..... vs BMW Z4 sDrive28i
 

http://media.caranddriver.com/images...-s-787x481.jpg
http://media.caranddriver.com/images...-s-787x481.jpg
http://media.caranddriver.com/images...-s-787x481.jpg

ENGINE:
2.0-liter turbocharged I-4
Horsepower: 240 hp @ 5000 rpm
Torque: 260 lb-ft @ 1250 rpm

TRANSMISSION:
6-speed manual
DRIVE:
Rear-wheel

FUEL ECONOMY (city/highway/combined):
22/34/27 mpg

CURB WEIGHT:
3263 lb

CAPACITIES:
Doors/Passengers: 2/2
Cargo: 8.0 cu ft
Legroom: 42.2 in
Headroom (front/rear): 39.1 in

STANDARD FEATURES:
Start-stop
Brake energy regeneration
Stability and traction control
Tire pressure monitoring system
Cornering brake control
Adaptive Xenon headlights
Folding hardtop
Heated rear window glass and exterior mirrors
Adaptive brake lights
Center armrest
Leatherette seats
Two center console cup holders and one clip-in cup holder
Cruise control
Auxiliary audio input
USB and iPod adapters

MSRP (with destination): $49,525

Totally different car! I work for BMW and I'll say the Z4 will blow the doors off our carson acceleration and fuel economy, but it's not really much of a drivers car. Also the base price is 2x what an FR-S costs.

For 50 grand I would want more than this:

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.7–5.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.5–14.6 sec
Top speed: 155 mph

Mileage looks to be about the same or worse for the bimmer...looks like it's a bit quicker, but blowing the doors off the twins? Not so sure about that...

At any rate, with a starting price of 50k...not gonna cut it...

It's got 4 mpg on the FR-S on the highway, and it's got us by 0.8 to 60 (using edmunds numbers, 5.8 vs 6.6 without rollout) and the gap will get larger as the big horsepower takes over (big in comparison to what we have) ;)

The difference is that this is a folding hardtop roadster that's been designed more for old people to cruise around in compared to a car designed for younger people/sports car enthusiats.

50k isn't too bad when you cross shop it with it's actual competitors, the Boxster and the SLK (I'd take the boxster all day long though)

Is anyone else confused as to why they needed to make the hood so long for a 4 cylinder? (it's a fantastic engine though :) )

The stated hwy mileage of 33/34 is meaningless. Unless you drive nothing but highway. From everything I've read, they seem to average around 27 mpg combined...that's less than the twins.

That's not a long hood...this is a long hood!

http://wizbangpop.com/wordpress/wp-c...ily-guy-WQ.jpg

I think you may be confused:

It's 23 City/34 Hwy (27 combined) for the Z4 with the 6 speed and an FRS/BRZ is 22 City/30 Hwy (25 combined)

Where I'm from 27 is more than 25!

Now for the Automatic, you're correct, the FRS/BRZ does get better mileage:

24 City/ 33 Hwy (27 combined) for the Z4 vs 25 city/34 hwy for the FRS/BRZ (28 combined)

However that is because our FRS/BRZ have a lower final drive with the Automatic and suffer quite a bit on acceleration where the Z4 does not.

The Manufacturers quote 5.6s 0-60 for the Z4 with the auto trans and 8.0s 0-60 for the FR-S Automatic.

I've driven both an auto and manual FRS and also an auto and manual z4 28i so I can assure you that it's a drastic difference in acceleration.

The car was designed for a 6 cyl (still available with one, up to 335hp), the 4 cyl came after. It looks quite funny when you open the engine bay.

I'm not gonna argue the acceleration numbers as those look pretty accurate. But, 25 combined from the twins? If you're getting that kind of mileage, something is wrong with your car, or you drive like a lunatic...:D

Sadly I only get 24.9 in mine. 40/60 split city/hwy and I don't take it too easy. I drove a Z4 for a week and I got 27.4 in that!

BTW my FR-S gets 12 MPG at the track.

As far as gas mileage goes, EPA manual transmission numbers are total bullshit anyways because in the real world very few people use one gear for some preset (and relatively low) speed range every time. Most people are willing to use a higher gear than the EPA test tends to dictate.

In real life the 2 engines have the same displacement, the BMW engine is more high tech and is more efficient under most load conditions, but the BMW engine has to push around more mass. On the highway the BMW engine is probably geared a little better, and has better low load efficiency, but the BMW probably has worse aerodynamics (that ~30 degree angle from the roof to the end of the trunk is making me cringe, ideal angle for generating very strong trailing vortices). Hence, the twins likely turn out slightly better real world fuel economy. Of course, the disadvantage the twins have is that they're naturally aspirated, so the driver may feel inclined to run in a lower gear more often which will slightly cut down the fuel economy.

After a little more digging, it seems that owner data points to the bimmer averaging 33 whereas the twins average 30...so regardless of the many variations, you are in fact correct...the bimmer gets better mileage and is quicker...:happy0180:

Should I throw the SLK 250 in here as well or start a new thread?

http://cdnedge.vinsolutions.com/AP/S...C641A01302.JPG
http://cdnedge.vinsolutions.com/AP/S...F=O2MBGIA1.JPG

Basic data
MSRP starting from [1]
$52,200

Engine and performance
Cylinder arrangement/number
I4

Total displacement (cc)
1,796

Net power (hp @ rpm)
201 @ 5,500

Net torque (lb-ft @ rpm)
229 @ 2,300 - 4,300

Compression ratio
9.3:1

Acceleration 0-100 km/h (s)
6.6

Approximate top speed (km/h) [2]
210

Fuel and emissions
Fuel tank capacity/with reserve (L)
60/8

Fuel economy, city (L/100km) [3]
9.0

Fuel economy, highway (L/100km) [3]
6.0

Drag coefficient
0.32

A very elegant car, but more for the upscale, non-enthusiast crowd. In other words, I wouldn't expect to see too many of these at the track. I wish BMW would quit it with the power-retracting hardtop and go back to ragtops. Very sexy nonetheless! Would love to have one at my cape house that I also don't have ;)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7174/6...0febdc1d_z.jpg
http://www.automobilsport.com/upload...-vds-pitts.jpghttp://alt-a.bitg.net/nightmobile/ca...500/171507.jpg
http://cdn.speedhunters.com/wp-conte...003_4XRA_0.jpg
http://www.autospies.com/images/user...%20GT3%208.jpg
http://www.bmwblog.com/wp-content/up...urburgring.jpg
http://jonsibal.com/bpimages/VLN2010r1_1.jpg
http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/...CPq1qzf6rx.gif

You can now buy a slightly used Z4M coupe for about the same price as a new FRS.

I really liked mine. I wish I kept it.

I traded it for a NC Miata.<<<<<-------crappiest car I have ever owned.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot..._4511283_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...31_45018_n.jpg

Z4 is a very beautiful car... It's shame that it is only a 2 seater.

That's a gorgeous car, Silversprint... you can get them for about the price of a new BRZ, but man, they're tough to find, at least locally. Beautiful car, great interior, and that amazing, amazing engine...

There's always one... I meant ROAD CARS. That normal humans can afford. You think I don't know BMW races Z4's that cost $3/4M (probably more)? Derp.

Penis extension. The six-pot fits in an Einser without looking so schwantzy, so that's no excuse.

Wonder why it needs to be so stupidly heavy?

Not even close.

~$400,000

derp.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlfWyn0pj-A"]2012 BMW Z4 28i review - YouTube[/ame]

Oh, excuse me, a total bargain! I'll have two!

Looks good in yellow. That new 2.0L is a nice engine; I hope Audi steps up their 2.0L to make more horsepower, too.

7:30
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSsfra2Dp34&feature=player_embedded"]2012 SUPER GT Rd.6富士スピードウェイ - YouTube[/ame]