Newbie - Z4 or SLK or Cayman ?
- Thread starter Guitarman
- Start date
Guitarman said:Jasey said:£22k will get you a brand new one
https://broadspeed.com/new_cars/BMW/Z4/Choose_Number_Of_Doors/Roadster/
Hey, thanks for that link! Jeez could get a brand new 20i for £22,999, no idea those deals were around, that's really got me thinking!!!
Alternatively £20k deposit on a 35iS will leave you payments of approx £20 a month and GFV of £12k to save up for and pay after 4 years
How's about owners with postive comments post here. I'll start...
I've had 3 E89 (new shape) Z4s now. 2 x 35i and 1 x 35iS.
owned first one for a year. second one for 6 months. and now have the 35iS that i'm planning on keeping for a while as i love it.
Not had any major issues with any of them. had cracked wheels, but they only cost £50 a wheel to repair.
You should go for the 35i as the DCT gearbox is much better than a normal auto.
Out of the cars you're looking at it would the Z4 E89 every time for me. I also looked at the others you mentioned. i also drive my 35iS more than the 2009 911 i have as it's a nice experieince with the roof down.
Stark on here would be able to give you a comparison of the E89 vs. SLK as he's owned both.
I've had 3 E89 (new shape) Z4s now. 2 x 35i and 1 x 35iS.
owned first one for a year. second one for 6 months. and now have the 35iS that i'm planning on keeping for a while as i love it.
Not had any major issues with any of them. had cracked wheels, but they only cost £50 a wheel to repair.
You should go for the 35i as the DCT gearbox is much better than a normal auto.
Out of the cars you're looking at it would the Z4 E89 every time for me. I also looked at the others you mentioned. i also drive my 35iS more than the 2009 911 i have as it's a nice experieince with the roof down.
Stark on here would be able to give you a comparison of the E89 vs. SLK as he's owned both.
Ok plus points on E89. It's a better looking car, proper sports car in my eyes, lovely interior, and the DCT is great, better options
SLK better build quality, more solid, nicer sounding engine as the SLK 350 is a NA V6. The paint colours look better I think personally too against that shape.
SLK better build quality, more solid, nicer sounding engine as the SLK 350 is a NA V6. The paint colours look better I think personally too against that shape.
E89 Negative Points - Cracked Alloys and not that solid a build quality in my eyes
SLK Negative Points - Too much torque to the rear when you take off, too much wind in cabin with roof and windows down, no larger wheel options and shitty poncy dealers, although gorgeous showrooms and facilities, staff and customers up their own arses
SLK Negative Points - Too much torque to the rear when you take off, too much wind in cabin with roof and windows down, no larger wheel options and shitty poncy dealers, although gorgeous showrooms and facilities, staff and customers up their own arses
ronk said:
Couldn't agree more. Had a Toyota Rav 4 and was the worse piece of under-engineered junk I have ever driven. Always started but huge list of other problems and failures including structural cracks. Traded it in for a Landrover Freelander 2 which has been superb. Anyway, back on topic, I would have the Z4 which is why I lurk on here !
Stark said:
E89 build quality is very good at it's price point even at retail. My previous car was a base-model e60 and I was actually considering a new Mercedes after living with all the plastic-ness but the e89 brought me back to staying with BMW. If you constantly drive fast over potholes (or don't dodge the deep ones) then of course you will crack your alloys. If you check in with any garage that repairs alloys they will probably mention that they love BMW drivers but that's only because Audi drivers dodge potholes better and Mercs dampen it down.
All convertibles are like that, I only keep the windows down when I'm driving at 30 or less and this is coming from a guy that puts a tub of wax in his hair (yes you heard right lads, I actually have a full head of hair).
BMW showrooms are more contemporary, all white to showcase the cars. Mercedes showrooms are more corporate, probably more suited to their ideal client. Staff are there to sell and kiss your ass, if you still find a fault then it's probably you that's the problem.
For the price z4 is the best but out of the three Cayman is obviously the best car (add extra £10-£15k though for a model that isn't dated).
imported said:
There wouldn't be a perceived problem if they only cracked after extensive abuse.
We've had two crack and the car is low mileage and the journey patterns the same as the previous SLK.
I don't think build quality is the issue. I think it's design and specification. Which is why we see common inherent problems such as rear light cluster failures, windows, and alloy failures. I suspect the rear disks are underspec'ed too.
My feeling when we switched to our Z4 was that the car looked good but felt cheaper. After three years my feeling is that it is definitely cheaper and that it's aging a bit quicker too. I still don't like the Honda-esque electric steering setup that BMW go for- but I've driven cars that are worse. I think the Z4 looks really good on 19" alloys but I'd not recommend them unless you're prepared to deal with the cracking issue. I'm assuming that BMW have still not solved the rear light cluster problem - so if leaving the car out on the driveway or on the road rather than being able to garage it in wet parts of the country I'd suggest the SLK over the Z4.
While manuals may be preferable and people laud the DCT - the ZF 8 speed autos are very good - and worth considering. It's a pity BMW are moving away from the 6 cylinder petrol engines - as they are sweet - but I guess compared with the diesels that are appearing in so many SLKs that the missing two cylinders on the new engines doesn't seem so bad.
If we were changing our Z4 right now then it would be replaced by an SLK - the Z4 is very pretty and has its good points but our ownership experience has been poorer overall.
Theres some ridiculous cheapie deals on SLKs if you go diesel 
but would agree the E89 looks far far better in the looks dept, the SLK is nice but overly fussy at the front in AMG guise but for me the Cayman over both of them all day long if you value driving. The SLK and E89 are simply not sports cars in the true sense of the word, its down to what you want from the car 
a pleasant sunny cruiser or something more focused.
Would love a Cayman :wub:
Tim.
but would agree the E89 looks far far better in the looks dept, the SLK is nice but overly fussy at the front in AMG guise but for me the Cayman over both of them all day long if you value driving. The SLK and E89 are simply not sports cars in the true sense of the word, its down to what you want from the car a pleasant sunny cruiser or something more focused.Would love a Cayman :wub:
Tim.
I think the E89 has aged badly in the looks department (in my opinion) , it is in desperate need of modernisation hence it was one of the worse selling cars of 2014. If you sat in a new one then sat in a new slk you would instantly see what I mean about 'a superior product' . I am sure when and if a new Z4 arrives it will be a massive leap forward. Obviously looks are subjective but I think the SLK in aggressive and shouty AMG styling looks amazing whereas the Z4 just looks meh...
I totally agree that if you want that true sports car feeling get the Cayman.... Or any E86
I totally agree that if you want that true sports car feeling get the Cayman.... Or any E86