Looks like an E89 Z4M is on the cards after all

[chasBMW]

In reply to original guvnor heres one person who went from a Z4MC to an E89 35is , am I dissapointed? , Well I will admit when driven at 10 tenths the MC was a better drive but on a dark winter evening in the p*ssing rain and its been a really sh*tty day at work I can set everything to comfort and not have to focus like an F1 driver so the car doesnt kill me , I guess what I am saying is that the cars do have differant qualities and whilst I might on occassion miss some aspects of my MC , if I swapped back I would miss some of the aspects of the 35is.
I do agree about rarity when I had the MC I knew the location of 2 others , Since I have owned the 35is (15months) I have not seen another , is this a good thing? come sale / trade in I guess not

 

[Sandygate128]

I've driven a 35i on two occasions - once at length on an official launch day at Bedford Autodrome and once on a dealer test drive, one was manual, the other DCT. Nice cars, both of them. I'd turn that question round and say have you driven an M (Roadster or Coupe)?

It's not about performance per se. I think the 35is is probably a bit quicker, despite the extra weight, because it has a lot more torque. I'd be pretty disappointed if it wasn't as quick because it was conceived 4 years later than the M and costs more than the M did.

For me the M is about sharper steering, the LSD, a high-revving bespoke M NA engine and the noise that accompanies it. That's why on the other thread I was bemoaning BMW's decision to go the turbo route, no longer creating bespoke engines when their competitors are going in the opposite direction and creating high-revving NA engines with a lower CO2 output than BMW's turbos.

I can understand people wanting a hardtop, you generally fall in one camp or the other, but in 5 years of having a Z4 Roadster, stored outside, it never leaked, failed, required next to no maintenance compared to a fixed roof or hard top. Nobody ever tampered with it, roof up it was perfectly refined and noise levels were low when you wanted them to be.

I get what your saying you obviously have a much broader knowledge base than I true I've never driven a M.
The only reason I wanted to change up to the E89 was the roof on my old Z4 3.0 2004 looked a complete pig faded/pressure marked despite being garraged for the five years under my ownership it also developed small holes
That looked liked small fag burns that's why I'd never have a rag top again.
It's tin on top for me from now on.

 

[Anonymous]

I think they aim the car (e89) at many segments of the market. ok, its not a practical car like an estate would be, but it is a car that many can use as a daily driver.

Due to this "daily driver" thing, more people will buy the car for its looks, rather than performance.

I love the look of the car, but have never owned a "powerful" car (i.e. 3 litre) so have no desire for one in a Z. Plus, a powerful engine like that probably doesn't tie in with the daily driver bit.

So they've tried to please everyone - right down from the plebs like me who dont really know WHAT a true sportscar is, but love the look of it, right up to the likes of "M" car owners etc.

Could it be said that by aiming at such a "wide" base of drivers, they've diluted the product somewhat so that is isn't such the "sportscar" it might've been?

As for the pricing structure, if it wasn't for the huge discounts earlier in the year, then a lot of people wouldn't have them due to costs. This again goes to dilute things I guess (even though I'm glad of it!). The alternative might be a pure sports car (or proper M) that would be priced higher and for many people not a practical daily car.

 

[original guvnor]

In reply to original guvnor heres one person who went from a Z4MC to an E89 35is , am I dissapointed? , Well I will admit when driven at 10 tenths the MC was a better drive but on a dark winter evening in the p*ssing rain and its been a really sh*tty day at work I can set everything to comfort and not have to focus like an F1 driver so the car doesnt kill me , I guess what I am saying is that the cars do have differant qualities and whilst I might on occassion miss some aspects of my MC , if I swapped back I would miss some of the aspects of the 35is.
I do agree about rarity when I had the MC I knew the location of 2 others , Since I have owned the 35is (15months) I have not seen another , is this a good thing? come sale / trade in I guess not

You miss my point entirely. I'm not saying the E85M is a better car than the E89 35iS. I am saying it is a great shame that BMW haven't developed a modern version of the M for the 1200 or so people that bought one last time, and it's a great shame they are only willing to sell you a turbo when they are perfectly capable of building a clean, high-revving NA engine. The 35iS has sold in miniscule numbers which is presumably why its about to be rebranded as the M35i. What does that tell you? The 35is is a lot of things but an M-car it will never be for reasons I've already listed.

 

[original guvnor]

I think they aim the car (e89) at many segments of the market. ok, its not a practical car like an estate would be, but it is a car that many can use as a daily driver.

Due to this "daily driver" thing, more people will buy the car for its looks, rather than performance.

I love the look of the car, but have never owned a "powerful" car (i.e. 3 litre) so have no desire for one in a Z. Plus, a powerful engine like that probably doesn't tie in with the daily driver bit.

So they've tried to please everyone - right down from the plebs like me who dont really know WHAT a true sportscar is, but love the look of it, right up to the likes of "M" car owners etc.

Could it be said that by aiming at such a "wide" base of drivers, they've diluted the product somewhat so that is isn't such the "sportscar" it might've been?

As for the pricing structure, if it wasn't for the huge discounts earlier in the year, then a lot of people wouldn't have them due to costs. This again goes to dilute things I guess (even though I'm glad of it!). The alternative might be a pure sports car (or proper M) that would be priced higher and for many people not a practical daily car.

Kevin I don't think having a 2-litre up to a high performing M-type car dilutes the Zed at all. In fact I think that's a good thing.

 

[whitez4]

In reply to original guvnor heres one person who went from a Z4MC to an E89 35is , am I dissapointed? , Well I will admit when driven at 10 tenths the MC was a better drive but on a dark winter evening in the p*ssing rain and its been a really sh*tty day at work I can set everything to comfort and not have to focus like an F1 driver so the car doesnt kill me , I guess what I am saying is that the cars do have differant qualities and whilst I might on occassion miss some aspects of my MC , if I swapped back I would miss some of the aspects of the 35is.
I do agree about rarity when I had the MC I knew the location of 2 others , Since I have owned the 35is (15months) I have not seen another , is this a good thing? come sale / trade in I guess not

You miss my point entirely. I'm not saying the E85M is a better car than the E89 35iS. I am saying it is a great shame that BMW haven't developed a modern version of the M for the 1200 or so people that bought one last time, and it's a great shame they are only willing to sell you a turbo when they are perfectly capable of building a clean, high-revving NA engine. The 35iS has sold in miniscule numbers which is presumably why its about to be rebranded as the M35i. What does that tell you? The 35is is a lot of things but an M-car it will never be for reasons I've already listed.

I think (or am pretty convinced) that the introduction of a turbo is down to making a modern car that is also as efficient as it can be - i see no reason why a manufacturer wouldnt want to pursue this, as it has the be the ultimate aim to produce a car that is good all round (power, economy, etc etc). When the 1 series M was announced as a turbo, a lot of M pursits were up in arms, along with some of the press, but when it was released pretty much all of the reviews were very favourable, and there didnt seem to be many complaints about the characteristics as there is hardly any turbo lag and the throttle is very predictable.

You only have to look at the heritage of the M brand to see that it all began with a turbo in the M1, 2002 etc back the early 70s

I love the sound of the engine on the M's, but to be honest not enough to go off the brand just because they are now 4 cylinder turbos.

I had a Z4M for a while (non coupe) before moving to a Z4 coupe, and there were merits for both, but on balance the Z4 coupe suited me more.

 

[original guvnor]

It's more the total lack of choice. Turbo or tough-luck we don't want to sell you a car. The SLK AMG engine, 991 Carrera engine and the new Boxster engine are all cleaner than the 35i turbo too.

 

[original guvnor]

You only have to look at the heritage of the M brand to see that it all began with a turbo in the M1, 2002 etc back the early 70s

It's a minor point but the M1 was normally aspirated. The only turbocharged version was a racing car.