about! :!:
You would only have to drive the Boxster (or Cayman) for less than 5 minutes to realise that, dynamically, it is a much sharper, more agile vehicle - it is a true 'sports car'. It is beautifully balanced and, although slower in a straight line, is far superior when the twisties appear.JustCruzin said:
I have the Z4 for two main reasons - the folding hard top and I need a 'daily driver' that can propel me regularly for long distance (>150mile) journeys at speed and in comfort. I do not want a 'soft top' and the Z4 is a much better GT car than the Boxster (and sounds better in 35iS guise). I am fortunate in having other cars that cover the bases the Z4 can't so can hoon around at the weekends in something that handles much, much better but is just as quick in a straight line and also sounds a lot, lot better!
However, if I was more limited in my fleet then I think the Cayman would get my vote as a better all-rounder
TitanTim said:
your comment wasn't a contribution to the OP's questions, it was a infantile response to ronk's statement that, that argument had been done to death, which it has. If you had laid your reasons out objectively, of why, in your opinion, the e89 is not a sports car, that could have been classed as a contribution.
Now I'm confused, you obviously worked for BMW during the design of the e89 so have some insider knowledge. I say this because I cannot find where BMW states what the car is, they refer to it as sporty and that's about it.TitanTim said:
I would thus suggest it is down to the individual to call it what they want, some will see it as a sports car and some will see it as a GT, neither is right nor wrong
TitanTim said:
Then I would suggest that you post something more constructive and not just a glib response as you did there, you have posted many good topics and posted good responses so you do have it in you to do so.
TitanTim said:
blunt I can live with, but the addition of a wink at the end of your rebuttal to ronk was arrogant, and WAS irritating
and to GBG, I don't have an addiction to anything, but I am partial to coffee and chocolate
A
Anonymous
Guest
sars said:GBG, I don't have an addiction to anything, but I am partial to coffee and chocolate
Ah that's good, I like a bit of chocolate myself
TitanTim said:lol, it would be interesting to track both cars in standard form and see how they compared. Personally I would go E89 but thats just because its a nicer place to sit which is probably more important personally than outright handling/performance
Tim.
Well look no further than this link
http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/bmw_z4_m_roadster-vs-bmw_z4_sdrive_35is.html
...I believe the 35is is noticeably faster round a track.
I think the move to a 35is is a sound one from the perspective of something more modern with the performance etc, I tested one myself when moving from a 3.0si sport coupe but couldn't really justify the premium cost as the performance wasn't needed, so opted for a 30i which is basically the same performance as the 3.0si.