# *BMW Z4 2.0 Press Release 31.1.05**



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

Received today from BMW GB Corporate Communications

The new BMW Z4 2.0i Roadster
BMW is pleased to announce the arrival of the Z4 2.0i Roadster, a new entry-level model for the two-seater, open top sports car. Powered by a 150bhp engine, the new car is the first Z4 to be fitted with the lightweight four-cylinder powerplant built at Hams Hall in Warwickshire. The 1,995cc unit propels the Z4 from zero to 62mph in 8.2 seconds before going on to a top speed of 136mph. Torque is 200Nm at 3,600rpm.

Due on sale in the UK in May, the carâ€™s commendable performance is due in part to the use of VANOS and VALVETRONIC technology. VANOS decides when an engineâ€™s valves are opened while VALVETRONIC determines by how much they open. The net result is improved engine performance in terms of power, economy and responsiveness.
Standard equipment on the Z4 2.0i will include 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.

The introduction of the Z4 2.0i Roadster brings the number of engine options in the model range to four and the number of BMW models powered by UK-built four-cylinder petrol engines to three (1 Series, 3 Series and Z4). Three six-cylinder engines with capacities of 2.2-litres, 2.5-litres and 3.0-litres complete the Z4 range with the new model making its first public appearance at the Geneva Motor Show on 1 March. Prices will be announced at a later date.

______________________

Plenty of dicussion about this on the BMW Roadster boards I can tell you !!!

Damian


----------



## Pammy (Nov 10, 2003)

I can imagine - sounds a bit like the 150 TT, SLK200 and 115 MGF - entry level for those that want the look of a powerful sporty car but not the power :?


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ronin said:


> have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?


PMSL :lol:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

The 2.2 is gutless enough, but this is just stupid! Another reason not to get a Z4 then!


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

ronin said:


> have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?


Well if we all liked the same things....in all honesty I get mostly compliments with regards to my car. The only negatives I've personally had are from TT owners on the board. In fact, when I was at AFN Guildford test driving the Boxter S the other day, the salesman commented what a lovely looking car it was. I didn't expect that from a Porker dealer!!!

I've had a TT....and now I have a Z4. I loved my TT - but let's just say - I wouldn't go back. I would, however, have another Z4 (though I wish the build quality was as good as the TT - the one I had anyhow)

Damian


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> The 2.2 is gutless enough, but this is just stupid! Another reason not to get a Z4 then!


Though, CLEARLY, slightly less reason still than why not to get an S2000!

Oh dear, here we go...this could go on and on and on.

You post an informational post in the other marques section, on another marque and in turns into some sort of slanging match against your car. And from people with 'lesser' cars as well - LOL. (that should rile them nicely)

Damian


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

snaxo said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > The 2.2 is gutless enough, but this is just stupid! Another reason not to get a Z4 then!
> ...


Damian, i quite like the Z4. I test drove one, and even though it didn't give me the buzz at the time, I would have had the 3.0 if it were the only choice against the TT. It is an all round good car, but BMW have done to the Z4 what Audi did with the TT, IMO diluted the brand just to get sales. If the Z4 was only avaible in 3.0 and M versions then residuals would be strong and sales would be high, however they would prefer have high sales in a short period of time. :?

I just think that BMW have killed the Z4 brand by this move, im not comparing.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

snaxo said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?
> ...


Do you reallly think the salesman at Porsche is going to turn around and say "thats a wonky looking car you have sir" - he will butter you up - and its worked as youve remembered his comment. AFN 1, chap test driving nil.........
If driving something that looks like the aftermath of an NCAP test is your thing - whoopdedoo.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

kmpowell said:


> [
> Damian, i quite like the Z4. I test drove one, and even though it didn't give me the buzz at the time, I would have had the 3.0 if it were the only choice against the TT.
> 
> I just think that BMW have killed the Z4 brand by this move, im not comparing.


last i heard you were looking at boyzed up CTR's, so perhaps this would be worth a look?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Touche...

although it does sound like Kev has seen the light and maybe getting a decent car. After a couple of LHD efforts and a dodgy riceburner, he's due some good luck


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

digimeisTTer said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


220bhp Civic Type R or a 150bhp Z4, hmmm let me think, being a 'sports car' fan i know what i would have. CTR everytime, and its nothing to do with it being 'boyed up', i'd have it because the 2.0 Z4 will be gutless and bottom of the range which opens it up to the twats who like all the show, but no go!

But after seeing your posts in this section over the past year, i'm not surprised at your comments. You are a self admitted 'badge snob', but the sad thing is you think the TT is still stylish and trendy to be seen in! LMFAO at you!


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I like the Z4. 0-60 in 8.2 doesn't sound too bad for an entry level model.

I wouldn't buy one though, but I'd quite like a 3.0.

However in this market it would be Boxster all the way for me.

Ronin, not noticed this attitude before, dunno if you got out of bed the wrong side, your comments don't come across very well - I would be a bit peeved if I was snaxo. Nice exterior colour you chose, best colour IMO (particularly for the coupe). Not sure I would take much notice of someone who chose a cream interior over blue, grey or black though :wink:


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

kmpowell said:


> i'm not surprised at your comments. You are a self admitted 'badge snob', but the sad thing is you think the TT is still stylish and trendy to be seen in! LMFAO at you!


I am indeed, and this wasn't mean't as a personal attack, i was trying to be constructive, but i'll laugh my ass off at you when i see you in your CTR or whatever crap car you buy next!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

spy shot of the new Z4


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

I've got to say i love the bold Z4 Styling but then i had a Fiat Coupe Turbo which was another Bangle creation. The Z4 makes the S2000 look rather bland in comparison... and in the flesh Damians Z4 is a tasty motor. Sounds great too...


----------



## mosschops (Dec 31, 2002)

I had a Z4 as a hire car in the US and thought it was a very good car - I'd may have had one if they were a bit cheaper.

There is no shame in having one of the less potent variants - My 180 TT was no less of a TT that a 225, or V6 - yes it's nice to occasionally have all that grunt but in the real world it doesn't count for very much.

Like it or not BMW (come to think of it MB & Audi too) are mainstream manufactuers now, that happen to charge a premium for their products.

There will always be a market for a popular car with different engine variants and the manufactuers will milk them for all they are worth, OK the "gutless" versions may be down on power compared to their flagship counterparts, but I would bet that the majority of owners wouldn't give 2 hoots how much BHP it pushes out.


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

ronin said:


> have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?


No, but then at least it's not driven by one....LOL. You seem to be in the minority Ronin chap. It's up to you what you like, but at least try and make some intelligent objective comments - like others have done here.

And...re: the Porsche dealers comment.

a) he didn't have to comment at all - I've never had another dealer comment on any car I've been driving before!
b) He says his wife wants a Z4 !

Damian


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> snaxo said:
> 
> 
> > kmpowell said:
> ...


Kev yes I possibly agree with you. At 20k it's clearly a very different beast to the 3.0 Z4 I have and therefore it's unclear as yet as to what effect it will have on residuals. I wonder if those that would like to own a 3.0 but can't afford one new, would settle for a 2.0 instead - I doubt it. I think it's a different market altogether - the hairdresser market maybe ;-)

The standard new 2.0 doesn't even have a power roof. By the time you add that and a couple of extra's it'll be up to 2.2 money.

Other thing to remember is that the likes of BMW and Audi are less concerned with dilution of brand and more concerned with selling as many cars as possible. It's not a surprise that a Z4 has therefore been produced to complete in the lucrative MX5 / MR2 market. They are a business and they want to make as much money as possible,

Further news is that BMW has reversed its decision (surprise, surprise) to produce a Z4M.

It's likely to appear next year and will use the new M3's 400 horsepower, four-liter V8 engine. That's gonna be slow then !!!!!

Damian


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

snaxo said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?
> ...


Coming from you that carries no weight - hardly full of kineasan insights yourself are you ?
You obviously need the reassurance of others to justify your car - get some confidence and stop hiding behind the "he said she said" and speak for yourself, dont let others do it for you.

The car is pig ugly - deal with it.

As for being driven by a retard, maybe not officially proven but the more you type.....................


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

snaxo said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > have they changed the shape to stop it looking like it was designed by a retard?
> ...


With regards to A - he probably just felt sorry for you ( he wouldnt be in a minority )
B - how apt a girl wanting a Z4 - self explanatory


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

ronin said:


> snaxo said:
> 
> 
> > ronin said:
> ...


Is that the best you can do? LOL.

Damian


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

snaxo said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > snaxo said:
> ...


No - but thats all YOU need..........


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Wow... just read this thread and what are you guys on?

How many personal attacks in a matter of a few posts :roll: I thought the "retard" comment was funny, if untrue, but then again jokes don't need to be true to be funny :?

The escalation is right out of the cold war... and there's me thinking Ronin and Snaxo knew each other :roll:

IMO the 3.0 Z4 is a good car (not as fast as mine though  ), but the TT (however long it has been around) is still better looking, even if it doesn't have rwd. Each to his own... 

Now stop the bloody nonsense guys and kiss and make up for christ sake :x


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

You are, of course right, Mr Chairman.

I don't know Ronin actually - but fine with me. We're probably both nice in person really :wink:

I'm not very good at not reacting to inflammatory posts made in my direction, so of course reacted - which was not likely to move things forward :?

Apologies for the retard related comment I made.

Damian


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

nutts said:


> , but the TT (however long it has been around) is still better looking, even if it doesn't have rwd. Each to his own...





kmpowell said:


> [ but the sad thing is you think the TT is still stylish and trendy to be seen in! LMFAO at you!


 :roll: :roll: :wink:


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

ronin said:


> B - how apt a girl wanting a Z4 - self explanatory


Cream leather.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> > B - how apt a girl wanting a Z4 - self explanatory
> ...


Anis - but whats your involvement in this, apart form blatantly sticking your nose in ?


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

What is my involvement? I'm sorry I didn't realise I had to ask a committee member for permission to post on here? If you want to have a private conversation, do it via email or PM, otherwise you are inviting any other member to comment. Thats what forums are for see?

The way I see it, Creamy, is that you are quite happy to make comments about another member's choice of car but can't take it when someone comments on your own choice. Which is childish no?

If you don't like it Creamy I suggest you scuttle back to the What Polish? forum and leave the rest of us to discuss one another's cars in a civil manner.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> What is my involvement? I'm sorry I didn't realise I had to ask a committee member for permission to post on here? If you want to have a private conversation, do it via email or PM, otherwise you are inviting any other member to comment. Thats what forums are for see?
> 
> The way I see it, Creamy, is that you are quite happy to make comments about another member's choice of car but can't take it when someone comments on your own choice. Which is childish no?
> 
> If you don't like it Creamy I suggest you scuttle back to the What Polish? forum and leave the rest of us to discuss one another's cars in a civil manner.


yawn [smiley=sleeping.gif]



Carlos said:


> I'm sorry


good!


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

First class response there Creamy. I take it that was submission? Good. Let's move on.


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> First class response there Creamy. I take it that was submission? Good. Let's move on.


No submission - lets move on?
Nope - bring it on

creamy - pathetic, but if thats the best you can do...............


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

:!: Enough :!:

Leave it there or we'll remove/lock the thread. :x


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)




----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I guess we should move on, but before we do, instead of embarrassing yourself further by dismissing a reasoned argument with a yawn, perhaps you would care to explain why you think it is ok for you to insult someone else's car but don't like it when someone questions your own taste.

And while you're at it could you explain why should I not post in a thread on a public forum?

I am sure you're a nice fella but in this thread you have come across as a classic playground bully - can give it out but not take it back.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Ok its left. I had entered the last response before seeing your reply Scotty.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

So anyway, what do we think of the 1 series? Pig ugly IMO


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> I guess we should move on, but before we do, instead of embarrassing yourself further by dismissing a reasoned argument with a yawn, perhaps you would care to explain why you think it is ok for you to insult someone else's car but don't like it when someone questions your own taste.
> 
> And while you're at it could you explain why should I not post in a thread on a public forum?
> 
> I am sure you're a nice fella but in this thread you have come across as a classic playground bully - can give it out but not take it back.


Embarrassing myself - thats rich as you started calling me names of all things, then go on to say im a playground bully - ask yourself what that makes you :lol: 
You have just done yourself right up, but please dont stop their................ :roll:


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

My last word on the issue. Let others reading the thread decide who has been done up.

See you at Combe to shake hands and make up?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> My last word on the issue. Let others reading the thread decide who has been done up.
> 
> See you at Combe to shake hands and make up?


Are you suggesting Ronin wears makeup?


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

jampott said:


> Carlos said:
> 
> 
> > My last word on the issue. Let others reading the thread decide who has been done up.
> ...


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> My last word on the issue. Let others reading the thread decide who has been done up.
> 
> See you at Combe to shake hands and make up?


I wont be at Combe, which is now becoming a bit of a shame.


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

digimeisTTer said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > i'm not surprised at your comments. You are a self admitted 'badge snob', but the sad thing is you think the TT is still stylish and trendy to be seen in! LMFAO at you!
> ...


Not wanting to get into the fight - but have you ever driven the CTR ??? I can tell you it ticks all the boxes as a fast, fun, drivers car. And whilst the Honda badge might not have the prestige of Audi you can guarantee it will be only the Audi drivers stood in the service area waiting for their car to be returned to them!!


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

I had about a 45 min drive in a CTR and it was great fun!! 
Needed a lot of revving though which I guess could be tiring...

Damian


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

snaxo said:


> I had about a 45 min drive in a CTR and it was great fun!!
> Needed a lot of revving though which I guess could be tiring...
> 
> Damian


Definitely. A very different type of drive to the turbo'ed TT.. and the reason I didn't go for a Civic type S or Focus ST170 but a diesel in the new car instead - guess i've gotten lazy with some normally aspirated petrol engines needing too much hard work.

For what it is worth I love the looks of the Z4 - though it is very very colour dependent for me. Any ideas how much the entry level model is?


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

che6mw said:


> snaxo said:
> 
> 
> > I had about a 45 min drive in a CTR and it was great fun!!
> ...


I know exactly what you mean re: colour dependance. I like Sterling Grey (obviosuly) and black. Not so keen on Silver or 'Merlot' (wine colour obviosuly).

The colour range is pretty poor TBH - one area where BMW could learn a thing or two from Audi.

Re: entry level price - not sure - I'm guessing between Â£10-Â£21k. I think the 2.2 starts off at just under Â£25k. I wonder if there is even a chance of them trying to get the 2.0 in at a shade under Â£20k - we'll have to wait and see.

Damian


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I like the CTR but in that market I would go for the Clio cup. I reckon it would make a good commuter and the magazines rate it VERY highly on the track


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

I sold my Anni diesel to a CTR owner. Drove his CTR - thrashy horrible thing. Out handled the Golf as expected but irritating to drive - great on the track though i would think.


----------



## Stu-Oxfordshire (May 7, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> :!: Enough :!:
> 
> Leave it there or we'll remove/lock the thread. :x


Bah, enough of that Paul...this is a great thread - more handbags please


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

che6mw said:


> digimeisTTer said:
> 
> 
> > kmpowell said:
> ...


Yes i have (others that have read my previous posts) would know that i used to be a service manager for Toyota and my brother runs an Accura (posh Honda) dealership in Canada, before i bought the TT i tested all the hot hatches (cos that was what i was gonna buy originally) and mighty impressive they were, the CTR is a bean tin with a rocket in it. I have been lucky enough to have driven an extremely wide range of cars and i appreciate them all for what they are.

Believe you me i know the japs build more reliable cars than anyone!!!

they just don't float my boat.

BTW i am aware that Honda have done more for motorsport engine development than any other manufacturer in recent years (pos exception of ferrari), but they have now pulled out of F1 :?


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

What a thread 

It's funny how worked up we all get about cars really, whether it be badge snobbery, pub number bhp boasters or just plain ignorance! I say we save our true automotive venom for the really afflicted - Zafiras et al, and the urban 4x4 owners. Now _*those*_ are people who made bad car choices 

And back to the original post - Damian what do the Z4 community make of the new entry level model then? Worry over residuals, brand dilution, mass threats of selling, or more of a cyber shrug of the shoulders? (And is your visit to the Porker dealer unrelated, I think we should be told :wink: )


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> What a thread
> 
> It's funny how worked up we all get about cars really, whether it be badge snobbery, pub number bhp boasters or just plain ignorance! I say we save our true automotive venom for the really afflicted - Zafiras et al, and the urban 4x4 owners. Now _*those*_ are people who made bad car choices
> 
> And back to the original post - Damian what do the Z4 community make of the new entry level model then? Worry over residuals, brand dilution, mass threats of selling, or more of a cyber shrug of the shoulders? (And is your visit to the Porker dealer unrelated, I think we should be told :wink: )


Steve - mixed reactions as you might expect...all the normal kinda stuff that you ilude to

http://www.z4um.com/viewtopic.php?t=8389

With regards to the Boxster - I went to the launch event way back in November I think but I only recently had the chance to test drive. This is what I thought:

a) Test Drive was crap. Lasted 20 minutes. 15 minutes on a Major A road and 5 minuites on some B roads but in Traffic. Not sure what you can really tell about a car from that !!!
b) Like the interior. Quite plush and luxurious - high quality feel. Feels expensive. Not as 'purist' as the Z4 - but defeinitely lets you know you are in a classy machine.
c) Lots of power and torque - but you are somehow isolated from the speed more so than in the Z4. I was doing <very high number> in no time and it didn't feel like it at all
d) Kind of heavy feel. Feels very solid but almost in a tank-like way. Seems very well built though there was an annoying rattle on my side. Getting back in the Z4 it actually seemed very lightfooted and nimble in comparison. Interesting.
e) Glorious engine noise. Z4 3.0i is nice but this is different league. Right near your ears as well - quite addictive.

Quite impressed but I know for sure I'd need one for a much longer period of time to truly get a good idea of the thing. Possible consideration for next car unless I need more practicality or the Z4M is as good as it should be and is affordable...

Damian


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

Interesting forum they are either women or Moderators on there why do they need so many mods are they very badly behaved on that forum ,they seem very nice.


----------



## V6 TT (Sep 24, 2002)

...WTF?!?!... <--- not constructive one bit, I know!

Having a bad day guys? :lol:


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

kingcutter said:


> Interesting forum they are either women or Moderators on there why do they need so many mods are they very badly behaved on that forum ,they seem very nice.


We are very nice. Seriously though - it's a very friendly place. Just like here - women are in the minority but there are a few. Don't think we have as many mods as here?

Damian


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

snaxo said:


> kingcutter said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting forum they are either women or Moderators on there why do they need so many mods are they very badly behaved on that forum ,they seem very nice.
> ...


I must admit i only looked at that thread and there were six mods that took part in that thread maybe they post more than our mods in a particular thread.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Ha ha. Just caught up with this thread - really takes me back to the old days of the Forum. 

Surprised so many people still say that the Bangle BMWs are ugly. They are definitely different, but I think that is a good thing - the world would be a very boring place if the coupe sector was full of TT clones. I actually think the Z4 looks fantastic and modern, and makes the TT look slightly dated, as it does the S2000 IMO.

I presume we're all car bores and would relish the chance to get behind the wheel of any of the cars here - S4, Z4, S2000, RS6, 997 8) , etc etc. To make a judgement on someone based on the colour of the leather or the type of car is hilarious but obviously totally bonkers.

I hope moderators don't end up locking this thread - haven't laughed like that for ages.


----------



## s2krj (Aug 22, 2004)

Having owned a TT (sold becuase it didn't light my fire), had the chance to drive a 3.2 DSG TT for a week and having driven a Civic Type R on many occassions I can only say that you TT owners are dreaming if you think that you can keep up with a CTR.

On sheer handling alone, the accuracy of the steering compared to the woolly Quattro feel, a Civic Type R will leave most TT owners sniffing superunleaded from those twin tailpipes.

There is an inherent quality to the chassis and the powerlant of the CTR that the TT cannot match, do not mess with i-VTEC, you could end up with egg on your face.


----------

