New Z4 problems/issues?

[Maniac]

If anyone thinks the E89 is ugly they should go to Specsavers!
Why all the concern with o - 60 figures, surely mid range performance is the key, is 0.2 seconds difference to 60mph important?

Its a simple way some people measure how one car is better than another. We all know its not the best way to determine how good a car is overall, but on the face of the information, some people arrive at a decision.

I looked at a Porsche Carrera 4S the other day, I drove it, and found it no quicker than my 35i in reality, however, as soon as I mentioned 'Porsche' to a friend, they were all 'wow' 'bet it shames yours' etc (and it didnt)... yet another way people figure one car is better than another overall.

Its sometimes easier in life to just 'whatever' and walk away from some comments...

 

[sars]

E89 30i is 1490 kg unladen weight
E89 35i is 1580 kg unladen weight
E85 30si is 1402 kg unladen weight

BMW unladen weight figures are a bit confusing, because in about 2007 they changed from using kerb weight (without the driver) to unladen EU weight (which includes a 68kg driver and 7kg of luggage).

The correct kerb weights (without the driver ... manual transmission) are:
* E85 3.0si: 1310kg (E86 coupe: 1320kg)
* E89 30i: 1415kg
* E89 35i: 1505kg

>> as for 0 to 60 times the old 30i is slower than the e89 30i to 62 mph but this matches the 30si times

0 to 100km/h Timings
===================
* E85/86 3.0si: 5.7 seconds
* E89 sDrive 30si: 5.8 seconds (0 to 100km/h)

Whatever

No seriously, I just went from the brochures, but maniac is quite correct, it is a pointless argument as you don't just choose your car on its 0 to 60 times. In reality I prefer my 2010 e89 over my old 2006 e85 and there is no argument that you can muster will change that for me.

 

[Anonymous]

It's like Top Trumps in the playground!!!

I remember as a kid we used to look at the speedos on each others dads cars, as the ones who read the highest, was meant to be the fastest car

My dads peugeot 504 was a beast by all accounts!!

 

[shambolic]

Each to their own; i've said it before and will say it time and time again:- Never liked the z3 just couldn't get it all :- thought the zed 4 was an improvement on the zed 3 but would never have dreamt of buying a zed 4 :- went to test drive the new shape 3 series, saw the e89 z4 in the corner of the show room and went 'f@@k me that's gorgeous', all my prissy self righteous mumbo about 'it has to be a rag top to be a convertible' went straight out the window.
If you don't like the new Z fine, you don't like it
As for me if i had an old zed 4 and the chance to change to the new one i'd say OP - Do it!
I think mines great, love the look of it and i haven't stopped being flattered by the number of people who comment on how great it looks, it has a real classic feel to the lines, makes me think longingly of classic jag XK's, Healeys, MGA's and the like, it pays homage to those better than the previous zeds IMO.
I've had a few issues with the car but it is a dream at the moment.
Take one for a test drive for a day and see how you feel when you get back in yours, that'll tell you whether to change or not.
As for Krusty

+2

 

[Breaker]

Butt ugly is a bit harsh.

Well, it has an ugly butt.

The whole design is compromised by having a hard-top roof that opens. The E89 is a compromised car ... unlike the E86 coupe (which is raw and pure) and the E85 roadster (which is raw and pure).

Having owned a 3.0si Coupe for a few years and now an E89 for a few years, the Coupe is a great car and is a bit rawer, but the E89 is a much better car all round!

It's also a lot meaner looking than the Coupe, which now actually looks a little "cute"!

 

[Anonymous]

Cute?

 

[Breaker]

Yes! Look at the front of it compaired to the E89! All little eyed and cute!

My misses pointed that one out!

 

[Anonymous]

I love my E89 Z4, its such a beautiful car, and also very agressive looking, with a longer bonnet than anything short of an SLS...and there is no doubting the beauty and functionality of the interior.

Ok it needs a really good hi fi, and I wish the mirrors folded when you locked the car and the DCT is a little slow to engage into reverse when you're doing a quick 3 point turn and you have other cars waiting....buts that's about it.

I've been working in th midd east for the last 2 weeks, but I can't wait to get back to my car....I really miss it

 

[krusty]

(re coupe) All little eyed and cute!

Yes - I know what you mean about the E86 coupe when viewed from the front ... and do somewhat agree. I don't mind the E89 from the front at all ... quite attractive ... but I do have issues with her rump ... and I think the interesting raw convex/concave play has been lost in the transition from E86 to E89.

[ BTW, when I posted my original comment, I thought I was in the E86 forum ... wasn't trying to stir you all up. ]

 

[mason storm]

I wasn't sure about the new Z4 at first but over time I started to like it more. Agree with the front looks better but also agree the rear looks worse but still Ok. Overall it looks good. In the back of my mind I keep thinking about getting an E89 one day in the future when the prices are better but I do wonder if it will feel too big, but thene again maybe it will be better for every day use. Also I do wonder about reliability long term.

What tax bracket does the 35 come under as this will affect my future decision?

 

[Breaker]

If it's road tax your talking about, at the moment my 35i is in the same road tax bracket as my 3.0si Coupe was.

 

[BlueZ4Arizona]

Butt ugly is a bit harsh.

Well, it has an ugly butt.

The whole design is compromised by having a hard-top roof that opens. The E89 is a compromised car ... unlike the E86 coupe (which is raw and pure) and the E85 roadster (which is raw and pure).

(sigh) They say jealousy rears it's ugly head in many ways.

 

[x Dr Vodka x]

this is so funny because i have seen the exact debates on other forums of cars i have had. The best comparison was the Honda Civic Type R ...... you could literally copy and paste the arguments out of there and paste them in this one, same crap about the old one being "better because" and the new one "not being true to the brand" .... the brands may change but the crap still smells the same

Oh an hello everyone !

 

[Georgio]

Same with all the debates over the series 1 or 2 Elises... :wink:

At the end of the day you pays your money and takes your choice.
Personally I'm hoping to get an E89 around the 20k mark but there's not a lot of choice atm as too many people are hanging onto them. :roll:
But if push comes to shove I'll settle on a 2007/2008 E85 until there's more around to choose from.

 

[Ewazix]

this is so funny because i have seen the exact debates on other forums of cars i have had. The best comparison was the Honda Civic Type R ...... you could literally copy and paste the arguments out of there and paste them in this one, same crap about the old one being "better because" and the new one "not being true to the brand" .... the brands may change but the crap still smells the same

Oh an hello everyone !

I agree, the problem is models follow the same evolutionary path, each incarnation being a little bigger, safer, better equipped & heavier, so needs more power and is less agile. After two or three iterations the maker then introduces a neat, light and agile version fulfilling the original concept, the E89 is growing on me but roll on Z2

......Oh and to answer the OP the only issues I've heard of with the E89 are roof fit and high pressure fuel pumps on early models

 

[BlueZ4Arizona]

this is so funny because i have seen the exact debates on other forums of cars i have had. The best comparison was the Honda Civic Type R ...... you could literally copy and paste the arguments out of there and paste them in this one, same crap about the old one being "better because" and the new one "not being true to the brand" .... the brands may change but the crap still smells the same

Oh an hello everyone !

I agree, the problem is models follow the same evolutionary path, each incarnation being a little bigger, safer, better equipped & heavier, so needs more power and is less agile. After two or three iterations the maker then introduces a neat, light and agile version fulfilling the original concept, the E89 is growing on me but roll on Z2

......Oh and to answer the OP the only issues I've heard of with the E89 are roof fit and high pressure fuel pumps on early models

HPFP issues still persist into the 2011 model year and to my knowledge there has been nothing BMW has done to put an end to the roof fit/noise on any 2009 - 2011 Z4. The solution is to make sure the rubber seals under the back window are cleaned of dirt/grime from time to time.

 

[jaz4]

I sort of feel sorry for Krusty, possibly needs to stick to the other forum or even the Z3 forum. Unsure if the look of the car is an actual problem other than a subjective one in his view (or his lack of want to move with the times).

I never ever saw the point or the look of the coupe, its like ripping a top off a normal car and saying its a convertable by sticking a blanket on. Why oh why design a roadster then bolt a top on it. Come on thats why the removable hard top was made.

The coupe was well to his/ her own.

Now there is no denying that the folding tin top is a bit well sexy and needs must to make that fit.

Like shambolic I never looked or thought of the Z3, I also never got it, a bit like a bat mobile (no offence to Z3 owners). The old Z4 is well looking like last decade (it is nearly 10 years) and even though I have owned 3, I wont have anything said against it. The new one is stunning rump and all, and I do not dilike anything about it, except no cup holders.