e89 views and opinions

M

mad4slalom

Senior member
just read the evo test on the e89, hmmm, seems to confirm what i have long suspected, that bmw have soffened the z into a more relaxed grand tourer,didnt realise it has only 302 bhp and wishy washy front end oh and 80 plus k of roof mechanism, methinks this can only add to the alure and specialness of the proper M coupe / roadster. think i might go for a test drive just to see for myself. :driving:
 
z4m hatchback complete with all normal frustrations , rattles knocks clunks and squeaks, but it dont half excite me, as i guess yours does too. :thumbsup:
 
So you're considering an e89 as a replacement or? (As they don't do an M in the e89, you can't really compare them tbh) As for EVOs comments, that magazine is for people (imho) that race or track their cars. They'll negatively review anything that doesn't do well on a track. The e89 is not a track car.
 
The e89 is a 2 seater GT car, quite a good one actually.

It's not a sports car though. Hence not a valid comparison with the "old" Z4/M
 
Yep, plenty of fun to be had, esp in the larger engined cars, but its not an M. Which I'm glad about as I like my comforts. My days of putting up with harsh ride for thrills are behind me, mostly.
 
They'd have been better off not calling the E89 a Z4. It's so different in character to the original model. By keeping the same model name they've disappointed a lot of people who a) expected another sports car and b) expected another M version of the sports car.

I still question the market positioning of the E89. I think BMW got it wrong and the sales prove it.
 
To me, the e89 was the worst of both worlds.

I don't do the sun, so I'd always buy a hard top. So if I was to buy an e89 the top would never come down, so I'd be paying for an expensive folding roof, living with the extra weight above my head (doesn't help the handling), and having a car with less power. AND I'd have had to stump up £10-£30k extra for the privilege.

Maybe a CSL version with a folding CARBON roof and the drivetrain/powerplant of the 1M :thumbsup: but it would still look 'less handsome' than the Z4MC :thumbsdown:

No thanks.
 
I'd have to agree, unfortunately. If they'd have made it a touch larger or more aggressive, a Z5/6 denomination would have been better. Then launched perhaps a Z2/4 smaller and more agile. ala MB SLK and SL. (having said that, I'd not consider either one of these, even in AMG guise, a sports car)

Completely messed it up now with some tiny engines coming into the lineup (18i, eh?). I'm not that fussed, I've had over 3 years with it, I'll keep it another year perhaps as I have my sights set on a 5 series tourer which still has the toys and some nice looks, but more comfy and less worry about cracking wheels etc

If I were to go back to a sportscar in the future, I'd likely go porker anyway. They seem to be able to mix both handling and good ride quality. BMW don't.
 
Maniac said:
I'd have to agree, unfortunately. If they'd have made it a touch larger or more aggressive, a Z5/6 denomination would have been better. Then launched perhaps a Z2/4 smaller and more agile. ala MB SLK and SL.

Completely messed it up now with some tiny engines coming into the lineup (18i, eh?). I'm not that fussed, I've had over 3 years with it, I'll keep it another year perhaps as I have my sights set on a 5 series tourer which still has the toys and some nice looks, but more comfy and less worry about cracking wheels etc

If I were to go back to a sportscar in the future, I'd likely go porker anyway. They seem to be able to mix both handling and good ride quality. BMW don't.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on Maniac :thumbsup: Except that BMW seem perfectly capable on mixing good handling and ride quality in their other models (M135i, M3, M5 for example) so it's puzzling why they can't master it in a Zed.

It is a lovely looking car. So much potential on paper too, so it's a big disappointment that BMW messed it up. I think they badly need a halo car as well (such as the R8/SLS) because this i8 ain't gonna do it. Without it I think they will move more towards Ford/Vauxhall/Renault and further adrift from MB/Audi, and it pains me hugely to say that.
 
In my opinion the E89 shouldn't really be a Z4. It is as different to the E85/86's as they were to the Z3's. Not just it terms of looks, but in terms of usability and target audiences. I want a sports car, so am saving my pennies to get an ///MC. Whereas, if I wanted a GT i'd consider an E89.

That said, as the E89 is so different to the 85/6 it may help stabilise residuals of the ///M's.
 
StevenH72 said:
That said, as the E89 is so different to the 85/6 it may help stabilise residuals of the ///M's.
Click to expand...

I can see a day not too far away when a decent, low mileage Z4MC will be worth more than a 35iS.
 
I think there's a bit of an odd comparison going on here though. You'd be better comparing non M e85/e86's to the e89. To compare an e89 to an M is wrong, they're not intended to be anywhere near the same thing.

So compare the sportiness of a 2.5 or 3.0 e85/86 to the e89, but not the M. Yes the e85/e86 I would argue handles slightly better, and there's a bit more feel, but they're not the best either, with a shockingly hard ride, tramlining and understeer (I had one).
 
I'm not sure buyers see it that way though Maniac. They see it as "I have £40k to spend on a sports car and I want it to be good looking with say 300+ Bhp and a sub 5 sec 0-60" (or whatever performance criteria matters to them).

The elephant in the room for BMW is the Boxster. Not matter how much BMW try and tell you they aren't competing with it, they absolutely are, because for many potential buyers it's often a straight choice between the two. The simple fact is, that the current E89 can't hold a candle to it. As you say, it neither handles nor rides as well, is no quicker now, no better looking, has a poorer brand image, is cheapened by the giveaway PCP deals and if you lay out the same amount of cash on each, you'll have an awful lot more left if you chose the Porsche when you come to trade-in in 3 years time.
 
all good valid points from all re this post , it is a case of horses foe courses, i was.nt just stirring up the old mc v mr v e89 argument tho we are all jokingly guilty of that at times for a bit of banter. personally i have always thought bmw lost the gorgeous lines of the coupe, when they put the roof in the boot but so has every other manufacturer that tried it. also a great shame they didnt M it as tho a niche market , a small one too in the grand scheme of bmw balance sheets, an important one to keep up with the other manufacturers by having a proper sports model; yes with all the not so good aspects that go with that.I am not feeling ready for a gt yet nor could i afford one , but a few years down the line i may be , but would probably go for a 55amg just to get that supercharged grunt as even at 53 and i hope 73 i am still 25 in my mind and still want a thrill when i go for a blast. :thumbsup:
 
I think the e89 sits well between a Boxster and a TT, there is no doubt that the e89 is a better driving experience than the TT, but it no way compares to that of the Porsche. The thing is, the basic boxster is £37k without adding any extras and so you get more bang for your buck with the e89 than the Boxster.

And I think that's why the 35is sells badly, at that price bracket, I would have the Boxster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom