What would have made the 35iS a 'true' M car?

[Chris1712]

Just a thought exercise really, what are we missing exactly? Why did they not bestow the 35iS with the M moniker? What exactly are we missing (apart from lower depreciation and £lol servicing costs )

We got a noticeable engine upgrade, I guess not as big a leap as N54 ->S65 as the E92 M3 got. The V8 in that model will go down in history. BUT ofcourse there's less room in the Z4, and the 1M had the same engine which got a 'proper' M badge.

DCT gearbox? Check. In fact the same box as the E92 M3? Different software maybe?

Fruity exhaust? Double check.

Interior uplift? I guess not, but imo the E89 interior is noticeably nicer than the E92 and with some more interesting colour combinations.

Exterior uplift? Marginal, different rear diffuser and stupid silver mirrors. M3 gets a lot more and a fancy carbon roof.

Chassis work? Not sure myself, I believe the only real difference for the 35iS is the adaptive dampers and lower ride height? M3 gets all of the above and a wider track?

 

[mr wilks]

Lightening the roof , a LSD & at least another 70/100bhp

 

[shuey]

Fixed carbon fibre roof
Wider track with wider wheel arches
Obviously at least 50bhp more if not 100bhp (don’t know which engine they could stick in)
4 exhaust pipes
Manual transmission
M style number
LSD
Tuned suspension

That’s what I’d say anyway

Of and loads of m badges everywhere just in case there was any doubt

 

[Fishy Dave]

More track focus to the suspension settings, slight cosmetic differences, an LSD, weight savings and an M specific engine or power output.

 

[Marlon]

Virtually the same bhp and 0-60 as the ZMR/ZMC so all that's missing is this:

 

[john-e89]

Nothing.

The chassis fundamentally flawed, it’d need a complete redesign to make it worth bothering.

 

[GuidoK]

It misses 2 major technical features that have been standard on bmw M products for at least 2 decades:
1. LSD (already mentioned here)
2. Semi floating brake discs (less deformation at high heat)

All the rest like tuned suspension etc (suspension is always tuned..... :wink: :roll: ) is debatable.

 

[Chris1712]

Fixed carbon fibre roof

Hmmmm, not sure. Part of the appeal of the Z4 is the drop top, they did an M3 cab so it's obviously 'approved' for M?

Wider track with wider wheel arches

Agreed, needs dat stance.

Obviously at least 50bhp more if not 100bhp (don’t know which engine they could stick in)

Hmm maybe, M3 is 414hp @ 1655kg (250hp/ton). Later 35iS are reportedly pushing out nearer 360hp @ 1525kg (236hp/ton). Maybe 380hp would be necessary.

4 exhaust pipes

Can't argue with that!

Manual transmission

No thanks Jeff.

M style number
LSD
Tuned suspension

Definitely the missing piece, along with more aggressive styling upgrades.

 

[Marlon]

Nothing.

The chassis fundamentally flawed, it’d need a complete redesign to make it worth bothering.

My comment was tongue in cheek, but you're not joking are you John - why do you think the chassis is fundamentally flawed, I've never driven one you see.

 

[john-e89]

Nothing.

The chassis fundamentally flawed, it’d need a complete redesign to make it worth bothering.

My comment was tongue in cheek, but you're not joking are you John - why do you think the chassis is fundamentally flawed?

Drive one Colin.. :lol:

Imo the Wheelbase is too long and narrow, pick up points will be wrong as a result, plus it has a very soft chassis. It’s designed for cruising, which it does very very well, but adding more power and different springs/dampers etc are papering over the cracks, the thing would need a complete redesign. I don’t want to keep harping on about Boxsters but the simple truth is that Porsche manage to make an extremely stiff chassis yet the ride is supple and exact.

Of course it all depends on what you want an M car to be, add on bits to try and improve what’s there or back to the days of proper M cars.

 

[srhutch]

Engine designation would need to start with an 'S'

 

[Philly_Sweden]

LSD
Brakes
Exhaust

 

[Smartbear]

Nothing.

The chassis fundamentally flawed, it’d need a complete redesign to make it worth bothering.

My comment was tongue in cheek, but you're not joking are you John - why do you think the chassis is fundamentally flawed?

Drive one Colin.. :lol:

Imo the Wheelbase is too long and narrow, pick up points will be wrong as a result, plus it has a very soft chassis. It’s designed for cruising, which it does very very well, but adding more power and different springs/dampers etc are papering over the cracks, the thing would need a complete redesign. I don’t want to keep harping on about Boxsters but the simple truth is that Porsche manage to make an extremely stiff chassis yet the ride is supple and exact.

Of course it all depends on what you want an M car to be, add on bits to try and improve what’s there or back to the days of proper M cars.

Hmm, not sure bout some of those statements?
The e89 has a 1mm longer wheelbase than the e85 & actually has a wider track :?

Rob

 

[GuidoK]

Track width is largely a combination of what ET value the wheels have and the width of the wheels/tyres.

The difference in lenght between e85 and e89 is mostly the overhang past the axles.

 

[Chris1712]

Nothing.

The chassis fundamentally flawed, it’d need a complete redesign to make it worth bothering.

My comment was tongue in cheek, but you're not joking are you John - why do you think the chassis is fundamentally flawed?

Drive one Colin.. :lol:

Imo the Wheelbase is too long and narrow, pick up points will be wrong as a result, plus it has a very soft chassis. It’s designed for cruising, which it does very very well, but adding more power and different springs/dampers etc are papering over the cracks, the thing would need a complete redesign. I don’t want to keep harping on about Boxsters but the simple truth is that Porsche manage to make an extremely stiff chassis yet the ride is supple and exact.

Of course it all depends on what you want an M car to be, add on bits to try and improve what’s there or back to the days of proper M cars.

How can you tell where 'soft chassis' ends and springs / dampers starts? I find the E89 ride is pretty crap tbh, even in comfort mode it's not great. In Sport mode it just feels hard for the sake of hard.

The most noticeable defect for me is the common 'rear end stepping out' sensation on mid corner bumps. It's crap and unnerving, not a loss of grip as such just a weird rotation of the ca.

 

[john-e89]

My comment was tongue in cheek, but you're not joking are you John - why do you think the chassis is fundamentally flawed?

Drive one Colin.. :lol:

Imo the Wheelbase is too long and narrow, pick up points will be wrong as a result, plus it has a very soft chassis. It’s designed for cruising, which it does very very well, but adding more power and different springs/dampers etc are papering over the cracks, the thing would need a complete redesign. I don’t want to keep harping on about Boxsters but the simple truth is that Porsche manage to make an extremely stiff chassis yet the ride is supple and exact.

Of course it all depends on what you want an M car to be, add on bits to try and improve what’s there or back to the days of proper M cars.

Hmm, not sure bout some of those statements?
The e89 has a 1mm longer wheelbase than the e85 & actually has a wider track :?
BBE85C16-D70F-4010-AA42-2D6368716B0E.png
Rob

But why are you comparing it to an E85 Rob? Totally different car mate. Question was what would make the E89 a true M car.

 

[Nictrix]

Drive one Colin.. :lol:

Imo the Wheelbase is too long and narrow, pick up points will be wrong as a result, plus it has a very soft chassis. It’s designed for cruising, which it does very very well, but adding more power and different springs/dampers etc are papering over the cracks, the thing would need a complete redesign. I don’t want to keep harping on about Boxsters but the simple truth is that Porsche manage to make an extremely stiff chassis yet the ride is supple and exact.

Of course it all depends on what you want an M car to be, add on bits to try and improve what’s there or back to the days of proper M cars.

Hmm, not sure bout some of those statements?
The e89 has a 1mm longer wheelbase than the e85 & actually has a wider track :?
BBE85C16-D70F-4010-AA42-2D6368716B0E.png
Rob

But why are you comparing it to an E85 Rob? Totally different car mate. Question was what would make the E89 a true M car.

I would guess its because there was an E85 M car and that people class the E85 as a sports car.

 

[Trav]

It would need anything the 1M had. Which means they would have came with there own car storage pack, to be put away for ten years undriven.

 

[IRD]

Virtually the same bhp and 0-60 as the ZMR/ZMC so all that's missing is this:
m badge.JPG

When I bought mine it already had those badges on it! Ouch! :roll:

 

[Smartbear]

Drive one Colin.. :lol:

Imo the Wheelbase is too long and narrow, pick up points will be wrong as a result, plus it has a very soft chassis. It’s designed for cruising, which it does very very well, but adding more power and different springs/dampers etc are papering over the cracks, the thing would need a complete redesign. I don’t want to keep harping on about Boxsters but the simple truth is that Porsche manage to make an extremely stiff chassis yet the ride is supple and exact.

Of course it all depends on what you want an M car to be, add on bits to try and improve what’s there or back to the days of proper M cars.

Hmm, not sure bout some of those statements?
The e89 has a 1mm longer wheelbase than the e85 & actually has a wider track :?
BBE85C16-D70F-4010-AA42-2D6368716B0E.png
Rob

But why are you comparing it to an E85 Rob? Totally different car mate. Question was what would make the E89 a true M car.

Oops, thought the comparison was against the e85?
My mistake
Rob