[pbjr]

No MT?!? WTF BMW! Lost sale right here. Was wishing for a M40i with MT. I refuse to buy a automatic. I'll get something used or buy another brand.

[86Zed]

I could see DCT only on a version with >400HP. I really enjoyed the MT on our 228i, given the transmission is already developed I would be shocked to see it NOT used here.

[raysspl]

Tough to really see why anyone would go for this instead of a Boxster. Thoughts?

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by raysspl

Tough to really see why anyone would go for this instead of a Boxster. Thoughts?

This has been true for every Z3/Z4, SLK and TT though.

[supra93]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Because Toyota has spent the last twenty years making sure no enthusiast wants to come near their dealerships. There was almost no way they were going to make this cool.

It sounds like BMW is the one that is taking the lead with this join project.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by supra93

It sounds like BMW is the one that is taking the lead with this join project.

True, so Toyota's magic plan is just to offer a BMW? That's really gonna get people in their dealerships.

From all that I've seen about the GT86, nearly all of the compromises made to that poor thing came out of Toyota decisions and engineering. Subaru, left to their own, might have made it a better car.

Hopefully, for the sake of the Z5, Toyota really is just letting BMW call all of the shots. Aside from maybe rear subframe design, HPFP's and fancy driveshafts...

[supra93]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

True, so Toyota's magic plan is just to offer a BMW? That's really gonna get people in their dealerships.

From all that I've seen about the GT86, nearly all of the compromises made to that poor thing came out of Toyota decisions and engineering. Subaru, left to their own, might have made it a better car.

Hopefully, for the sake of the Z5, Toyota really is just letting BMW call all of the shots. Aside from maybe rear subframe design, HPFP's and fancy driveshafts...

Thats what it sounds like. You're average car buyer probably doesn't care or even know.

What is this Z5 you speak of?

[ando]

Originally Posted by raysspl

Tough to really see why anyone would go for this instead of a Boxster. Thoughts?

Cost or brand loyalty

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by supra93

Thats what it sounds like. You're average car buyer probably doesn't care or even know.

What is this Z5 you speak of?

What are we calling it today? Is it back to the Z4? I've lost track.

[supra93]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

What are we calling it today? Is it back to the Z4? I've lost track.

Its been "Z4" for a while. The concept debut back in August of last year.

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Hopefully, for the sake of the Z5, Toyota really is just letting BMW call all of the shots. Aside from maybe rear subframe design, HPFP's and fancy driveshafts...

Insider from Toyota has said development for the Z4 was already in the works even before Toyota joined in. BMW just needed Toyota to split the cost. In return they would get a reskin hardtop Z4 with a Toyota badge.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by supra93

Its been "Z4" for a while. The concept debut back in August of last year.

Cool. In a John Oliver sort of way.

[prime300]

Originally Posted by stefan

Automatic only lol. demographic research failure.

Originally Posted by stefan

Automatic only lol. demographic research failure.

Ya its funny that they say no MT for US...when a couple of years ago the US was the only place you were able to order a brand new F10 M5 with MT

[The HACK]

Originally Posted by supra93

Some's mind went into the gutter.

My wife keeps telling me that too.

Van Hooydonk is an idiot if he thinks having the driver sit closer to the front of the car in the G29 is a plus. In all the classic front engine, rear drive cars WITHOUT A BACK SEAT the advantage is to place the driver closer to the rear axle than the front, for a variety of reasons.

1. driver and passenger sitting behind the longitudinal center of gravity means mass bias is shift onto the rear of the car. Ideally for best performance you'd want a slight rear bias in a rear wheel drive car (that's why most exotic über cars, despite no limitations as to what the weight distribution is, usually comes in a near 42f/58r weight distribution). By shifting that weight FORWARD you're forced to place more artificial weight on top of the rear axle to balance out the chassis. How do you balance out the chassis? By increasing rear overhang. Thus dimension grows in all directions, because now you're increasing wheelbase (as required to push the passenger compartment forward) as well as the front and rear overhang to accommodate. While it MIGHT be aesthetically pleasing, it's a huge disadvantage to handling.

2. Having the driver virtually sit right on top of the rear axle means you're far more sensitive to the changes in direction and grip of the rear tires. As the rear looses traction in a RWD platform, sitting so far back means the slightest movement off axle in the rear is magnified. It is to a driver's detriment to sit further and further up front in a SPORTY car application.

3. Aesthetics is subjective, but you tell me which one of these front engined, rear wheel drive sports cars looks better with the driver's seating position moved forward:









You can probably argue "Hack, those are OLD ass cars, made, sold, and DISCONTINUED long before you were even born. Find me a nice modern car that looks even remotely like that built and sold sometime within THIS millennia.."







I'm sure NONE of the designers of each of these modern front engined, rear wheel drive 2 seat sports cars thought “a shorter bonnet and crisp overhangs ensure the driver sits closer to the centre of the car" is a good thing*.

I think Van Hooydonk means "idiot who knows nothing about designing cars" in Dutch?

*p.s.: I know some will argue that having the driver sit closer to center of the car is a good thing based on some random intarweb image searches. Like this:

"Look Hack, these beautiful cars, past and present, has the driver sit much MUCH closer to the center of the car! See? SEE! I can play your stupid game too!"









Yes I will agree with Van Hooydonk when BMW starts putting the engine in the middle of the car behind the driver. The mid engine, rear wheel drive (or in some of these cases, AWD) platform is so superior that ideally, a driver's seating position near the center of the car to allow the engine to be installed right behind him is the most ideal design for a 2 seat sports car. But if you can't afford to put the engine behind the driver, then the NEXT most ideal layout would be to push the driver as far back as you can to put the engine as close to the middle of the car as possible in a front engine, rear wheel layout.

For BMW (and Van Hooydonk) to argue that moving the driver further up on the G29 is a GOOD thing boggles my mind. This is rudimentary chassis dynamics that an 8 year old with access to internet and google can find in 5 minutes.

[bobert]

Originally Posted by ORIGIN M.

What the fuck is a midlife crisis roadster?

Or, we could also just ask 'what the f_ck is a mid-life crisis [period]?' The answer? It's bunk.

[CeEl]

Thanks for posting in the g29 forum!

Assuming the M40i will come out a couple months later than the 40i (like the new 5 series), my only question would be if it’s worthwhile waiting for it... guess depends on the overall timing when it’s actually released/customer deliveries happen.

[ORIGIN M.]

Originally Posted by bobert

Or, we could also just ask 'what the f_ck is a mid-life crisis [period]?' The answer? It's bunk.

Agreed

[Asbjorn]

Originally Posted by The HACK

This is the biggest benefit of continuing to push the front wheels out as far as possible and keeping the front overhang as small as possible. You can put massive caster on a MacPherson strut that causes this natural static camber change as you turn. 2º of additional caster on the E85/6 chassis over the E46, only achieved by minimizing overhang and pushing the engine as far back as possible.

While this discussion is all "academic" at this point, since BMW has already done the bulk of their chassis development for the G29. The problem points to a larger, overall trend within BMW itself, that they've continued to compromise sporty handling for more "comfort," to a point that these newer chassis are cruisers first, carvers second.

Some good points here! Now just because BMW may decide to take an inherent sporty configuration, ie the roaster, and make it soft, does not mean that the new Z4 has to be ignored by the likes of you and me.

In BMWs defence, they actually increased caster from 5.9 on the E85 to 7.2 on the E89. So behind the softening etc, the direction was right in this one area. They however didnt move the engines as far back as possible. Probably because all E89s already had rear biased weight distributions even with the largest engines installed. With the new soft top roof and lightweight materials, I am sure BMW will get the "basics" even better with the new generation, and that increases the potential of the car, even if it is also on the soft side compared to an Z4M.

Now I may not represent the average buyer, but when I evaluate cars, I look at their potential for modding. OEM brakes, suspension rates, bushings, tires etc are all fairly easy to change and can be more or less ignored. However the overall design, weight and weight distribution are factors that are not easy to change. One thing I have learned from owning the E89 is how much switching from RFTs to nonRFTs, and installing M3 suspension components actually transformed the car. I am sure the same is true for TTs, SLKs etc.

I just hope the new Z4 comes in at least one version with DCT and an easily tunable engine. Otherwise it better be ugly so I do not need to consider it hahaha.

[The HACK]

Originally Posted by raysspl

Tough to really see why anyone would go for this instead of a Boxster. Thoughts?

If memory serves, the Z3 (E36 based roadster) and the original Z4 (E85) both outsold their respective generation Boxster counterparts (986 for Z3, 987 for Z4) by a comfortable margin, year for year. It wasn't until the E89 Z4 that Porsche overtook BMW for the roadster market. Someone with fast fingers on Google disprove me please*.

Cayman vs. Coupe, on the other hand...Porsche has always outsold BMWs.

I think the SLK is the one that out sold consistently both the Porsche and BMW equivalent? Hence BMW's strategy with the E89 to forgo the fantastic handling found in the original Z4 and opted for more of a straight-line, power cruiser to compete with Mercedes rather than Porsche?

*p.s.: So my memory is still pretty good given my advanced age. What I can dig up, the original Boxster (986) production number ranged in the ~160,000 range, while the total Z3 production number hovers around ~280,000? I can't find 987 production numbers, but there's been a few Porsche forums that seems to suggest it's around 160K too. The E85/6 Z4 sold about 180K, give or take.

Now, the numbers above from the source suggest these are worldwide numbers during the entire production run. Keep in mind the 986 and 987 were in production for LONGER than the Z3 and first gen Z4. So there were some odd overlaps, like the first gen Boxster still on sale almost 2 years after the first gen Z3 ceased production, and the 987 still being made and sold well into 2012, 4 years after the original Z4 stopped production.**

**For comparison purposes, the third gen Boxster seems to have kept up pace from the first two, while the third gen BMW Z roadster sold a total of 115K units, continuing a downward trend necessitating a shared platform with Toyota to mitigate cost. I'm sure if the E85/6 Z4 and the E89 Z4 had continued the gangbuster sales the original Z3 had, this platform sharing with Toyota wouldn't have likely have happened.

</brain dump>

[bobert]

Originally Posted by ORIGIN M.

Crossfire lol.

Z is driven by many generations

Agree on both counts (same reaction to 'Crossfire' ). Also, I've seen all ages driving Miatas too - bought mine at age 24 (and still love driving it 19 years later).

[bobert]

Originally Posted by stefan

Automatic only lol. demographic research failure.

Agreed - crazy that the Supra has long been expected to lack a manual, considering it's a sports car and will use the same engines as the Z4, which supposedly will offer a manual. So they have a manual available but choose not to offer it? This is an insult to the Supra's history, along with putting a four cylinder engine in it (I don't hate four cylinder engines but Supra always had an I6.)

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by raysspl

Tough to really see why anyone would go for this instead of a Boxster. Thoughts?

The answer has to be cost, right? I'm expecting this to be similar to the X4 M40i-to-Macan pricing situation. My personal builds span well over $10k between those two vehicles. Overlapping pricing but with a comparable BMW build costing less.

[LemonOne]

Originally Posted by Jono2112

No manual transmission for the USA? Really?

Millennials don't know how to drive manuals so kinda makes sense.