..... 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: