How old are you and am I too young to drive G29?

[Flyingfifer]

Just to add a wee dose of factual spice to the great weight debate
G29 M40i weight: 1535kg
E89 3.0IS weight: 1525kg
E85 3.0 Facelift: 1395kg
E85 3.0 weight: 1365kg
E86 3.0 weight: 1325kg

E86 is the athlete, G29 is the American

In terms of the actual OP, buy what you want fella, if you can afford it. Personally in my 20s I was flying around in silly power Jap Turbo cars and "settled" into the E86 when I was 27.

I assume you're not looking at the M40i?
If I were you I would look for an older faster car for a fraction of the cost but then my priorities are likely different to yours.

 

[q96169we]

I assume you're not looking at the M40i?

First of all, I don't want to be dragged into the topic of which generation of z4 is better. As I said at the beginning, z4 is one of my dream cars and this dream started with E85/E86 when I was not qualified to drive yet and had no income to even feed myself. Then, the first z4 I drove was E89. Now, I'm not looking for any z4. I am an owner of G29 M40i. Therefore, I like all three generations of z4.

About the cars themselves, I think each generation has its own strong and week points and each generation's owners must have their own bias toward each generation. There is nothing right or wrong on this. As a lot of members have said, it's your money so spend it your way. However, we have to admit that somehow, all three generations of z4 are considered by many peoples (what I mean here is those people who buy car as a tool to take them and their family, or friends from A to B and don't know what enjoying a car means) as an unnecessary, not practical, or even just to show off kind of car. Because of this, no matter whether they are joking or they are jealous, many comments I received when they know I got this car is whether I've started my mid-life crisis. Hence, I started this thread. To be fair, I'm not seeking for any approval of owning a G29 or any generation of z4. My original thought was to have a topic and discuss the funny experience of what other owners may have experienced at different age. Therefore, I would like to thank everyone who shared some stories of their 20s, 30s, 40s, and so on. All those stories and pictures you've shared are splendid. You are all right. We only live once so we should enjoy whatever we think matters when we still can.

Finally, some of my thought on the G29 (just thought, no comparison):
Drivetrain: The only BMW in the current lineup that is below £60k, has B58 (straight 6), and is rear-wheel drive.
Handling: Enough for the usual daily fun and occasional trackday. However, it indeed feels a bit isolated between car and driver. But don't forget, it's faster than regular M2 (https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/09/12/bmw-z4-m40i-faster-than-bmw-m2-around-nurburgring-nordschleife/)
Outside: I like how it's looked
Inside: As what it should be
Tech: Mine doesn't have tech pack, driving assistant pack, or visibility pack. So my thought is only about the iDrive 7 which, I think, is better than the other candidate when I ordered the G29.
Quality: As what it should be
Reliability: they will eventually die so enjoy while we can.
As a car overall: meets my need and fulfil one of my dream.

 

[sp3ctre]

Right... I have split this topic rather than delete it, as I think there is good discussion to be had, but if anyone references the previous nonsense that was spouted (or continues the name calling) they will be banned. I have already wasted far too much of my weekend trawling through the playground rubbish.

Please continue, on-topic

 

[q96169we]

Right... I have split this topic rather than delete it, as I think there is good discussion to be had, but if anyone references the previous nonsense that was spouted (or continues the name calling) they will be banned. I have already wasted far too much of my weekend trawling through the playground rubbish.

Please continue, on-topic

Thanks [ref=#105289]sp3ctre[/ref].

 

[sars]

Just to add a wee dose of factual spice to the great weight debate
G29 M40i weight: 1535kg
E89 3.0IS weight: 1525kg
E85 3.0 Facelift: 1395kg
E85 3.0 weight: 1365kg
E86 3.0 weight: 1325kg

E86 is the athlete, G29 is the American

In terms of the actual OP, buy what you want fella, if you can afford it. Personally in my 20s I was flying around in silly power Jap Turbo cars and "settled" into the E86 when I was 27.

I assume you're not looking at the M40i?
If I were you I would look for an older faster car for a fraction of the cost but then my priorities are likely different to yours.

Due to the age difference between specifications issued by BMW, where the data comes from and the changes to standards over time (five years is the norm for reviews), can you be sure that the weights quoted include or do not include 75 kg for driver and luggage. The only sure way to know is to get a 3.0si on a set of scales and then do the same with an M40i. I’m sure that the M40i is heavier, turbos etcetera will account for some but then again it has at least 30% more power and two more gear ratios to better utilise the increased torque.

However the added weight does not necessarily make a car less agile, slower and less appealing to drive. If that were true we would be the MX-5 forum, which it isn’t as there are other things that have similar importance and to say a car is poorer because it weighs 100kg more is far to simplistic, unless of course it’s all forward of the front axel.

 

[john-e89]

Size and weight of driver, luggage or not, full fuel tank or not etc, etc, makes it all pretty irrelevant. Argyll Andy is a proper reet big lad apparently, 6'3"" I think, I'm guessing well over 15 stone, I'm a titch at 5'6" and not 15 stone...!

 

[q96169we]

Also keep in mind that many of the added weight is required by law. If BMW sends E85/E86 for homologation now, they may as well have 100+kg weight being added.

 

[sars]

Size and weight of driver, luggage or not, full fuel tank or not etc, etc, makes it all pretty irrelevant. Argyll Andy is a proper reet big lad apparently, 6'3"" I think, I'm guessing well over 15 stone, I'm a titch at 5'6" and not 15 stone...!

Snap I’m 5’6”
and a lot lot less than15st

 

[ori]

No doubt that newer cars have extra weight due to safety features more than anything else.
They use more lightweight materials than ever before and yet cars are heavier.
Real world the extra 100kg on a g29 compared to an e85 will make no difference.
If you want a track focussed car, then I don’t believe zeds are the one anyway.

 

[ori]

Size and weight of driver, luggage or not, full fuel tank or not etc, etc, makes it all pretty irrelevant. Argyll Andy is a proper reet big lad apparently, 6'3"" I think, I'm guessing well over 15 stone, I'm a titch at 5'6" and not 15 stone...!

Snap I’m 5’6”
and a lot lot less than15st

Ooooo if I wasn’t a gentleman.

Btw. Did you figure out how to mute the sat nav? If you have it on, just click on the idrive and it’s the top right option.

 

[tiglon]

A bit of googling and you can find wildly varying "kerb weight" for each version. I absolutely love a lightweight sports car (the feeling of a sub-1,000kg mid engined rear wheel drive car on turn in is just endlessly enjoyable), but that doesn't mean that a heavier car is "less good" or too heavy. For reference, the Nissan GT-R is over 1700kg.

I find it useful to take a pinch of salt with car journo's who talk about weight. According to most, the E89 was ruined by being too heavy, particularly because of the roof. However, the G29 was said to be much better because it had a lighter roof, yet overall weight was increased. The G29 does handle better, but that's due to improved chassis, suspension, damping, tyres etc and nothing to do with weight of the car or the roof. The 1M was acclaimed as one of the greatest M cars ever, despite being heavier than an E89, but still lauded for being a "small car". Again, proof that the E89 is not lacking around corners because of weight, but because of chassis, suspension, dampers, tyres etc. Either journo's often don't understand these things, or they don't think their readers will, so they dumb it down and oversimplify things - don't forget, the job of a journo is to get clicks, not to give you useful, accurate or insightful information.

A G29 or E89 doesn't feel less raw than an E85 because it's heavier, it feels less raw because of all the extra/improved insulation and protection around you.

As for gadgets, to be honest I'd probably rather not have iDrive, cruise control etc on my car, but the Z that cost me the most to own (by a very long way) was the E85, because mechanical things break too, and can be just as expensive as gadgets.

Whatever car you buy, you have to compromise on something, whether it be weight, comfort, acceleration, space etc - just like everything else in life it's a choice, and we all choose the compromise that we hope is best for us.

I put 37kg of petrol in my Z today, it didn't feel any slower or worse in the bends afterwards.

 

[Scubaregs]

Anything on a car can break, at any time. More tech does not necessarily mean more problems. Most cars, the tech is superseded long before it gives any problems.

 

[buzyg]

A bit of googling and you can find wildly varying "kerb weight" for each version. I absolutely love a lightweight sports car (the feeling of a sub-1,000kg mid engined rear wheel drive car on turn in is just endlessly enjoyable), but that doesn't mean that a heavier car is "less good" or too heavy. For reference, the Nissan GT-R is over 1700kg.

I put 37kg of petrol in my Z today, it didn't feel any slower or worse in the bends afterwards.

The Nissan GTR would be soo much better, if it were lighter. it's a right old porker. Hate the thing. (but we are all different. )

I have to say I notice every time I put petrol in the tank of either my MR or my little daily shed, that the cars handling and performance change significantly. Add a passenger and it feels quite slow compared to no passenger. I guess you get a feel for what you expect and the MR doesn't have much torque, so the extra weight really does make a difference. :wink:

Colin Chapman had it nailed as far as weight goes.

 

[sp3ctre]

Anything on a car can break, at any time. More tech does not necessarily mean more problems. Most cars, the tech is superseded long before it gives any problems.

This is a good point and one I think about a lot. That’s the great thing about newer cars using carplay/androidplay, the tech keeps up.

I have an Audi A6 now and it’s the nav tech that dates the car, the car itself us fantastic. Meanwhile the wife has a Hyundai Tucson with carplay and the tech is fantastic (and should keep up for quite a few years)

 

[sars]

Colin Chapman had it nailed as far as weight goes.

This is often misunderstood, Colin Chapman did not invent low weight cars, he invented the monocoque chassis which meant a much stiffer and stronger chassis with less weight. Weight is important when you are power limited, our cars are not power limited and unfortunately you can’t change the laws of physics, more power means, more cooling, bigger breaks, wider wheels and more rigidity and ultimately for a relatively low cost car this equals more weight.

 

[Chris_D]

Please continue, on-topic

Sorry sir. Won't happen again sir. When can i get my football back please sir?

Anything on a car can break, at any time. More tech does not necessarily mean more problems. Most cars, the tech is superseded long before it gives any problems.

You would benefit from trying to understand how system probability failure rate works mate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/system-failure-probability

I doubt you will read/understand it so I'll give you the short version;
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
The more things that can go wrong in any given system of things that can go wrong increases the probability of something going wrong in a shorter time period.

That's basic engineering.
You're welcome.
:wink:

 

[sp3ctre]

Please continue, on-topic

Sorry sir. Won't happen again sir. When can i get my football back please sir?

Anything on a car can break, at any time. More tech does not necessarily mean more problems. Most cars, the tech is superseded long before it gives any problems.

You would benefit from trying to understand how system probability failure rate works mate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/system-failure-probability

I doubt you will read/understand it so I'll give you the short version;
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
The more things that can go wrong in any given system of things that can go wrong increases the probability of something going wrong in a shorter time period.

That's basic engineering.
You're welcome.
:wink:

… and you’d benefit from being less aggressive and argumentative with your posts… if you just want to wind people up there is a specific platform for that, called Twitter. Please stop doing it on this forum.

 

[Scubaregs]

 

[Argyll Andy]

Size and weight of driver, luggage or not, full fuel tank or not etc, etc, makes it all pretty irrelevant. Argyll Andy is a proper reet big lad apparently, 6'3"" I think, I'm guessing well over 15 stone, I'm a titch at 5'6" and not 15 stone...!

Just as well I like you

6’2 and as Brucie would say on play your cards right, higher or lower. HIGHER :wink:

There’s also all the sh!te that Kathleen packs like hairdryer, straighteners, 14 changes of clothes for a weekend :lol:

Kerb weight is immaterial for me, there’s so many variables between passengers and additional load it doesn’t matter. I’ve not been left behind on any of the runs even by single occupant cars with a only a toothbrush and a change of clothes on board

 

[sars]

.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/system-failure-probability

I doubt you will read/understand it so I'll give you the short version;
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
The more things that can go wrong in any given system of things that can go wrong increases the probability of something going wrong in a shorter time period.

That's basic engineering.
You're welcome.
:wink:

I don’t know where to start, you talk about basic engineering and then send a link concerning fibre reinforced plastic
Two relevant topics that you should look up, FMEA’s and for safety engineering, SILs, stating that the more sophisticated or complex a system is increases the probability of failure is just wrong and naive. There’s this thing, oh been out for years, mean time between failures, any company that mass produces any engineered product will statistically know a, how it will fail and b, when it will fail, therefore the automobile industries push to create reliability from the outset. Vehicles now are far more reliable than they were twenty years ago, even with more technology, all of which is well proven.