RE: BMW launches entry-level Z4
Tuesday 1st February 2005
BMW launches entry-level Z4
Only two litres but it gets you into a Beemer
You wanna Beemer? Try the new entry-level Z4 2.0i Roadster, reckoned to be . The two-seater, open top sports car is powered by a 2-litre 150bhp engine, offering 0-62mph in 8.2 seconds with a top speed of 136mph; torque is 148lb-ft at 3,600rpm.
Due on sale in the UK in May, the engine uses BMW's Vanos and Valvetronic technologies that deliver more precise control over valve timings, giving more power, economy and responsiveness.
Standard equipment on the Z4 2.0i includes 16-inch alloy wheels, dynamic stability control and automatic air-conditioning. An SE version will add a fully automatic roof, front foglights, heated door mirrors and windscreen washer jets, and on-board computer.
It's the fourth car in the Z4 range, the three others consisting of three six-cylinder engines with 2.2-litres, 2.5-litres and 3.0-litre capacities. BMW says that the new car is the first Z4 to be fitted with the lightweight four-cylinder powerplant built at Hams Hall in Warwickshire.
Expect to see the 2.0 at the Geneva Motor Show on 1 March. Prices will be announced at a later date.
Report on a short Z4 test drive: www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=102&i=9149
Discussion
As quick as a MX5 and (probably) nearly twice as expensive. I suppose you might get some handling benefits from the lighter engine, but then you've not really got the power to exploit them.
I thought BMW weren't going to do a poverty-spec Z4 after the cool reception for the 1.9 Z3?
Just read this bit "An SE version will add a fully automatic roof" - so the bog standard one will have a manual roof then? Wasn't the 10 second automatic roof the Z4's USP?
>> Edited by Bill Carr on Tuesday 1st February 20:05
I thought BMW weren't going to do a poverty-spec Z4 after the cool reception for the 1.9 Z3?
Just read this bit "An SE version will add a fully automatic roof" - so the bog standard one will have a manual roof then? Wasn't the 10 second automatic roof the Z4's USP?
>> Edited by Bill Carr on Tuesday 1st February 20:05
Bill Carr said:
As quick as a MX5 and (probably) nearly twice as expensive. I suppose you might get some handling benefits from the lighter engine, but then you've not really got the power to exploit them.
I thought BMW weren't going to do a poverty-spec Z4 after the cool reception for the 1.9 Z3?
Just read this bit "An SE version will add a fully automatic roof" - so the bog standard one will have a manual roof then? Wasn't the 10 second automatic roof the Z4's USP?
>> Edited by Bill Carr on Tuesday 1st February 20:05
Like it or not, 1.9 made up the bulk of Z3 sales, so it makes marketing sense
speedy_thrills said:
Like it or not, 1.9 made up the bulk of Z3 sales, so it makes marketing sense
Perhaps they should consider a few lower capacity versions then, entry level 1 litre model?
BMW is a buisness like any other, more sales bigger profits. Does the 1 series ring any bells!!!
. Personally i can't wait for the Z4M You toffees in England will buy anything, so why not let BMW sell anything. I was disgraced to see a Z4 2.2l when I was in England last (jan 2004) because over here (Australia) BMW knows that it is too ugly to gain sales with a smaller, posers engine. Even the aspiring (read - badge buying) classes wouldn't purchase one if it was only powered by a four. They'd get their 318i instead. So we have the 2.5 and the 3.0, and nothing less. That said, mercedes gets away with it with the SLK 200, so maybe I'm wrong about all this...
PS: I said ugly, I really mean opinion dividing. When I sat in one at a motorshow a few years ago, I actually really wanted one...
PS: I said ugly, I really mean opinion dividing. When I sat in one at a motorshow a few years ago, I actually really wanted one...
mustard said:
Like it or not, 1.9 made up the bulk of Z3 sales, so it makes marketing sense
Oh yeah, I agree totally, it just seems a bit of a shame. I guess it's the nature of the "aspirational" brand though.
Still, debadged, 9/10 people won't be able to tell the difference between this and the 6 cylinder models anyway!
I suppose it will be better than the 1.9 Z3, through sheer development, and the want of 0.1 litres.
Problem with the 1.9 (and, even more so, the 1.8 FWD Audi TT, which amounted to nothing but a mid-range A3 with a low roofline) is that it may rack up 'aspirational' sales, but it dilutes the essence of the marque (a bit like the Porsche Cayenne in that sense).
Problem with the 1.9 (and, even more so, the 1.8 FWD Audi TT, which amounted to nothing but a mid-range A3 with a low roofline) is that it may rack up 'aspirational' sales, but it dilutes the essence of the marque (a bit like the Porsche Cayenne in that sense).
Oi ! Gazboy said:
Who gives a shit what other people buy?
TVR made loads of 2.8 S series, they hardly diluted the brand.....
Point is, they were still fast and sporting. The brand wasn't diluted, it was broadened.
I would have thought BMW would have had the heart to equip the 1.9 with a turbo or supercharger of some sort, for a 'different' sporting drive, rather than just a 'saloon'-type drive.
I had a 1.9 Z3 when they first came out. The direct alternatives (new cars) were the MGF and the MX5.
Other than that I could have had a hot hatch, a 318 coupe etc etc.
I wanted a 2 seater, rear wheel drive roadster and there wasn't a lot between them. The MX5 was a bit sportier but the quality of materials and general feel to the car was worse. The MG I just didn't like.
Ok it wasn't the fastest car in the world - but I couldn't afford the fastest car in the world.
It had the added advantage of having a big waiting list which meant when I sold it I got most of my money back.
I get really tired of people moaning about 'dull' cars like this. I'd rather have a 2 litre Z4 than a front wheel drive Eurobox with a spoiler on the back. It might not be your cup of tea, it might not be super fast - but the world would be a much duller place without these types of cars.
As a matter of interest, my car history went:
VW Polo
Rover Metro Gti
Rover 827 (don't ask)
Renault 19 16v
BMW Z3 1.9
Subaru Impreza Turbo
BMW M Roadster (Z3M)
TVR Griffith
Nissan Navara Pick up and a race car
The Z3 1.9 was part of my automotive progression. Cars like it (e.g. entry level Z4)very definitely have a place in this world.
Other than that I could have had a hot hatch, a 318 coupe etc etc.
I wanted a 2 seater, rear wheel drive roadster and there wasn't a lot between them. The MX5 was a bit sportier but the quality of materials and general feel to the car was worse. The MG I just didn't like.
Ok it wasn't the fastest car in the world - but I couldn't afford the fastest car in the world.
It had the added advantage of having a big waiting list which meant when I sold it I got most of my money back.
I get really tired of people moaning about 'dull' cars like this. I'd rather have a 2 litre Z4 than a front wheel drive Eurobox with a spoiler on the back. It might not be your cup of tea, it might not be super fast - but the world would be a much duller place without these types of cars.
As a matter of interest, my car history went:
VW Polo
Rover Metro Gti
Rover 827 (don't ask)
Renault 19 16v
BMW Z3 1.9
Subaru Impreza Turbo
BMW M Roadster (Z3M)
TVR Griffith
Nissan Navara Pick up and a race car
The Z3 1.9 was part of my automotive progression. Cars like it (e.g. entry level Z4)very definitely have a place in this world.
FestivAli said:
because over here (Australia) BMW knows that it is too ugly to gain sales with a smaller, posers engine. Even the aspiring (read - badge buying) classes wouldn't purchase one if it was only powered by a four.
I would strongly suggest that in Australia the market conditions are very different from those in Britain at the moment.
SPORTS ROADSTER YOU SAY?? eat my fumes hehespeedy_thrills said:
Like it or not, 1.9 made up the bulk of Z3 sales, so it makes marketing sense
Perhaps they should consider a few lower capacity versions then, entry level 1 litre model?
Excellent idea. Stick on some big wheels, an M body kit, maybe tint the windows and you've got one wicked motor. No-one would know it's only the entry level.
I just had another thought about this... surely, when it's released, the prices of second hand 2.2s (maybe even 2.5s) will be around the same level, will have the benefit of already being specced up and suffered a chunk of depreciation. Faced with the choice, could anyone justify buying the 2.0 new?
Bill Carr said:
I just had another thought about this... surely, when it's released, the prices of second hand 2.2s (maybe even 2.5s) will be around the same level, will have the benefit of already being specced up and suffered a chunk of depreciation. Faced with the choice, could anyone justify buying the 2.0 new?
Well if my company car scheme allowed me to get Petrol and the 2.0 Z4 was available and the 2.2 was out of my banding etc, I'd order it......... I think it's just to make up the market for those who really don't care if it's fast,, it's not that slow for the average Joe...
Its a cheap to insure convertible with a fantastic hood that comes down in the time it takes the lights to go from red to green, the service from the dealer is great and the car will be bulletproof to own.
As a simple little roadster for cruising around speed-camera infested lanes, it makes a lot of sense.
I would'nt have one. But I can understand why someone would. Now't wrong with it. Its a fine little car.
As a simple little roadster for cruising around speed-camera infested lanes, it makes a lot of sense.
I would'nt have one. But I can understand why someone would. Now't wrong with it. Its a fine little car.
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff