Crown
Board: Other Sports Cars
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
ajcastaneda said:
Hideous, looks like a Civic Sport
E46 version looks much, much better
Have you seen the E90 with no camo? No you haven't. Therefore I find it very weird that you are saying that the E46 version looks better, or maybe you have pictures of the final version which you would liek to share with us?
Re: BMW Z4 M
Hi Steve,
read the article on EVO re the Z4M, would it be possible to have your personal comments regarding the car, given that you tested them all? as far as i understood there seems to be quite a difference between the M and the normal Z4, in particular there does not seem to be that feeling of the nose turning in first and the back following later on. could you confirm that? and do you agree to differences described between the M and you Alpina ?
thanks for you views
read the article on EVO re the Z4M, would it be possible to have your personal comments regarding the car, given that you tested them all? as far as i understood there seems to be quite a difference between the M and the normal Z4, in particular there does not seem to be that feeling of the nose turning in first and the back following later on. could you confirm that? and do you agree to differences described between the M and you Alpina ?
thanks for you views
Re: BMW Z4 M
When I set out to drive the Z4M I had two questions in my mind; would it feel like a Z4 or an M3? And had M Division developed a better car than BMW had been selling up to now?, namely the BMW Alpina Roadster.
The Z4 up until now suffered from two main problems, the EPS steering felt lifeless and it's weighting and un-weighting in a corner felt very artificial (rather like a playstation force feedback wheel), secondly the front and rear axles seemed to operate slightly out of phase exaggerating the feeling of being a long way from the chassis pivot point. The version that Alpina developed and then built with BMW was improved in many of these respects, the steering is heavier and doesn't adjust its weighting when cornering, but the chassis was mainly improved by the fitment of non-runflat tyres. The Alpina that was used in the test was considerably enhanced by the Sport Pack which provides a more dynamically stable platform for cornering but leaves it a little on the firm side if diving on less than smooth road surfaces. The reason why the Z4 feels slightly out of phase when cornering is due to the spring rates used to compensate for the runflat tyres, the springs are very soft at the rear causing quite a lot of geometry change when loading up in a corner. For example, if you measure the alignment on a Z4 without being loaded it's a full 0.5 degrees less than when it's loaded with a passenger and some luggage. That's a lot of variance and this also seems to cause a lot of toe change at the same time.
M Division obviously started with more of a clean sheet although I believe they used the same chassis pick up points as the normal Z4, but the springs, dampers, roll-bars etc are all unique. Although you're still sitting behind the pivot point on the Z4M, it now feels natural and doesn't cause any issues. It doesn't feel like an M3, but then neither does it feel quite like the Z4. Also the steering is now much heavier and more linear although I found it to be a little too heavy and the rack felt slightly damped in its motions. But that's just a minor characteristic that some people wouldn't even notice. Essentially the Z4M now feels 'sorted' whereas before you would drive a Z4 and wonder how BMW had sanctioned such a car that feels so different to the usual BMW DNA. The Z4M no longer tramlines as the old Z4 used to, it rides better even than a Z4 on non-runflats and yet has far better body control, with very little bump steer.
Compared with the Alpina the Z4M feels initially softer, but when we drove them hard around the Nurburgring we found that the Alpina would allow the tyres to make slight contact with the inner wheel arches, whereas the Z4M's initially softer feel became progressively firmer as the load increased. Both Alpina and Z4M have considerably better gear changes than the Z4, a nice mechanical but precise feel, although the Alpina's was slightly better. The engine pick-up in the Alpina reflects the fact that it has 3.4 litres compared to the Z4M's 3.2 litres, but I was impressed by how much more torque the Z4M had compared to the E46 M3. The Z4M pulls harder at the top-end of the revs than the Alpina, and is overally 'slightly' faster, but the Alpina offers a more relaxed feel to a journey, whereas the Z4M offers more rewards at higher speeds. That doesn't make the Z4M highly-strung, just that in contrast to the Alpina it offered a more thrilling characteristic. The Z4M was much more torquey than the Boxster S for example.
Comparing the Alpina and Z4M we preferred the Alpina's steering (slightly), the Alpina's gear change was slightly better, the Z4M's engine had more capabilities and the Z4M's chassis was more accomplished and better developed. Overall the Z4M felt like a very complete car whereas the Alpina felt like a slightly earlier version.
I haven't driven a facelifted non-M Z4 and I understand from speaking with those who have that some of these improvements (ride quality, lack of tramlining) have been passed down the rest of the range, but the Z4M is still a league above the regular Z4s and now one of the best cars to drift that BMW currently makes.
I hope some of that helps.
Steve
The Z4 up until now suffered from two main problems, the EPS steering felt lifeless and it's weighting and un-weighting in a corner felt very artificial (rather like a playstation force feedback wheel), secondly the front and rear axles seemed to operate slightly out of phase exaggerating the feeling of being a long way from the chassis pivot point. The version that Alpina developed and then built with BMW was improved in many of these respects, the steering is heavier and doesn't adjust its weighting when cornering, but the chassis was mainly improved by the fitment of non-runflat tyres. The Alpina that was used in the test was considerably enhanced by the Sport Pack which provides a more dynamically stable platform for cornering but leaves it a little on the firm side if diving on less than smooth road surfaces. The reason why the Z4 feels slightly out of phase when cornering is due to the spring rates used to compensate for the runflat tyres, the springs are very soft at the rear causing quite a lot of geometry change when loading up in a corner. For example, if you measure the alignment on a Z4 without being loaded it's a full 0.5 degrees less than when it's loaded with a passenger and some luggage. That's a lot of variance and this also seems to cause a lot of toe change at the same time.
M Division obviously started with more of a clean sheet although I believe they used the same chassis pick up points as the normal Z4, but the springs, dampers, roll-bars etc are all unique. Although you're still sitting behind the pivot point on the Z4M, it now feels natural and doesn't cause any issues. It doesn't feel like an M3, but then neither does it feel quite like the Z4. Also the steering is now much heavier and more linear although I found it to be a little too heavy and the rack felt slightly damped in its motions. But that's just a minor characteristic that some people wouldn't even notice. Essentially the Z4M now feels 'sorted' whereas before you would drive a Z4 and wonder how BMW had sanctioned such a car that feels so different to the usual BMW DNA. The Z4M no longer tramlines as the old Z4 used to, it rides better even than a Z4 on non-runflats and yet has far better body control, with very little bump steer.
Compared with the Alpina the Z4M feels initially softer, but when we drove them hard around the Nurburgring we found that the Alpina would allow the tyres to make slight contact with the inner wheel arches, whereas the Z4M's initially softer feel became progressively firmer as the load increased. Both Alpina and Z4M have considerably better gear changes than the Z4, a nice mechanical but precise feel, although the Alpina's was slightly better. The engine pick-up in the Alpina reflects the fact that it has 3.4 litres compared to the Z4M's 3.2 litres, but I was impressed by how much more torque the Z4M had compared to the E46 M3. The Z4M pulls harder at the top-end of the revs than the Alpina, and is overally 'slightly' faster, but the Alpina offers a more relaxed feel to a journey, whereas the Z4M offers more rewards at higher speeds. That doesn't make the Z4M highly-strung, just that in contrast to the Alpina it offered a more thrilling characteristic. The Z4M was much more torquey than the Boxster S for example.
Comparing the Alpina and Z4M we preferred the Alpina's steering (slightly), the Alpina's gear change was slightly better, the Z4M's engine had more capabilities and the Z4M's chassis was more accomplished and better developed. Overall the Z4M felt like a very complete car whereas the Alpina felt like a slightly earlier version.
I haven't driven a facelifted non-M Z4 and I understand from speaking with those who have that some of these improvements (ride quality, lack of tramlining) have been passed down the rest of the range, but the Z4M is still a league above the regular Z4s and now one of the best cars to drift that BMW currently makes.
I hope some of that helps.
Steve
Re: BMW Z4 M
thanks Steve, sounds excellent to me!
I guess that in dynamic terms the gap between the Boxster and the M has narrowed considerably too, with the P being more nimble because of its midengine concept. but that's how it's meant to be.
thanks again, your input is very much appreciated!
cheers
I guess that in dynamic terms the gap between the Boxster and the M has narrowed considerably too, with the P being more nimble because of its midengine concept. but that's how it's meant to be.
thanks again, your input is very much appreciated!
cheers
Re: BMW Z4 M
The Boxster S we drove was fitted with PASM and I wasn't too happy with it, in the softer 'normal' mode the dampers felt a little slow compared with the springs, so from a driving standpoint you had to put it in 'sport', which was much better but lost some of the compliance that is often admired in the Boxster.
I used to own a Boxster S myself (a 986) and whilst the 987 was better it still felt like the car was designed to be more talented than the driver. The Boxster doesn't respond so keenly to the drivers' efforts, so whether you be talented or not you can still drive a Boxster S quickly. It feels a little 'sterile' in comparison to the Z4M. Also, being a past 911 owner the Boxster always feels like it's been designed down to a price-point. The 911 by comparison feels like Porsche have let the reigns off and it's as good as it can possibly be. It's a small difference but in my experience it makes the 911 a far more enduring ownership proposition. I would always choose a 911 rather than a Boxster.
I've heard people describe the Boxster as being "in a different league" to other cars (including something like the Z4M) and I always feel those are the words of someone that doesn't know how to test it's limits. The Boxster can actually become quite twitchy if you drive it anything less than smoothly and it certainly isn't very playful. The Z4M is 95% as competent (i.e. safe and balanced for the average driver), but has deeper reserves (i.e. more characters that it can convey) and is playful. A bit like a 911 in terms of it's character quotient when compared with the Boxster.
We coined an expression during the test that both cars drove exactly as they looked; the Boxster looks very smooth, flowing and well-rounded and that's how it drives. The Z4M looks edgy, with character and flair and that's how it drives too. Each will suit a particular type of driver and therefore it's not really relevant to conclude either as a winner. It's all down to personal taste.
I used to own a Boxster S myself (a 986) and whilst the 987 was better it still felt like the car was designed to be more talented than the driver. The Boxster doesn't respond so keenly to the drivers' efforts, so whether you be talented or not you can still drive a Boxster S quickly. It feels a little 'sterile' in comparison to the Z4M. Also, being a past 911 owner the Boxster always feels like it's been designed down to a price-point. The 911 by comparison feels like Porsche have let the reigns off and it's as good as it can possibly be. It's a small difference but in my experience it makes the 911 a far more enduring ownership proposition. I would always choose a 911 rather than a Boxster.
I've heard people describe the Boxster as being "in a different league" to other cars (including something like the Z4M) and I always feel those are the words of someone that doesn't know how to test it's limits. The Boxster can actually become quite twitchy if you drive it anything less than smoothly and it certainly isn't very playful. The Z4M is 95% as competent (i.e. safe and balanced for the average driver), but has deeper reserves (i.e. more characters that it can convey) and is playful. A bit like a 911 in terms of it's character quotient when compared with the Boxster.
We coined an expression during the test that both cars drove exactly as they looked; the Boxster looks very smooth, flowing and well-rounded and that's how it drives. The Z4M looks edgy, with character and flair and that's how it drives too. Each will suit a particular type of driver and therefore it's not really relevant to conclude either as a winner. It's all down to personal taste.
Re: BMW Z4 M
Straight line performance is great, over two seconds faster from 0-200 kph (125 mph) than the Boxster S. But if you're looking at the other side of the medal, handling performance, the Boxster S beats the Z4 M without a sweat.
I just read a very interesting comparison review between the Z4 M, SLK55 AMG and Boxster S. Although the Boxster S was around 0.5 seconds slowlier from 0-100 kph (62 mph) and between 2 and 3 seconds from 0-200 kph (125 mph), handling performance was superior and not by a small margin.
I just read a very interesting comparison review between the Z4 M, SLK55 AMG and Boxster S. Although the Boxster S was around 0.5 seconds slowlier from 0-100 kph (62 mph) and between 2 and 3 seconds from 0-200 kph (125 mph), handling performance was superior and not by a small margin.
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
But if you're looking at the other side of the medal, handling performance, the Boxster S beats the Z4 M without a sweat..
That's just not what we found at all. We drove them hard around the Nurburgring extending them, experiencing them break away and how balanced they remained through the fast and undulating sections. We found the Boxster to be 'slightly' easier to drive, remaining more poised and balanced particularly through fast left-right-left S-bends but the Z4M didn't feel less capable really - just different.
In a very similar way that a 997 would feel different to a Boxster S, that doesn't make it the poorer car.
Re: BMW Z4 M
I thought that article was pretty poor, because they hardly commented on the driving dynamics of the cars. just the contrary of the EVO and Steve's review. Further, if i remember correctly, the Boxster was fitted with 19 wheels and carbon brakes.
I look forward to an ams, sportauto or quattroruote test of the z4M.
I look forward to an ams, sportauto or quattroruote test of the z4M.
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
luwalira said:Quote:
ajcastaneda said:
Hideous, looks like a Civic Sport
E46 version looks much, much better
Have you seen the E90 with no camo? No you haven't. Therefore I find it very weird that you are saying that the E46 version looks better, or maybe you have pictures of the final version which you would liek to share with us?
I'm almost certain I will be echoing these same sentiments when official press photos become available.
Re: BMW Z4 M
As promised here are a few pictures of the Z4MCoupe that I took delivery of this week. I was involved in another comparison test in a UK magazine recently, this time comparing the Z4M Coupe with a Cayman S and from this experience I decided (just) to choose the Z4M Coupe to join my collection of cars.
My car has several 'essential' upgrades; the standard Continentals are junked and replaced with Michelin PS2s on 19" OEM CSL wheels. It also receives a BMW strut brace and side skirts from the Z4 Accessories catalogue. Changing the tyres makes a big difference to the handling balance of the chassis, and the strut brace provides more positive feel to the steering. It is now a very quick and enjoyable car to drive along the twisties and not bad to look at either..
Anyway, here are the pics, I can provide some driving impressions over the next few days.
My car has several 'essential' upgrades; the standard Continentals are junked and replaced with Michelin PS2s on 19" OEM CSL wheels. It also receives a BMW strut brace and side skirts from the Z4 Accessories catalogue. Changing the tyres makes a big difference to the handling balance of the chassis, and the strut brace provides more positive feel to the steering. It is now a very quick and enjoyable car to drive along the twisties and not bad to look at either..
Anyway, here are the pics, I can provide some driving impressions over the next few days.
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
Byron said:
How does it feel driving?
It reminds me very much of the 993 C2 I used to own. It has that same 'solid' and unbreakable feel that seemed lost when the 911 evolved into the 996. It's quick (the same as a 997), and with the more suitable Michelin PS2 tyres and slightly wider footprint it is now entirely predictable and great fun to take up to and over its limits. It has so much grip and composure that it's very hard to unsettle at road speeds, so it's easy to drive quickly without trying but also rewards when you want some more involvement.
Brakes are better than most BMW's as standard and it sounds much better than the same engine used to in an M3. Overall it's not quite as quick as the CSL, but the torque is produced lower in the revs and therefore it remains pretty effortless.
My expectations were pretty modest for this car. After being involved in several magazine reviews comparing it against the Cayman, I knew there were a few shortcomings and I hoped that a few alterations from within BMW's accessories catalogue might just make the difference. I'm glad to find that I was right.
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
SteveD said:Quote:
Byron said:
How does it feel driving?
It reminds me very much of the 993 C2 I used to own. It has that same 'solid' and unbreakable feel that seemed lost when the 911 evolved into the 996. It's quick (the same as a 997), and with the more suitable Michelin PS2 tyres and slightly wider footprint it is now entirely predictable and great fun to take up to and over its limits. It has so much grip and composure that it's very hard to unsettle at road speeds, so it's easy to drive quickly without trying but also rewards when you want some more involvement.
Brakes are better than most BMW's as standard and it sounds much better than the same engine used to in an M3. Overall it's not quite as quick as the CSL, but the torque is produced lower in the revs and therefore it remains pretty effortless.
My expectations were pretty modest for this car. After being involved in several magazine reviews comparing it against the Cayman, I knew there were a few shortcomings and I hoped that a few alterations from within BMW's accessories catalogue might just make the difference. I'm glad to find that I was right.
Thank you very much...in fact your impressions a pretty near of what I thougth before. Years ago I had a 993, and was absolute fun to drive. I seriously considered a Z4 M (cabrio), but I'll wait to see the R8 (or R10). In any case, I like the Z4 very much...maybe is the first time I like a BMW....of course, since the M1 old days (What a masterpiece!)
I hope you'll enjoy such a beauty very much!
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
zoltan said:
I had a chance to drive Z4 Coupe 3.0 and noticed that it was a little nervous at the front end in high speeds. Does it feel the same with the M version?
BTW do you think that a little more negative front canber would help?
When I tested the Z4MC against the Cayman S in a recent UK magazine I found the Z4MC to be quite nervous as I approached 170mph, but the Cayman was probably worse.
Camber would not make much difference, but perhaps a little more front toe-in would provide a little more stability.
The Z4 3.0i is very different partly because it uses an electronic power steering system and partly because of the run-flat tyres, the M in my experience is a much more stable car to drive with none of the steering kick-back that you get in the lesser models.
Re: BMW Z4 M
...It's quick (the same as a 997).......and it sounds much better than the same engine used to in an M3....the torque is produced lower.
Do you mean as fast as C2S or as a C2?
Are there any differences regardind the mapping of M3? I thought that it was exact the same engine (S54) wihtout any changes..
Re: BMW Z4 M
Quote:
zoltan said:
Do you mean as fast as C2S or as a C2?
Are there any differences regardind the mapping of M3? I thought that it was exact the same engine (S54) wihtout any changes..
I meant the C2 (i.e. the quickest Z4Ms have been tested at 10.8s to 100mph), the C2S is more like CSL pace.
Although the Z4M uses the same basic S54 engine as the M3, BMW have clearly remapped it because my old M3 never pulled as cleanly and strongly as the engine in my Z4MC. It also uses a completely different looking air intake chamber, and its much smoother than the M3 engine used to be with no tappety noises whatsoever.
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
