Do you really like the way your Z4 handles?

[John B]

Having taken delivery of my car on launch day it has been with me as long as anyone in the UK. Although I was not able to test drive before ordering, I knew that the design and spec was my "ideal" within a price bracket. Except - I have to admit (not always easy after spending £35,000) that the handling on anything but perfect surfaces requires far too much concentration and minor adjustments to be made to the steering. Yesterday we travelled through Warks. & Worcs. on mostly A & B roads within the speed limits. The car constantly "jigs" around being upset by the slightest imperfection in the road surface. It is all too easy to be taken into a kerb or even worse to set up for a bend and find the car follows a line of its own. I know that this can be attributed to the run flats but why should it be necessary to spend £100s on changing tyres just to convert to a "proper BMW? We also have a 1 Series (also runflats) which is far more predictable and in fact inspires more confidence through the "twisties". As far as I am aware the "1" doesn't have electronic servo steering which I find on the Z4 to be far too "vague" in a straight line.
Otherwise I love my Z4!

[Giles]

You describe exactly the opposite of everything I experienced in the 2.2 Z4 I had the pleasure of driving for a week or so last May. The car was one of the best handling I have ever driven.

I also took out Simmers 3.0 and whilst I didn't drive this in quite the same manner of the 2.2 BMW courtesy car I can say that it's responsiveness felt similarly excellent. Simmers car was running 18" alloys.

[Robin]

Maybe the disparity you are referring to is down to experiences on two different road surfaces. My 2.8 was nervous & skippy & tramlined very badly on worn rutted road surfaces but was well behaved on really smooth roads.
In fact I was amazed how much better my Mondeo at a third of the price of the Z3, coped with bad surfaces far better than my 2.8, but I won't mention that
Having said that, I thought the Z4 was supposed be free from the vices of the 'non ///M' Z3's.
Run flats do have very hard sidewalls.
I didn't have those on my 2.8 but when I switched to F1's with softer side walls than the dunlops, the tramling on poor surfaces was reduced. I hate to think what my 2.8 would have been like with run flats

[John B]

Just to clarify - I find the Z4 by far the best car I have ever driven regarding sheer performance and ultimate road holding. I am referring more to pottering along at 50-60 on the usual mix of surfaces found on country A & B roads. The steering is so easily taken by the slightest rut in the tarmac. It must be the runflats as those who have changed (particularly in the US) have reported a much improved driving experience. I have way too much tread left otherwise I might replace with F1s.

[Giles]

Run flats obviously have very tough sidewalls. I know that SO3's are reported to tramline and these tyres also have a more rigid sidewall than for example F1s.

Looks like you've found your answer then John - all you need to do is get on a track day to wear out those darn runflats

[M Blur]

You describe exactly the opposite of everything I experienced in the 2.2 Z4 I had the pleasure of driving for a week or so last May. The car was one of the best handling I have ever driven.

I don't think any Zed has or will ever be described as "best handling" Giles.. Perhaps the unavoidable comparison to Charlotte leant a heavy bias in your conclusion (which is only natural) as I have no doubt the Z4 drives with far better manners than prev' Zeds... albeit still in an old fashioned manner compared to say the dynamically excellent Boxster.

[Giles]

I don't think any Zed has or will ever be described as "best handling" Giles..

Yes it has - I've just done it! (Or to be precise I said ONE of the best...)

..as I have no doubt the Z4 drives with far better manners than prev' Zeds... albeit still in an old fashioned manner compared to say the dynamically excellent Boxster.

Preach when you have experienced Jon - there's a good chap

[M Blur]

Preach when you have experienced Jon - there's a good chap

Ahh opinions Giles.. Funny ol' things them - ergo I haven't driven a Zed4 so cannot comment.. maybe you have a pt there.

I drove my bro-in-law's 2.5 Boxster some years back but not a Z4 and so I cannot make an up to date comparison, granted.

However I've read enough Z4 comparisons and test drives to build up at least a rounded idea. For the record - do you now want to say the Z4 handles/rides better than the Boxster, S2000, SLK or even an MX5 for that matter?

Whythen few outside BMW circles seem to confirm the class-leading dynamics (inc a few mag long-termers) you appear to have found. Is this an anti-BMW conspiracy being led by Jezza 'the Jabba' Clarkson.?

Don't get me wrong the Z4 is truly a lovely car and a lovely open-top 'cruiser' and far more accomplished than the ZM (Jeff H's club mag write up showed as much), particuarly the Roadster (S50 o S54).

However i.r.o an S2000 or Boxster I have no doubts that for the money the Zed remains a flawed gem. It's lovely but I've seen enough quotes with regard to 'rear-steer', vauge straight ahead and crashy ride to be confident that some of the old traits still remain. Of course it's way better than a Z3 but the prb being is that the Zed4 isn't here to compete with the preceeding Z3 but 2005's pricier class leading cars from Honda, Porsche.. and now Mercedes.

BUT I take on board your comments in the solidarity they were intended & for my part I'll arrange a Z4 test drive ASAP so I'm not accused of shovelling BS in future when proposing an honest observation. I only suggested that the Z4 may have felt such a revelation i.r.o your Z3 experiences in Charlotte. The same may be true of other ex-Z3 now Z4 owners who have not driven many cars outwith the BMW marque for some time. Imagine what a Boxster would have felt like (.. other than underpowered.. ) in the same circumstances. I only propose this as a thought in answer to John's original thread.

Getting back to John's post - other than tyres I hear the Alpina 3.4s rides with more composure and Tim (smeagol) may have taken a test drive once.. This would intimate the set-up could be greatly improved through an ACS (or similar) sportsline suspension package.
I have no doubst that with some tweaks the Zed4 could be quite talented but I'll say no more until I conduct some empirical research.

Always a pleasure.

[Giles]

....so I'm not accused of shovelling BS in future when proposing an honest observation....
...Always a pleasure.

And mine too Jon - you do keep me merrily entertained whilst I eat my lunch at the desk.

[M Blur]

And mine too Jon - you do keep me merrily entertained whilst I eat my lunch at the desk.

Same here m8.. I've got the lurgi so the banter is perking me up a bit.. However I don't think I could handle Larri right now.. a bit frail u see...

[Zmeagol]

After 9000 miles I feel the Z4 'out of the box' with its runflats handles better (more predictable, better roadholding) than my M roadster with its strut brace and Eagle F1s.

But I would agree with John that on typical British roads the car is unsettled in the dead ahead position. Switching sport mode on helps.

Also, the ride is bl**dy hard and coupled with less supportive seats than in the Z3, it's easy to put your back out.

I'm hoping that substituting alternate tyres will help both these problems. Unfortunately the run flats are proving very economical on tyre wear!

Tim

[M Blur]

After 9000 miles I feel the Z4 'out of the box' with its runflats handles better (more predictable, better roadholding) than my M roadster with its strut brace and Eagle F1s. But I would agree with John that on typical British roads the car is unsettled in the dead ahead position. Switching sport mode on helps.

Tim

Thanks for the adjudication Tim... I guess the 6 series would make an interesting comparison for ride quality.. I sat in one the other day.. bloody lovely car and not as big as you think.. wraps itself around you pretty well. I'd say it's also the nicest looking 'new design' BMW so far.

I guess we come to expect nothing less then perfection and disappointed if BMW can tick every box. Have ACS developed a kit yet, I guess Hammann, Alpina and G Power etc have also.

Did you ever get round to testing the 3.4s at Sytners Tim?

[Zmeagol]

Had a go in a 645Ci on the track at Rockingham. With the top down it felt like a big 'Z'.

Yes, I drove the Alpina: viewtopic.php?t=2020 The salesman kept comparing the Alpina to an M Roadster so in some ways my review did the same and was a bit harsh on the Alpina. I was already biased towards an SMG gearbox and if Alpina had offered one I might have gone for it.

Tim

[M Blur]

Thanks Tim,

I too was sorely tempted for a while but in the end have just ploughed money into M 8LUR.

The 3.4 (and 3.3 before it) is a lovely hand built engine but as you rightly pt out lacks the fireworks of the 3.2 and this is consistent with other writers. The M was never about peak it was the shape of the torque curve and the complete linearity of the power. 45% on a dyno readout.. I remember the first time realising revs and speed were moving broadly at the same pace... crazee.

But as an up to date car it's lovely and closes the gap on the now 280bhp BoxsterS.

They should chuck the old 4.6is lump in the Zed4.. despite weight it would be good for a giggle. I suspect it isn't that heavy anyway in comparison to the iron sixes and guess it would likely sit further back in the engine bay with perhaps a bonnet bulge.. what do you think Tim?

Could a Breyton/G Power supercharger not be fitted instead of some of those optional extras.. .. you inferred the engine may be a bit soft after the increasing the displacement. Funnily enough CA Auotech stopped their 3.4 conversion for the 3.2 due to 'soft' issues.

[Gimlet]

It's interesting reading the personal opinions shown here.
Personally I am impressed with the general handling of my Alpina after the Tuscans I had owned previously. Whilst the Tuscans were very brutal and skittish the Alpina seems very sure-footed, nimble and equally as quick.
Whilst doing Dream Rides at the Classic Sports Car Show in October I was talking with a Noble representative who was there with one of their cars and who asked to go out in the Alpina. He told me that Noble actually use a 3.0L Z4 as a track testing benchmark for their own cars as they believe it to be one of the best handling car available.

[M Blur]

It's interesting reading the personal opinions shown here.
Personally I am impressed with the general handling of my Alpina after the Tuscans I had owned previously. Whilst the Tuscans were very brutal and skittish the Alpina seems very sure-footed, nimble and equally as quick.
Whilst doing Dream Rides at the Classic Sports Car Show in October I was talking with a Noble representative who was there with one of their cars and who asked to go out in the Alpina. He told me that Noble actually use a 3.0L Z4 as a track testing benchmark for their own cars as they believe it to be one of the best handling car available.

Again.. TVRs not exactly one for manners.. I'd contest the 'quick' bit though surely... Tuscans are 9.5 to 100, the Alpina/ZM) is more like 11/12 in std trim. Do you mean real world pt to pt performance? There's a BIG power-to-weight differential of over 50-100bhp p/tonne depending on TVR. I recall the S is around 240ish p/tonne.

I suspect the 'S' offers a significant improvement but until I've driven them I cannot comment further.

Can't imagine why Noble would d that. Every track comparison I've seen on the Zee4 is not overly flattering and they don't post quick lap times. A mixture of poor damping yet harsh rise seemes to be the summation from what I've read. I bet the S is more firmly damped/controlled.

I'd honestly go for the S as the most likely replacement for M 8LUR if I were ever to choose to go down the route. It's a stunner and I for one love the detailing.

[Gimlet]

Having owned 3 TVR's I would actually question their published figures for performance. Yes, they feel quick, but how much is that due to the "seat of the pants" sensation experienced when driving such a "basic" car, no traction control, no ABS, rock hard suspension etc., and I am yet to find a TVR which kicks out the stated BHP.
Because the Alpina feels so much better behaved/solid I feel much more comfortable pushing it hard, hence my original statement.
Having never driven a Z 4 of any other type than the Alpina I cannot comment on how they compare.
However, the 19" wheels with "normal" tyres may make a difference.
I too was surprised at Noble's use of the Z4, but again having never driven one I am not in a position to comment.

[Zmeagol]

Every track comparison I've seen on the Zee4 is not overly flattering and they don't post quick lap times.

Did you see the TV programme with Tiff what'sisname driving the Z4 on the Anglesey track. He was very impressed with it. I had fun at Donnington with mine, though not quite in the same driving league.

Tim

[ISUK]

I find the overall handling of the Z4 is good when you are on a smooth, well surfaced road. Unfortunately there aren't many of those in the UK and most of the fun B roads where you have a chance of enjoying the performance with less traffic are in a sorry state of repair. I've found the standard sport suspension settings on the 3.0 very harsh on these roads making swift progress uncomfortable to say the least. The 18" runflats certainly don't help and the car is quick to follow surface imperfections. In this type of situation I've found the sport setting actually makes things worse as the steering becomes more edgy.

I guess it is a difficult compromise for a manufacturer to achieve with a roadster. If the car is too soft it is ridiculed by the motoring press, too harsh and it is panned as well. Maybe BMW GB should rethink their marketing strategy and offer a standard car which is more softly sprung and ideal for those of us looking for an occassional weekend B road blast and a sport model for track fans and die-hard petrol heads.

If I was to re-spec the car from new I'd ditch the sport suspension and 18" wheels and go for standard styres on 17" rims as I think this would afford the best compromise between comfort and outright performance handling.

I've never had the car on a track but I'd imagine that it would certainly handle better on that type of perfectly smooth surface.

[M Blur]

Having owned 3 TVR's I would actually question their published figures for performance. Yes, they feel quick, but how much is that due to the "seat of the pants" sensation experienced when driving such a "basic" car, no traction control, no ABS, rock hard suspension etc., and I am yet to find a TVR which kicks out the stated BHP.

I'd agree the older TVRs not as quick as people may think albeit gloriously muscular. The newer TVRs are darn quick to 100 if they find traction bt I hear high speed stability stil an issue and only being addressed post Tuscan MK1.

[nickelbum]

i experienced outright bloody lethal steering half way home from just picking up my new low miles zed. the charge light flashed up and stayed that way for a further 20 miles. once stopped in the drive, i switched off and then tryed a restart, nothing! swopped original 8 year old battery for another which was fine. charged o/e one for 24 hours then voltage tested to reveal dead cell and only 10.50volts!. no wonder the steering went bad as its powered by a crappy electric motor. i thought my handling woes were over till i started using it on the worst roads in the country, not so. crossing white lines, ridges and cracked tarmac, overbanding etc etc throws the car dramatically to either side. i find im drivin it with a death grip on the wheel all the time, grannies in shopping micro cars are leaving me behind!! what a bloody dissapointment. i once built a soap box using pram wheels and 6" nails for axles that would outhandle my z4. i swopped the runflats for michelins to show a slight improvement, now i can reach 60 mph sometimes. im gonna do a wheel alignment check soon. no broken springs found, no sloppy joints. it behaved the same on 17" or 18" wheels. on smooth flat roads its fine except for the robotic power steering caused by the electric steering. if when the steering wheel is held stationary the motor is off power, then the road surface irregularitys are fed up through the column to the wheel causing it to move slightly, its then boosted this movement by the electric motor to agravate the problem. i reckon bmw only fitted this so they could add another electronic gizzmo to attract buyers and keep build costs down. im intending to try removing the motor altogether to see if it improves or building hydraulic steering onto it. i like most aspects of the car except the most important one. as a long time motorcyclist, modern bikes do the same thing due to rear tyres being too large compared with the front. reading these forumns and from my experience, one can only assume bmw have cocked up in the design of the running gear. the modern fetish of having cars stiffly damped and sprung, is a cheap fix instead of designing and building a compliant set up that holds the road. make of this what you will, comments welcome.