|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Z3 autocross (Reply to this comment)
by topher34
Mike, thanks for rating my review on the Kumho Victoracer. They really are very nice on a SoloII course. There was a blue Z3 coupe at our July SCCA event. It is a little ugly but the guy put down some very respectable times. Speaking of retro, I autocrossed my company car at the last event. An auto-trans. 2001 PT Cruiser. It's a slug in a straight line but it actually cornered much better than I expected. I came in third in a seven car class!
|
Jul 22 '01
8:29 pm PDT
|
|
Beauty......... (Reply to this comment)
by Kelway76
Maybe...just maybe, I am a little odd (and considering that it took 3 tries to spell MAYBE correctly only supports THAT notion), but I find the M coupe an well styled motor vehicle. Agreed, one does wonder why BMW didn't opt to slant the notch-back a little more aggressively, giving in a more classic, GT look, but in a world of automotive design that seems to hurtling toward a uniform, teardrop, cab-forward shape, I find that the cars that dare to stand out are the most artistic.
|
Jun 29 '01
9:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Solution+to+the+ugly+problem (Reply to this comment)
by herjazz
the Roadster version looks a lot better, yes, but i was thinking that the roof adds a bit of rigidity and thus makes the Coupe a better choice for folks who want to race it... they didn't have the Z3 Roadster in 3.0 form, so i would have to trust your comment about it being just a fun.
uh oh, BMW is planning to "luxurify" the Z3 Coupe? i know the current Coupe does stand out a bit from the rest of the line, but i think that's what gives it its charm and probably attracts folks to buy it. if they take the "rawness" away, what is left of the car? i'll keep a watchful eye on BMW to see what they do to the Z3...
As for the chassis, IMHO this chassis is overpowered by the 3.0, much less the upcoming M engine that makes another 100 HP. It's far from stable... Of course, this lack of chassis refinement is also what makes the Z3 a lot of fun to drive.
i think you described that well, and that is probably why the car is so fun and feels like a part of your body. the rear is a bit skittish, but i found that to be very fun. for a daily driver, or a "pratical" 2-seater, this car probably doesn't make the cut, but for pure insane, adreneline-rush driving pleasure (at $40K, no less) it's the car to have. especially for enthusiasts who want to track the car.
as per your suggestion in your review, the 2.5 roadster is probably a more practical and sane choice for the long term...
|
Jun 14 '01
11:09 am PDT
|
|
Solution to the ugly problem (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh,  in Cars & Motorsports
There is an easy solution to the ugly problem you have done an excellent job identifying: get the Z3 without the roof. The roadster looks a lot better and is even more fun to drive.
If you want the car described in this review, don't delay. BMW is redesigning the Z3 soon (I think ofr 2003), and the new one will be modernized, refined, etc. No more retro roughness.
As for the current car, I had many of the same impressions. Really tacky K-Mart class cupholder thing on the console, for example. The whole interior (of the coupe even more than the roadster) has the cheap ambiance of a '70s Datsun, or maybe a '60s MG. But that's kind of in the spirit of the car, so I don't count it against it.
As for the chassis, IMHO this chassis is overpowered by the 3.0, much less the upcoming M engine that makes another 100 HP. It's far from stable, and in very aggressive driving the stability control will have to save your butt often. Of course, this lack of chassis refinement is also what makes the Z3 a lot of fun to drive.
As I state in my own Z3 roadster review (I also reviewed the old M Coupe, which had just a tad more power than the 3.0), the 2.5 with manual may be the best way to go. It's fun without being insane. You can greatly enjoy yourself in that car at legal speeds. Which for regular driving is the highest praise I can give a car.
|
Jun 14 '01
4:54 am PDT
|
|
|
|
