The M Roadster is a fat pig

[John V]

I just got around to reading my new Roundel magazine.

The Z4 3.0i is listed as ~ 3040 lbs as delivered.

The M Roadster is listed as 3270 lbs as delivered.

At 340+hp and 3050lbs this car would have presented a compelling argument. At 3250+lbs... not so much. Where the funk did all the extra lard come from?

[ff]

Is the engine block cast iron, instead of magnesium?

[JST]

Is the engine block cast iron, instead of magnesium?

Yes.

[zcasavant]

Yes.

Good thing, too. A magnesium s54 would probably melt into a little puddle or break into a million little pieces.

[FC]

Which is what I've been saying. The Cayman may not get you a lot of power for the big bucks it commands, but at 2960lbs, It has 10lbs/hp, which is virtually the same as the M3 roadster (doubt the M Coupe will shave enough weight to make a difference). Add the mid-engine layout, awesome suspension/steering/brakes, and I just don't see the new M coupe/roadster being faster than a Cayman (even with the LSD advantage). A better value proposition for sure, but not faster. We'll see though.

[John V]

I guess that's a major contributor. I wasn't aware the 3.0i had the Mg/Al engine. It's got bigger brakes, too, and probably bigger wheels and tires.

Ugh. The M Coupe will probably be even heavier.

[zcasavant]

I guess that's a major contributor. I wasn't aware the 3.0i had the Mg/Al engine. It's got bigger brakes, too, and probably bigger wheels and tires.

Ugh. The M Coupe will probably be even heavier.

Maybe not. I think the z3 coupe was heavier than the roadster, but the roof was way bigger on those coupes.

[John V]

Maybe not. I think the z3 coupe was heavier than the roadster, but the roof was way bigger on those coupes.

According to C+D, the Cayman is heavier than the Boxster, which I didn't expect. So... we'll see. :dunno:

[FC]

According to C+D, the Cayman is heavier than the Boxster, which I didn't expect. So... we'll see. :dunno:

Others (PAG) claim it is lighter, but regardless, it's +/-~10lbs, so negligible, really.

[JST]

I guess that's a major contributor. I wasn't aware the 3.0i had the Mg/Al engine. It's got bigger brakes, too, and probably bigger wheels and tires.

Ugh. The M Coupe will probably be even heavier.

The original Z4 3.0 had the M54 engine, which wasn't Mg, but was Al. The new ones (06 on?) have the new engine. Not sure if there was a weight change associated with the engine change or not, or how current the specs in Roundel are.

[lemming]

The original Z4 3.0 had the M54 engine, which wasn't Mg, but was Al. The new ones (06 on?) have the new engine. Not sure if there was a weight change associated with the engine change or not, or how current the specs in Roundel are.

the new mag/al engine is lighter, but by human weight watcher pounds: only like 20 pounds or so?

i'm unthrilled at the curb weight, but it's still worth keeping an open mind to see how it shakes out in head to head workouts with the cayman S. more than straightline acceleration (where it will clearly be faster than the Cayman S), the new M coupe will be really exposed (or not) on a closed road course during said testing.

[undefined]

Which is what I've been saying. The Cayman may not get you a lot of power for the big bucks it commands, but at 2960lbs

doesn't Porsche quote completely dry weight?

BMW's numbers include 150 pounds of driver + luggage (15 pounds?) + 80% tank full of gas.

[FC]

Cayman S unladen weight (EC directive): 1415kg/3120lbs
M Z4 Coupe "weight" per worldcars.com (http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2060125.006/page/6/lang/eng/bmw/1.html) (I assume EC directive as well): 1415kg/3120lbs

So it seems they weigh the same. Interesting.

MZ4 coupe is 5 kilos heavier than the roadster.

[IndyMike]

Others (PAG) claim it is lighter, but regardless, it's +/-~10lbs, so negligible, really.
Agreed.

It's tantamount to the difference between the air-speed velocity of an unladen African or European swallow.

[lemming]

Agreed.

It's tantamount to the difference between the air-speed velocity of an unladen African or European swallow.

true. but as everyone knows, african swallows don't migrate.

ergo: she's a witch.

ergo: the M coupe is still going to open up a serious can of whuppin' on the Cayman S.

[IndyMike]

true. but as everyone knows, african swallows don't migrate.


They don't? I didn't know that. :ack:

Aughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


:D

[John V]

ergo: the M coupe is still going to open up a serious can of whuppin' on the Cayman S.

In a straight line, probably.

Everywhere else, doubtful.

[lemming]

In a straight line, probably.

Everywhere else, doubtful.

put it this way: if the Cayman S was faster on a track, none of us should be surprised. but if the M coupe is faster (for whatever reason, including cheater Cup tires), i would be pleasantly surprised.

the Cayman should be able to put down power better, have better turn in, brake in superior fashion plus have a displacement advantage. 'still rooting for the underdog in this one.

EDIT add'n: plus, i just hate the Cayman because the idea of going about making the car mediocre in such calculated fashion pisses me off. it has to be just faster enough to trump the boxster but just slow enough so as to not surpass the 911. poppycock and bullocks, i say! make the Cayman S as fast as it can be out of the box and then make the 911 BETTER and faster in addition.

[FC]

EDIT add'n: plus, i just hate the Cayman because the idea of going about making the car mediocre in such calculated fashion pisses me off. it has to be just faster enough to trump the boxster but just slow enough so as to not surpass the 911. poppycock and bullocks, i say! make the Cayman S as fast as it can be out of the box and then make the 911 BETTER and faster in addition.

If they had thrown in the 3.8L from the 997S, the car would spank the 997S. Porsche would then readily charge a base price of AT LEAST $80K, if not more, since their pricing is based on performance. What would you say then re: the Cayman super-S?

Their current pricing is stupid. But it's genious as long as they can get away with it.

[Jason C]

Their current pricing is stupid. But it's genious as long as they can get away with it.

Maybe not.

(From AE)

http://www.autoextremist.com/arrowdown.gif http://www.autoextremist.com/arrowdown.gif http://www.autoextremist.com/arrowdown.gif Porsche. Word from Porsche Land is not good. We're hearing from some very big and very important Porsche dealer principals that the Porsche Cayman S is as close to being dead in the water as a new car can be. "Customers come in, call it a Boxster S Coupe, see it's about ten grand more than a regular Boxster S any way you slice it, mutter something about 'why is a Coupe ten grand more than the convertible?' - and then they either start looking at the Boxster S or they walk out. Porche blew the Cayman pricing, period," was the word from one dealer we talked to who shall remain nameless. Why are we not surprised? When it comes to the basic pricing of their cars (or the even more ridiculously priced options), there is always one overriding factor that Porsche brings to the table - and that is flat-out greed. No auto company in the world has more cojones than Porsche when it comes to overcharging their customers, and unfortunately, customers in the U.S. have born the brunt of Porsche's usurious pricing strategies over the years. But it's a different world now, and there are too many great cars out there that bump up against Porsche in terms of performance - and crush the vaunted German automaker when the question of performance-for-the-dollar is factored in. Traditional Porsche buyers are not amused by the Cayman's pricing - and more importantly, the dealers are not smiling either. So let's review, shall we? The Cayenne is over, relegated to yesterday's news and piling up on Porsche dealer lots like so much cord wood. The brilliant Carrera GT has run its course in the market, which is not unexpected. After all, the people who could actually afford one are now moving on to what's next - and the dealers who still have one in their showrooms are left to sit there and think about the interest they're paying on them every single day. The 911 market is getting smaller with each Porsche price increase and with each hot new competitor that equals or surpasses it in all the relevant categories, and now the Cayman S, Porsche's most important launch this year, is teetering on the brink of being a non-starter. We predict a desperate cash-to-dealers program will begin shortly to try to salvage any momentum from the Cayman's launch - good luck with that. This publication has been relentless in its skewering of the exalted Wendelin Wiedeking and his Greed Posse in Zuffenhausen and for good reason, since these guys have demonstrated about as much vision as a carnival barker - which means it only stretches as far as the next show. While ol' Wendelin keeps collecting German business "executive-of-the-year" awards and bathing in his various accolades, a storm is brewing that threatens to derail the vaunted Porsche money train once and for all. Porsche apologists will say that the numbers don't indicate any impending doomsday, but if they can look up from counting their short-term profits long enough, these brainiacs might just have a shot at steering the ship away from the iceberg in time to save it. On second thought, these guys just don't get it, so why expect lucidity and rational thought at this point?

[Plaz]

Maybe not.

(From AE)


Ouch!

[FC]

Maybe not.

(From AE)

Nice!

This is good news! They will either lower the price, offer huge rebates, or add tons of content. Maybe resale will tank.

Anyway you look at it, it bodes well for me and my (now) 3-year plan.:D

[lemming]

yeah.

don't really understand the whole Porsche pricing scheme. i mean, i "get it", but i don't think dealers are actually intelligent and persuasive enough to be able to convince buyers that the Cayman S is the performance car with the harder edge (compared to its boxster brother).

it still really incenses me that they've hobbled the performance of the Cayman S so much, just so the greed machine can justify the 911's existence. my philosophy and message to Porsche? grow up and grow some brains. take a look at Ferrari's strategy. they have no problem making their "entry" car (the F430) the most brilliant and focused car. they do it because they are able to differentiate their other models in an intelligent way.

Porsche needs to learn that the 911 is not a sacred cow, that the rear engined placement is stupid and paying homage to it continually is stupid, and that hobbling the Cayman for the sake of the 911 is stupid. there is no compelling argument at all to continue the 911 in its current configuration. none. it's just plain stupid. they've already demonstrated that if you put 90% of the power in a mid-engined car, it's faster. DUH.

i hope more than ever that the M coupe flat out kicks the Cayman's ass. hubris is a good thing.

[Rob]

One compelling argument to conting the 911 in its current configuration . . . they have lots of rabid buyers that will continue to pay top dollar for the car, giving Porsche top profit margin. Buyers that will say anything that isn't rear engined isn't a "real" porsche. Buyers that keep spitting the bocks out model iteration after model iteration. Kind of like the Saab key switch positioning, although they may have given that up when they lost their independence, only on a grander scale.

That doesn't mean they should hobble the Cayman. Just that the 911 still has a lot of life left in it.

[lemming]

they need to make the 911 a widowmaker again. in the STANDARD car. a car with so much power and so difficult to drive that there is a compelling argument to buy it and to learn how to drive it well. if dimwits or their progeny who get them as birthday presents die young, so be it.

but it would give the car a lot more credibility. it's bloated into this boring GT of a car that has lost its edge. Porsche is supposed to make sports cars, not gran turismos.

[lemming]

an added thought: Pontiac is getting maligned in the press for making the Solstice which weighs 2800 pounds --mostly because it is heavy compared to the new MX5. that z4 2.0 is 28xx pounds.

huh.

easy to poke fun at GM, isn't it?

[John V]

an added thought: Pontiac is getting maligned in the press for making the Solstice which weighs 2800 pounds --mostly because it is heavy compared to the new MX5. that z4 2.0 is 28xx pounds.

huh.

easy to poke fun at GM, isn't it?

Well, for good reason. The Miata costs the same, and it's lighter. So why couldn't the Solstice be lighter? :dunno:

[clyde]

they need to make the 911 a widowmaker again. in the STANDARD car. a car with so much power and so difficult to drive that there is a compelling argument to buy it and to learn how to drive it well.

When was the "STANDARD" 911 ever a car with "so much power"? In the days when it could be called something like "widowmaker" with a straight face it didn't have much power in it's standard config. Even the early 930 Turbos didn't have *that* much power under the curve...they just had a ridiculously shaped curve what with no boost and sudden onset once it came in. It wasn't until the SC model in 1978 that the car even had enough power to be thought of as a car that had any power at all. Ever since then, the power output from the base models has never been much better than slightly above average for sporty cars.

The older 911s were difficult to drive because of the chassis and suspension design that left no room for driver error. It had nothing to do with its power (or lack thereof). Just ask any window whose former husband died in a VW powered four-banger 912.

[Sharp11]

an added thought: Pontiac is getting maligned in the press for making the Solstice which weighs 2800 pounds --mostly because it is heavy compared to the new MX5. that z4 2.0 is 28xx pounds.

huh.

easy to poke fun at GM, isn't it?

The Z4 is also stiffer, a lot stiffer and gets much better fuel mileage out of an engine which has six cylinders and a lot more hp/torque.

Jamie Kitman wrote a good review of the Solstice in Britian's Car magazine - he nailed it pretty well (it's not positive).

Ed

[Sharp11]

When was the "STANDARD" 911 ever a car with "so much power"? In the days when it could be called something like "widowmaker" with a straight face it didn't have much power in it's standard config. Even the early 930 Turbos didn't have *that* much power under the curve...they just had a ridiculously shaped curve what with no boost and sudden onset once it came in. It wasn't until the SC model in 1978 that the car even had enough power to be thought of as a car that had any power at all. Ever since then, the power output from the base models has never been much better than slightly above average for sporty cars.

The older 911s were difficult to drive because of the chassis and suspension design that left no room for driver error. It had nothing to do with its power (or lack thereof). Just ask any window whose former husband died in a VW powered four-banger 912.

Today's zero to sixty times of under six seconds are worlds away from the cars I grew up with in the late sixties and through the seventies, even the 911, when it got its turbo, IIRC, hit maybe sub seven second times, and these cars were lighter than today's.

A six second time was huge in those days, most of the muscle cars of the era strove for that number, but production cars were lucky to get to nine seconds. My first car, a VW Rabbit, had a zero to sixty of eleven seconds.

Ed

[John V]

he nailed it pretty well (it's not positive).

Ed

Have you driven a Solstice?

What are the rigidity numbers for the Solstice and the Miata and how do they compare to the Z4?

[lemming]

The Z4 is also stiffer, a lot stiffer and gets much better fuel mileage out of an engine which has six cylinders and a lot more hp/torque.

Jamie Kitman wrote a good review of the Solstice in Britian's Car magazine - he nailed it pretty well (it's not positive).

Ed

first point: the meat of my argument is how ludicrous it is to criticize GM for the way that they have gone from design to inception on a sub $20,000 car that uses a lot of processes they've never used before (e.g. hydroforming of sheetmetal). it's laudable. if it misses the miata benchmarks, i have to say that i don't blame them. they're trying to match a car that is evolutionary that dates back to 1990. do the japanese ever hit their bullseyes the first time around when ape-ing a German car? didn't think so.

second: more pressure should be brought to bear on the $40,000 roadster and how much it weighs. level whatever critiques you will at the solstice, but it's in a highly price-sensitive bracket and when you turn the same critical eye at the z4, what are the excuses?

third: the M roadster is damn heavy, esp. for something without a retractable hardtop roof. but we all know it's mainly due to the iron block engine and larger wheels and brakes. all of those things add weight. but it's the only example of a Z4 that actually uses the advantages of the OHC engine design (power at rpms). it's also the more enthusiast oriented car. no funflat tires. no electric steering. upgraded suspension all around and superior brakes. to answer the original post critique: BMW was not thinking when they thought that the Z4 3.0 was a good enough car to steal sales from the SLK and the boxster. it isn't. there should have been an M roadster all along.

[Sharp11]

Have you driven a Solstice?

What are the rigidity numbers for the Solstice and the Miata and how do they compare to the Z4?

I haven't seen the numbers for the Miata and Solstice, but as you know, it's difficult to compare rigidity numbers across manufacturers.

I have not driven either the new Miata nor the Solstice, but Kittman's article wasn't primarily about the driving dynamics, rather, it was geared towards how it fared against its direct competitor, the Miata.

Ed

[undefined]

I haven't seen the numbers for the Miata and Solstice,

I have not driven either the new Miata nor the Solstice,

Ed

so how do you say this?

The Z4 is also stiffer, a lot stiffer

[John V]

I haven't seen the numbers for the Miata and Solstice, but as you know, it's difficult to compare rigidity numbers across manufacturers.

So your statement about the Z4 being stiffer was referring to something else then?

I have not driven either the new Miata nor the Solstice, but Kittman's article wasn't primarily about the driving dynamics, rather, it was geared towards how it fared against its direct competitor, the Miata.


But if you haven't driven either car how can you tell whether one is better than the other? By looking at numbers on a sheet of paper?

[Sharp11]

so how do you say this?

Because I trust the miles of literature I've read on the subject claiming the Z4 as one of the stiffest if not the stiffest production convertibles on the market. It was one of the design goals of the engineering team.

If you can prove this to be wrong then I'll stand corrected.

And yes, my name is Ed

[Sharp11]

So your statement about the Z4 being stiffer was referring to something else then?



But if you haven't driven either car how can you tell whether one is better than the other? By looking at numbers on a sheet of paper?

Firefox froze as I was finishing the Kittman piece:

The Miata is lighter, gets tons better fuel mileage, has a better designed top, a better designed interior.

I also think it's an absolute shame that GM builds a four cylinder sports car that weighs less then 3000 lbs, yet can't muster a fuel mileage number better than 16 mpg.

I could go and drive a Solstice, but what would be the point?

I would, however, like to drive the new Miata.

[Sharp11]

[QUOTE=lemming BMW was not thinking when they thought that the Z4 3.0 was a good enough car to steal sales from the SLK and the boxster. it isn't. there should have been an M roadster all along.[/QUOTE]

Z4's out sell Boxsters, look at the numbers.

Ed

[lemming]

Z4's out sell Boxsters, look at the numbers.

Ed

and how many owners are turned away and buy the boxster S instead when they realize there is no M roadster? that is not quantifiable, but is pretty obvious, isn't it? i'm an example of that. i have zero interest in a standard z4, but if you tell me that there is a Motorsport example, i'm suddenly interested in BMWs again.

[John V]

Firefox froze as I was finishing the Kittman piece:

The Miata is lighter, gets tons better fuel mileage, has a better designed top, a better designed interior.

The Miata is lighter, that I agree with. The fuel mileage, see below. The better top, that's awfully subjective, is it not? The Solstice's top is certainly less convenient but does that make it worse? Maybe it looks better to some people (me). Maybe there are people that prefer the Solstice interior. It's not a matter of "better" and "worse."

I also think it's an absolute shame that GM builds a four cylinder sports car that weighs less then 3000 lbs, yet can't muster a fuel mileage number better than 16 mpg.

The solsice is EPA rated at 20/28. The MX-5 is 25/29. I've never had any problem bettering the EPA numbers in any of my cars. "observed" fuel mileage is extremely dependent on driving style.

I could go and drive a Solstice, but what would be the point?


Oh, I dunno, you might LIKE it? :rolleyes:

What I'm getting at is there are intangible qualities to every car and the only way to discover them is to go to the dealership and drive the damned car.

Determining car superiority through magazine reviews seems awfully asinine to me. :dunno:

[lemming]

The Miata is lighter, that I agree with. The fuel mileage, see below. The better top, that's awfully subjective, is it not? The Solstice's top is certainly less convenient but does that make it worse? Maybe it looks better to some people (me). Maybe there are people that prefer the Solstice interior. It's not a matter of "better" and "worse."



The solsice is EPA rated at 20/28. The MX-5 is 25/29. I've never had any problem bettering the EPA numbers in any of my cars. "observed" fuel mileage is extremely dependent on driving style.

[quote=Sharp11]I could go and drive a Solstice, but what would be the point?
QUOTE]

Oh, I dunno, you might LIKE it? :rolleyes:

What I'm getting at is there are intangible qualities to every car and the only way to discover them is to go to the dealership and drive the damned car.

Determining car superiority through magazine reviews seems awfully asinine to me. :dunno:

i have to admit here that you are right.

your S is an example of that. driving it is beguiling and there is a whole level of smell and sound and tactile excellence that never comes through in print; thank god i don't like convertibles. i had a similar, but less overwhelming experience, driving the Solstice myself. at $21k, it's a no brainer --my only hiccup is that the GXP is coming. there will be a convertible in the driveway soon (honor bound to get one).

[Sharp11]

and how many owners are turned away and buy the boxster S instead when they realize there is no M roadster? that is not quantifiable, but is pretty obvious, isn't it? i'm an example of that. i have zero interest in a standard z4, but if you tell me that there is a Motorsport example, i'm suddenly interested in BMWs again.

Look, BB and JohnV tried to turn this into a classic internet gotcha thread, but let's not lose perspective here.

The Soltice competes with the Miata and the weight of the "data" supports the Miata as the "winner"; it's lighter, gets better fuel mileage, has a better designed top, a better engine, a better gearbox.......

Subjectively, one could prefer the Solstice for its styling. Driving dynamics seem to be a draw, though I doubt any of us here would be able to explore these cars at 10/10ths on an afternoon test drive, so we HAVE to take a consensus of opinion here.

Is that enough for you guys? Geeeze, get a life!!

Ed

[John V]

Subjectively, one could prefer the Solstice for its styling. Driving dynamics seem to be a draw, though I doubt any of us here would be able to explore these cars at 10/10ths on an afternoon test drive, so we HAVE to take a consensus of opinion here.

Is that enough for you guys? Geeeze, get a life!!

Ed

The other things going for the Solstice is that it should be a damned good autocross car. The suspension is more adjustable than the MX-5. It uses larger wheels and can fit a bigger tire. From the magazine testing, it comes with better shocks.

I suppose you bought your Z4 based on the reviews and didn't bother to drive an S2000, a Corvette or a Boxster? :dunno:

Based solely on magazine reviews, the Z4 3.0 is a loser compared to those cars. So why bother going to test drive one?

[TD]

Ed-

These guys always jump on any negative reference to an "underdog" car when it's merely supported by opinion. This is especially the case when the poster prefers a BMW or Porsche without supporting facts and/or when the underdog is from GM.

Preferring a BMW to a GM without facts is pretty much a guaranteed flaming.

They're pretty consistent.

[Sharp11]

Oh, I dunno, you might LIKE it? :rolleyes:

What I'm getting at is there are intangible qualities to every car and the only way to discover them is to go to the dealership and drive the damned car.



Ok, then why not go and drive a Kia? You might like it, right?

Did you test drive a Z4 before you wrote it off?

I "got" what you were trying to say right away John, I'm not stupid. I spent a lot of time researching sports cars before I bought one, the main reason I never drove a Solstice is there were none to drive -this was always pat of the problem.

Frankly, your assumption I gain my perspective from car magazines only is an insult and says more about your rush to judgement then it does about me, but I guess the need to "look smart" on a message board supercedes common sense sometimes.

Ed

[Sharp11]

I suppose you bought your Z4 based on the reviews and didn't bother to drive an S2000, a Corvette or a Boxster? :dunno:

Based solely on magazine reviews, the Z4 3.0 is a loser compared to those cars. So why bother going to test drive one?

I drove an S2000, a Corvette (too expensive) and a Boxter (the standard model which belongs to a friend).

I also drove an Mcoupe (the Z3-based one) which was available.

The Z4 was the right fit for me for many reasons, not just driving dynamics, the S2000 was too small inside, the Vette too expensive (and too large for what I wanted), the Boxster I've already written about (too ugly) the Mcoupe, not a 'vert.

I chose the Z4 because it has more handling than I have talent for, it's built really well, has a great engine, a fine interior, I can put the top down and I LIKE the way it looks.

We all bring prejudices to the table when we're shopping, it's human, end of story.

Ed

[undefined]

I haven't seen the numbers for the Miata and Solstice, but as you know, it's difficult to compare rigidity numbers across manufacturers.


Ed


Is it? Why?

[TD]

Let's all step back and remember to be nice. Or as least as nice as we'd be if we were talking face to face. This is starting to get ugly.

[undefined]

???

[clyde]

This is starting to get ugly.

I don't think it's getting ugly, but there's a difference of opinion about some details. And that difference is between a few peopel with very strong opinions and personalities. Big deal. The bottom line is that each of the cars mentioned throughout the thread have some very storng advnatages, some very significant disadvantages and there's a lot of subjectivity thrown in. Big deal. We're adults. We can handle it.

[John V]

Ok, then why not go and drive a Kia? You might like it, right?

If Kia made a rear wheel drive sports car, I would definitely go test drive it.

Did you test drive a Z4 before you wrote it off?

Actually, I have driven a Z4 2.5.

Frankly, your assumption I gain my perspective from car magazines only is an insult and says more about your rush to judgement then it does about me, but I guess the need to "look smart" on a message board supercedes common sense sometimes.

Ed, you wrote in a previous post that a review of the Solstice was "nailed ... pretty well" yet you haven't even driven the car. I'm guessing you haven't even sat in one. Basically you've decided that the MX-5 is superior to the Solstice by reading reviews in magazines and online but WITHOUT actually going to see the cars in person. My point about the Z4 being a "loser" in car magazine tests was not an attempt to mock your decision to buy one but rather to emphasize the point that car magazine editors don't always value the same qualities that you do in a car! You obviously disagreed with the editors who declared the Z4 a relative loser - what's to say you wouldn't do the same after driving a Solstice?

My intention was not to insult you nor to "look smart" and if that's how it was construed I apologize. :)

[Sharp11]

My intention was not to insult you nor to "look smart" and if that's how it was construed I apologize. :)

Apology accepted and I could see how my words "nailed it pretty well" could inflame, it was a poor choice of wording.

Still, one does, at some point have to rule out some things, perhaps GM's biggest failure with this car is the way they marketed it; advertising it as they did with a one hour commercial disguised as"the Apprentice" tv show was brilliant. Taking orders for twice as many cars as they were'nt able to deliver for months was a disaster.

I was quite interested in the prospect of the Solstice and wrote about it on the 'fest, but the negatives began to appear and as I wasn't able to find one anywhere to drive, I wrote it off.

Like many things in life, the path to the Z4 wasn't my original intent, I was pining for a Miata, but as I learned more about convertibles, their construction and engineering and getting my hands on the cars, the more attractive the Z4 became, especially when I learned what I could actually pay for one (just four grand or so over a new Miata for a lightly used Z4).

I do regret, however, not having the opportunity to drive the Miata, but by the time they became available here, I'd already "upgraded" in my mind.

So, here I am with the Zed, but it's just a car, it's a liquid thing. I'll enjoy this one for awhile and then something else will be in the garage.

Ed

[lemming]

Apology accepted and I could see how my words "nailed it pretty well" could inflame, it was a poor choice of wording.

Still, one does, at some point have to rule out some things, perhaps GM's biggest failure with this car is the way they marketed it; advertising it as they did with a one hour commercial disguised as"the Apprentice" tv show was brilliant. Taking orders for twice as many cars as they were'nt able to deliver for months was a disaster.

I was quite interested in the prospect of the Solstice and wrote about it on the 'fest, but the negatives began to appear and as I wasn't able to find one anywhere to drive, I wrote it off.

Like many things in life, the path to the Z4 wasn't my original intent, I was pining for a Miata, but as I learned more about convertibles, their construction and engineering and getting my hands on the cars, the more attractive the Z4 became, especially when I learned what I could actually pay for one (just four grand or so over a new Miata for a lightly used Z4).

I do regret, however, not having the opportunity to drive the Miata, but by the time they became available here, I'd already "upgraded" in my mind.

So, here I am with the Zed, but it's just a car, it's a liquid thing. I'll enjoy this one for awhile and then something else will be in the garage.

Ed

i have no idea what TD was worried about. i was responding more to your comments --look, if you had the bending and twisting resistance data, i'd gladly believe you. but i've not even seen the data, so that's why i would dubious.

the rest is purely personal preference!

but my main point was that my expectations for a car that LOADED goes out the door for $23k (what my in-laws just paid to drive home in a silver one) compared to a $45k z4 are quite different; and that's just the entry level solstice --the GXP is only 27k and it will dynamically equal/better the z4 3.0. i won't need to show the data here because it will be published shortly.

[Plaz]

Let's all step back and remember to be nice. Or as least as nice as we'd be if we were talking face to face. This is starting to get ugly.

Dick.

:lol:

[BahnBaum]

Dick.

:lol:

Dammit Plaz. Now you're going to get Matt all hot and bothered.

Alex