Less sexy?
- Thread starter Cassie-UK
- Start date
Would your preference be for Black Roadsters with 108's? 
E89 is a good looking car but it's more Merc SLK than Boxster in it's handling/target market.
The E85 was everything from a £20k MX5 alternative to a £45k Boxster S slayer, even had a very pretty coupe alternative for hatchback lovers
I wish BMW had developed a Z2 keeping the ethos of the E85 and developing it further. £20k target price, soft top, 2 litre turbo engine, lightweight 1,200 kgs max. Afterall, if Mazda can shift MX5.s in such quantities then BMW could have had a big seller on it's hands.
The E85 was everything from a £20k MX5 alternative to a £45k Boxster S slayer, even had a very pretty coupe alternative for hatchback lovers
I wish BMW had developed a Z2 keeping the ethos of the E85 and developing it further. £20k target price, soft top, 2 litre turbo engine, lightweight 1,200 kgs max. Afterall, if Mazda can shift MX5.s in such quantities then BMW could have had a big seller on it's hands.
Taz x said:
Taz speaks the truth.
When they designed the E85/86 they must have started with a blank piece of paper, whereas for the E89 they took an existing drawing of an E85/86 and fiddled with it.
It reminds me of the Audi TT - when the mk1 came out it was a revolution, when the mk2 came out it was just another Audi (I'm talking from a looks perspective more than anything).
I do like the E89, but agree with others that it has a completely different focus to the E85 / 6.
By trying to offer 'a car that is both coupe and convertible' BMW ended up making one that was a compromise. Folding-metal roof cars have to be a certain shape; the E89 does it better than pretty much everything else of that nature, but it is still a little awkward from some angles - the back in particular. The extra weight of the roof mechanism is always going to be a problem. I don't think it a coincidence that BMW chose not to develop an E89 M car.
As I said - do like the E89 - but it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.
By trying to offer 'a car that is both coupe and convertible' BMW ended up making one that was a compromise. Folding-metal roof cars have to be a certain shape; the E89 does it better than pretty much everything else of that nature, but it is still a little awkward from some angles - the back in particular. The extra weight of the roof mechanism is always going to be a problem. I don't think it a coincidence that BMW chose not to develop an E89 M car.
As I said - do like the E89 - but it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.
The E89 is a design classic taking many cues from BMW design from the past but also from a lot of classic sportscars.
But you can't get away from the fact that it has lost the Z4 essence, its a cruiser not a bruiser. The E86 Z4MC will always rein supreme in my mind unless they make a dedicated E89 Z4M
But you can't get away from the fact that it has lost the Z4 essence, its a cruiser not a bruiser. The E86 Z4MC will always rein supreme in my mind unless they make a dedicated E89 Z4M
Taz x said:i agree, i also thing neither look as sexy as the E86
FACT ;-)
Sent from my iPad
I've always thought they look a bit awkward as well but have never been able to put my finger on why. I think it's the shape of the roof as I like them when viewed directly front on or from directly behind. I guess the tell tale sign of the shift in their target market is the fact that I can never see me wanting one..... although I would have said that about the E85 a few years ago. On the other hand I've always liked the E86, it is by far the best looking.
That e89 coupe concept is terrible. Someone has just Photoshopped a mustang rear end/roof on to an e89. Thank god they never attempted to make that.
That e89 coupe concept is terrible. Someone has just Photoshopped a mustang rear end/roof on to an e89. Thank god they never attempted to make that.
