Motor Trend comparison test..........

[BlueZ4AZ]

Originally Posted by SHADOW4

I hope my 35i will be as fast as that. But realistic, do you really belive that?

The only documented figures i've seen is 5,1 sec 0-60.

Whatever figure is right it's more than enough between the redlights.

What's not to believe?
During the Car of the Year competition, they strapped the equipment to the car. They ran it from 0-60 as fast as they could. When M/T was finished and the car hit 60 mph, the clock said 4.3 . This was with the 35i with DCT. There are always going to be variables with every run. R/T ran it in 4.7. thee must have been some variables that made the car .4 seconds slower. M/T ran the 35i with 6 speed in this recent Roadster comparison test and got a 4.7 We now have 3 documented and proven times that are much faster than conservative 5.0 and 5.1 figures BMW published. (5.0 for DCT and 5.1 for manual). We can throw these 5.x times out. It has been proven without a doubt the car is fatser than that.

Every other published time of 5.0 or 5.1 you see is simply everyone else quoting the conservative BMW figure, because whoever is publishing the time does not have the technology to do an accurate 0-60 run themselves, like R&T and M/T did.

[BlueZ4AZ]

I briefly read the M/T comparison on-line, and checked out the photos.

Is it just me or do the Boxster S and Audi TTS body styles look extremently out-dated when sitting next to both the Z4 and the 370Z?

The Boxster S is just plain tired looking.

Hard to believe Porsche gets away with doing nothing more than minor front and rear facia changes over a 13 year period.

This 2nd generation TTS looks more outated than the original.

[richard in NC]

I also read the comparison. Oddly, that is THE FIRST article stating the Boxter has a better ride than the Z4. Did they even check the tire pressures before they drove the Z4? Everything they say points to over inflated tires. I have found the Z4 ride in normal mode to be fine. Over a real pot-holed surface, the runflats are noticeable and can cause suspension crashing, but overall, the ride is quite good. I didn't test drive a Boxter recently but every other report calls it more harsh.

[Marc45]

Let's face it, everyone here either has a Z4 or wants one and is a fan.

The Z4 isn't the best handling car I've owned, that would be the Elise.

It's not the most powerful, that would be my Maserati.

It's not the most fun to drive, that would be either the Elise or my old RX-7.

It certainly can't carry as much crap as my truck.

However, it works really, really well, I can carry more than myself, I don't have to take it 200 miles to get it serviced, it's reliable and quick and it's got the coolest convertible roof. Beyond that, everything else is subjective.

I looked at Porsches for a while but I wanted something a bit different.

Having owned a bunch of sports cars, any 0-60 under 5.5 secs is plenty for driving on the roads. On the track, it's a different story. Few people ever drive their street car on the racetrack so when a magazine talks about how fast it is on the track, it's kind of meaningless. I've found the Z4 to be really good around town. A Viper is faster but have you ever tried to drive one to the grocery store? If I was buying a track car, I would definitely get something different.

[SHADOW4]

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

What's not to believe?
During the Car of the Year competition, they strapped the equipment to the car. They ran it from 0-60 as fast as they could. When M/T was finished and the car hit 60 mph, the clock said 4.3 . This was with the 35i with DCT. There are always going to be variables with every run. R/T ran it in 4.7. thee must have been some variables that made the car .4 seconds slower. M/T ran the 35i with 6 speed in this recent Roadster comparison test and got a 4.7 We now have 3 documented and proven times that are much faster than conservative 5.0 and 5.1 figures BMW published. (5.0 for DCT and 5.1 for manual). We can throw these 5.x times out. It has been proven without a doubt the car is fatser than that.

Every other published time of 5.0 or 5.1 you see is simply everyone else quoting the conservative BMW figure, because whoever is publishing the time does not have the technology to do an accurate 0-60 run themselves, like R&T and M/T did.

Ok, 4,3 sec 0-60 would be a very good sales argument and BMW should have the means to get a correct reading. That is why i choose not to belive the MT figures. If i'm wrong, well that's really good. I have driven my first 5 km today very carefully and i can only say

Didn't mean to offend you.

[richard in NC]

Re the 4.3 vs 5.0 seconds to 60, I think its just a different way of looking at things. BMW advertises times that the average driver can reproduce, (I think) given at least some skills on launching high powered cars. OTOH, many magazines attempt to find the absolute fastest its possible for the car to accelerate, given a professional driver and many attempts. This usually involves abusing a car beyond what any owner is likely to do, at least not more than a few times. Other magazines also correct for temperature and altitude, saying for example that "the car did 4.5 seconds at 1000ft, therefore it SHOULD be 4.3 seconds at sea level and 60 degrees. Therefore, the car may not have actually ever achieved such a number.

Now, back to the Z4. I could probably go out and do 5.0 sec 0-60 MPH all day long, no problem. Maybe even a 4.8, given the DCT. But to do 4.3, I'd have to drive to the beach in the spring or fall only, find the perfect strip, set launch control, and destroy a set of tires by the time I can do a 4.3. If the clutch in the DCT holds up to that is anyone's guess.

[BlueZ4AZ]

Originally Posted by richard in NC

Re the 4.3 vs 5.0 seconds to 60, I think its just a different way of looking at things. BMW advertises times that the average driver can reproduce, (I think) given at least some skills on launching high powered cars. OTOH, many magazines attempt to find the absolute fastest its possible for the car to accelerate, given a professional driver and many attempts. This usually involves abusing a car beyond what any owner is likely to do, at least not more than a few times. Other magazines also correct for temperature and altitude, saying for example that "the car did 4.5 seconds at 1000ft, therefore it SHOULD be 4.3 seconds at sea level and 60 degrees. Therefore, the car may not have actually ever achieved such a number.

Now, back to the Z4. I could probably go out and do 5.0 sec 0-60 MPH all day long, no problem. Maybe even a 4.8, given the DCT. But to do 4.3, I'd have to drive to the beach in the spring or fall only, find the perfect strip, set launch control, and destroy a set of tires by the time I can do a 4.3. If the clutch in the DCT holds up to that is anyone's guess.

You make some good points. However, important too, is that if we are going to compare one car to another, to determione which is really the faster car 0-60 mph, we want to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. For example, to compare the conservative 5.0 for the
Z4 that BMW publishes, to the fastest published Boxster S with PDK time of 4.x would not be a fair comparison. And vise-versa, since Porsche publishes an equally conservative 4.9 for the Boxster S.

Comparing apple to apple test runs with as many variables eliminated, is the only way to get to the correct answer to the question: "Which car is faster 0-60?"

For the purposes of comparing 0-60 for the Z4 vs Boxster S, this recent Roadster comparison is the first I know of that actually puts the 2 cars on the same course on the same day, eliminating as many variables as possible. They used the Z4 6 Speed vs the Boxster S 6 speed. The Boxster S was .2 faster. So we know for sure the Porsche S 6 speed is faster than the Z4 6 speed.

What we still don't know is if the Z4 with DCT is faster than the Boxster S with PDK. I just wish they had run the DCT vs PDK. With these transmissions, there is little to no variable to factor in for driver error, so the test would have been conclusive. Until that happens we can only guess which is really faster.

Another way to put it is......I am not that interested in the actual 0-60 time my car can run on any given day, which we know can vary based on a number of factors (like temperature, etc). I am interested knowing if my car is faster than a Boxster S (or any car for that matter) in a side by side race to 60 mph on the same day at the same place. ..and since I don't want to get a speeding ticket racing the next 2010 Boxster S I see on the road, I can rely ONLY on M/T or some other car magazine to give me the answer I need.

[Vintage]

i think all this speed talk is nice but I am not obsessed with 0-60 (even though our car has been modded a bit). the 35i is really fast by any standard and no, it is not nearly the fastest sled around. we spent almost $70k US on a heavily loaded 35i; my wife encouraged this expenditure, and I gladly agreed, because she thinks it is the best looking, most timeless design around + it has modern amenities and really good driving qualities. this is not mention that she always wants a 2 door convertible from Germany

[BlueZ4AZ]

Originally Posted by SHADOW4

Ok, 4,3 sec 0-60 would be a very good sales argument and BMW should have the means to get a correct reading. That is why i choose not to belive the MT figures. If i'm wrong, well that's really good. I have driven my first 5 km today very carefully and i can only say

Didn't mean to offend you.

No offense taken. But you have not answered the question. What is it specifically that makes you think the 4.3 is inacurate? Why put more belief in the BMW figure over the M/T figure? It would seem BMW would have the motivation to provide a faster figure, not M/T.

M/T ran 20 other cars that same day 0-60 mph in the Car of the Year comparison. How are we supposed to interpret the other 19 results? Do we discount all the results that did not match the manufacturer's belief about how fast their car is, regardless of whether it was over or under their published time? Do we accept as an accurate test run, only those that match the time the manufacturer has already published? Do we throw out just those results that did not meet our own personal pre-conceived notion of how fast that car ought to run it's 0-60 time? Do we throw out all 20 results, because we happen to believe the results from one car is so far off, that therefore the whole day should be considered a wash? If that is the case, then should we throw out all the 1000's of test runs M/T has done over the past 30+ years?

I'm just trying to get a feel for the thought process.

[BlueZ4AZ]

Originally Posted by VintageBMW

i think all this speed talk is nice but I am not obsessed with 0-60 (even though our car has been modded a bit). the 35i is really fast by any standard and no, it is not nearly the fastest sled around. we spent almost $70k US on a heavily loaded 35i; my wife encouraged this expenditure, and I gladly agreed, because she thinks it is the best looking, most timeless design around + it has modern amenities and really good driving qualities. this is not mention that she always wants a 2 door convertible from Germany

I just happen to find the topic of 0-60 times much more interesting than say...... the "Floor Mats Moving" post from a week or ago, which I chose not to chime in on, exciting as that topic may have been for others

[Vintage]

look, i have launch controlled the car once and it was wicked fast - i guess what i am really saying is that there is always a faster car; i love the cayman/boxster S, but it does not look nearly as good as the Z4 and i have driven them all on a track day - give me the Z4

[SHADOW4]

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

No offense taken. But you have not answered the question. What is it specifically that makes you think the 4.3 is inacurate? Why put more belief in the BMW figure over the M/T figure? It would seem BMW would have the motivation to provide a faster figure, not M/T.

English isn't my mother language so maby i missunderstood the whole thing.

I think I have answered the questions: 4,3 sec 0-60 would be a very good sales argument and BMW should have the means to get a correct reading. That is why i choose not to belive the MT figures.

I even think you answered the question with the same thoughts: It would seem BMW would have the motivation to provide a faster figure, not M/T.

So why does BMW choose 5,1 if the car is able to do 4,3?

For example in the aviation industry all figures and limits regarding performance is are documented with highly experienced test pilots under the best environmental circumstances. For example braking distances are set on a very clean surface, new brakes, new tires and so on.............

I know that here in Sweden som motorcycle brands choose to publish a much lower BHP and top speed than the real figures to keep the insurance costs down for the buyers.

But I have never heard that about cars (in Sweden) except Bentley that says "adequate".

Anyway I now have a good subitute for my long gone Camaro SS 1967 that i sold a long time ago and still have some sleepless nights thinking Why? Why the f*ck did i sell it?

BR
Shadow

[juhap]

It all started back when 335i came out with the same N54 engine, and BMW realized they'd made it so fast that it would cannibalize M3 sales (because some people will just look at the numbers instead of the whole package). So they decided to lie a little about the numbers, and now they're stuck with that lie.

Probably not true, but it's an entertaining theory...

[SHADOW4]

Originally Posted by juhap

It all started back when 335i came out with the same N54 engine, and BMW realized they'd made it so fast that it would cannibalize M3 sales (because some people will just look at the numbers instead of the whole package). So they decided to lie a little about the numbers, and now they're stuck with that lie.

Probably not true, but it's an entertaining theory...

I got mine because of the looks, the figures was just a + (5,1) and (4,3) is then a great bonus. I would have bought mine even at 7,1.

And that is all I have to say about that.

Now i'm going to enjoy!

[juhap]

Originally Posted by SHADOW4

I would have bought mine even at 7,1.

Well then you should've bought the s23i instead

[SHADOW4]

Originally Posted by juhap

Well then you should've bought the s23i instead

That was exactly what i told the dealer, best value for money.

I'm so vain................

[BlueZ4AZ]

Originally Posted by SHADOW4

English isn't my mother language so maby i missunderstood the whole thing.

I think I have answered the questions: 4,3 sec 0-60 would be a very good sales argument and BMW should have the means to get a correct reading. That is why i choose not to belive the MT figures.

I even think you answered the question with the same thoughts: It would seem BMW would have the motivation to provide a faster figure, not M/T.

So why does BMW choose 5,1 if the car is able to do 4,3?


BR
Shadow

I'll clarify what I meant:

If it were reversed and BMW were publishing the 4.3 and M/T ran a 5.0, then I would question the validity of BMW time of 4.3.

BUT, it is the other way around, and M/T (a neutral party) actually tested the car at 4.3, and BMW posted the 5.0.

BMW has every motivation to to shave a few 10th off the 0-60 time, as that would SELL MORE Z4s.

There is no motivation for M/T to shave any 10ths of a seconds off the time, as they are a neutral party. There is NOTHING to gain for M/T.
M/T actually has everything to LOSE including their reputation, if they did alter the test figures. So, they have every motivation to report the figures exactly as the test run came out.

Therefore, the M/T time of 4.3 is very believable, as well as the other 19 test runs they did on every other car that same day.

Were all the conditions ideal? Probably so. Was it a professional driver with awesome skills? Yes. All the more reason to believe they hit 4.3.

[SHADOW4]

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

I'll clarify what I meant:

If it were reversed and BMW were publishing the 4.3 and M/T ran a 5.0, then I would question the validity of BMW time of 4.3.

BUT, it is the other way around, and M/T (a neutral party) actually tested the car at 4.3, and BMW posted the 5.0.

BMW has every motivation to to shave a few 10th off the 0-60 time, as that would SELL MORE Z4s.

There is no motivation for M/T to shave any 10ths of a seconds off the time, as they are a neutral party. There is NOTHING to gain for M/T.
M/T actually has everything to LOSE including their reputation, if they did alter the test figures. So, they have every motivation to report the figures exactly as the test run came out.

Therefore, the M/T time of 4.3 is very believable, as well as the other 19 test runs they did on every other car that same day.

Were all the conditions ideal? Probably so. Was it a professional driver with awesome skills? Yes. All the more reason to believe they hit 4.3.

I hear you, that also makes sence.

I have only driven 35 km so far and all in D. I can feel the beast under the hood and the car is like a Centurion tank on ballet shoes with an set of Atlas rocket engines. A fantastic feeling.

Live well and prosperious!

[bobbydog]

Originally Posted by juhap

It all started back when 335i came out with the same N54 engine, and BMW realized they'd made it so fast that it would cannibalize M3 sales (because some people will just look at the numbers instead of the whole package). So they decided to lie a little about the numbers, and now they're stuck with that lie.

Probably not true, but it's an entertaining theory...

I was thinking about this too. BMW comes out with a N55 single turbo engine with the same HP/TQ as the N54 twin turbo for 2011 3 series but keeps the N54 for the Z4 35i and a boosted version for the 35is. They did this so they can differentiate the regular series and the M since the new M3 will surely be a twin turbo I6 engine.

[enigma01]

Originally Posted by flpnout

IMHO, if you are an inexperienced racer or just getting into sports car, go with Porsche for precise handling that will help you. If you are more experienced and enjoy pushing a sports car to the limits and can skillfully handle it, then go for the Z4.

both cars are fun either way. Big aesthetic difference!

This is not accurate at all. If you put the Z4 35i and the Boxster in the hands of professional drivers on a track, the Boxster wins hands down. There is no contest.

The e89 is a good street car, but don't take it to track to compete with the P-cars.

[alan64]

Originally Posted by VintageBMW

look, i have launch controlled the car once and it was wicked fast - i guess what i am really saying is that there is always a faster car; i love the cayman/boxster S, but it does not look nearly as good as the Z4 and i have driven them all on a track day - give me the Z4

if you want fast, I had a z06 that was nuts. I had an opportunity to try out the zr1 corvette. Its not fast, its beyond fast, its completey scary. I decided against buying it because I thought for sure I would kill myself in it as im getting older and reflexes arent what they used to be.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by alan64

if you want fast, I had a z06 that was nuts. I had an opportunity to try out the zr1 corvette. Its not fast, its beyond fast, its completey scary. I decided against buying it because I thought for sure I would kill myself in it as im getting older and reflexes arent what they used to be.

agreed and oh yea - what about a Viper, what a fast piece of _______