Smaller engines are better drivers cars?

[M666BMG]

All this talk ON handling is (as Brian says) subjective, you may like the handling of one car and able to transfer that onto the road, but I on the other hand may not cos it doesn't suit my style of driving, you buy your mode after test drive and hopefully it suits you or you know how to change it to suit, really doesn't matter how good the car is if the Input from the driver is wrong. Yes you may be able to convince the general public that some features are what they need but experience tells us it's subjective. BMW test drivers no doubt will get the best out of the models they have the input for, but unless you can drive just like them then there's gonna have to be some compromise, that compromise I'm afraid is you and I, so just because the feature is there doesn't mean it's best for All of us.
The Z3 chassis was probably built around the 4pot engine so it's my view that they should have uprated the 4pot engine. With upgraded suspension and brakes plus a turbo / blower a 1.9/2.0 could have easily matched the 6pots for power if they'd gone down that route, and what ever happened to the E30M3 engine, why not use it for an upgrade at the time, instead of the M50/2, could it be that they wanted to push there new baby 6pot onto the public.? BMW in hindsight have done themselves no favours. Having said that I loved my first drive of the Z3 2.8, even with its shortcomings in handling, but that's all about to change, I'm going to try and make my Z handle the way I like it, so any shortcomings after that will no doubt be down to me. Z3 4pot verses 6pot handling ?? Who Cares!!!!!!!!!. Surely it's subject to who's in the driving seat that really counts. They're all great little cars even with their shortcomings.

Top reply sir.

I'd still take the 6 cylinder over any other version!

 

[TaffZee]

Although "Subjective" the question was asked, so the replies are forthcoming on peoples experience, The 1.9 most definitely (and should be due to the weight ratio) more nibble around twisty roads, but the bigger engines 2.8,3.0,3.2, suit the looks of the car better, Nothing worse than having a sporty looking car and being beaten off the lights by a Nova

 

[Rha]

Although "Subjective" the question was asked, so the replies are forthcoming on peoples experience, The 1.9 most definitely (and should be due to the weight ratio) more nibble around twisty roads, but the bigger engines 2.8,3.0,3.2, suit the looks of the car better, Nothing worse than having a sporty looking car and being beaten off the lights by a Nova

Taff your right, but we can't see what's under the bonnet at the lights so we shouldn't be too troubled if a nova gets away quicker or any other motor for that matter, just have to try and make up some ground in and around the bends if the other driver isn't up to it, and if your in a 1.9 and know your limits chances are you'll unnerve him after a couple, but with me in my heavy 2.8 I'd probably just have to let him go, after all he could be a nutter. No point in trying to prove how good or bad our Zs are, best left to the nutters.( amongst us).
PS; takes a good motor to get away (easy) from a Z at the lights.( unless you've fallen asleep). Yeh I know, there's plenty of em out there too.( nutters and good motors)

 

[TaffZee]

I for one don't want to be left at the lights so must make me a nutter then, If I wanted a car with no whoosh I would have bought one, cmon its all about power or we would all be driving a 1.8, 1.9 and not spending a fortune on moding the cars to get more HP.

The 4 pots are a good engine but lets face it underpowered for the type of car (Wait for it)

 

[Redline]

I'd probably just have to let him go, after all he could be a nutter.

Case in point - the white van man I left for dead after an island last night. Took him a while but he came tanking past me over 3 miles down the road - he must have been doing over 95...
I think he expected me to go faster to stay in front. I'd rather have in front than behind at that speed. Don't think I'd want to be a plumbers mate in that....

 

[Rha]

I for one don't want to be left at the lights so must make me a nutter then, If I wanted a car with no whoosh I would have bought one, cmon its all about power or we would all be driving a 1.8, 1.9 and not spending a fortune on moding the cars to get more HP.

The 4 pots are a good engine but lets face it underpowered for the type of car (Wait for it)

Ok Ok, you've seen right through me, so I like a bit of power under the hood and will use it to my own satisfaction but like to think I can spot a nutter before it's too late, trouble is perhaps the other driver thinks he has spotted the nutter. Two nutters make a lunatic, No ?????------

 

[Dino D]

In Europe there is a strange obsession with small things(!)
In South Africa they never bothered with 4pot Z's. 2.8 was the smallest.
They also never bothered with the e30 4cy M3 instead making 3.3 and 2,7l e30's with aluminum panels.
I think they also made the first V8 Capris and Sierras.
They also put a 5cyl 2.5l Audi engine into the old VW buses (I think the T3 boxy shape, last of the rear engined ones).
They also love big bikes down there, plenty of naked straight 6 Honda Gold Wings back in the day, most lovely sounds.

The lighter counterparts probably all handled better than the more powerful heavier versions (in the hands of an average driver).
But of course real hairy chested drivers can handle big power...Some still hunt their own BBQ meat down there you know!

 

[Dino D]

My position: I think smaller engines are definitely better (until I can afford the bigger engined version!)

 

[t-tony]

Perhaps why the older American muscle cars were good for racing between sets of traffic lights but not much else?

Tony.

 

[andyglym]

POWER! As Jeremy Clarkson would say. Done the 4 cylinder turbo thing and it was great but now it's the torque and in gear speed that interest me. Not interested in the "traffic light" dash any more, just clog it for my own amusement when the conditions are right.

 

[oldcarman]

@Dino D wouldn't have any pics of those straight 6 naked gold wings would you. We had the straight sixes only for I believe one or two years way back and the gold wing arrived in 75. Would love to see what the others looked like. Must have had an awesome sound. Our's were six pipes into two mufflers and were extremely rare then and more so now. My friend still has a motor from a wrecked bike in his shop and likely will not do anything with it. In fact I believe the wrecked frame, etc is still sitting out back in the weeds! What a shame! JIM

 

[zedonist]

I think the answer is every one would love a 800Nm torque monster with 1000BHP, but at the end of the day financial commitment status comes into play, and with four kids I could not splash out on an //M outright, but I could afford the M44 and afford to spend bits here and there, in doing so created a hobby that brings me joy and satisfaction, and the result is very well sorted little roadster, it puts a smile on my face... each to there own as they say, but you get the roar with a 44...(be it a Magnum or a Zed)

 

[Rha]

I think the answer is every one would love a 800Nm torque monster with 1000BHP, but at the end of the day financial commitment status comes into play, and with four kids I could not splash out on an //M outright, but I could afford the M44 and afford to spend bits here and there, in doing so created a hobby that brings me joy and satisfaction, and the result is very well sorted little roadster, it puts a smile on my face... each to there own as they say, but you get the roar with a 44...(be it a Magnum or a Zed)

At last some sensible input to this over talked about subject. Four children and an understanding wife also allowed me to indulge myself in the eighties zedonist, trying my hardest at a bit of road rallying but not having much success in my very second hand Escort Mk1 RS2000. It wasn't all plane sailing either with very little spare cash for extras and I had to agree to use the car as family shopping basket and fit a towing eye to pull the family holiday trailer to Cornwall every year, but the sacrifice was worth it, if only I had taken some pics of the kids in the back all four in a row with their separate kiddies safety harnesses fastened to the rollover cage, wasn't allowed to exceed any speed limits either and had to take the tow hook off and undo the wireing every time we got back in case my mates saw it. Those were the days, as you'll probably say when you look back in years to come. 10/10 for your post. Roy.

 

[oldcarman]

Totally agree @Rha. Power I have in many of my cars with a BBC 462 which will likely be 600+hp sitting in the wings for me to decide which car it goes into. But I'm having the time of my life with my little 1.9, it's reminiscent of my days back in the 60's with my 66 corvair rear engined car blasting around the dirt roads near our cabin at the lake. Piled 13 people into it one day which payed off when it got stuck in sand. Practically picked it up. I'll never lose my need for speed, just don't need it in my zed right now and if I do I'll follow @zedonist and his plan almost to the letter to build the 4 pot. JIM

 

[TaffZee]

This was the question:

Well in all good humour I been thinking about the 35is - however after some reading I come a few articles saying the 28i is better handling than its bigger brother using the N54 monster.

As its 100KG lighter, and easier to turn into an corner "apparently"

Also I remember someone saying the 2ltr in the Z3 was an better handling car as well compared to the 3ltr version.

They all have there place from the 1.8 to the 3.2, it depends on what you have and want under the bonnet, Having owned a Z3 1.9 Z3 2.8 and now a Z4 3.0, why the change:

1.9, still miss this car could drive it like the wind on twisty roads but was underpowered. (Sheep in Wolfs clothing)

2.8 not missing this car as much as the 1.9 but got it because the 2.8-6 pot was a far more in keeping with the cars looks. (but still in my opinion underpowered coming in at under 200hp)

Z4 3.0SE Getting used to this not a Z3 which I miss, but handles far better than the 1.9 or the 2.8 and a lot more comfy and although it is just 30hp or so more than the 2.8 the difference is very noticeable. combines the handling+ of the 1.9 and power+ of the 2.8

Would I have another Z3? In a heartbeat what would I get? I would go for the 1.9 and upgrade the suspension, as living in Wales its more important to have a car that handles well than power under the hood. Still miss my little 1.9.

 

[EnthuZiaZT]

The new Z4 28i four pot runs a very healthy 248bhp, 0 to 60 comes up in 5.7 seconds which is slightly faster than the old normally aspirated 3.0L Z4 and Z3. But crucially it does not have that extra weight hanging over the front axle. All that power and decent MPG figures as well.

Mike

 

[Rha]

I like the reasoning behind Taff's post but now I'm wondering about corner weights, if the heavier Zs are as well balanced as the manufacturer says IE; 51% to 49% rear it should negate the difference, power making up for the extra weight. Does this not equal things out in the handling or are we all poor drivers of these sports cars or maybe BMW has led us all a merry dance.What do you all think.

 

[Rha]

Not liking my last post cos I must admit I've never weighed my Z to see the front to rear difference, so it looks like I might get egg on my face and my Z could be spot on, oh well should have thought it through first, corner weights could be miles out as well, wonder what @Brian H will make of my mutterings.

 

[Dino D]

I've had mine corner weighted and it was 48/52 before any adjustments with around 1/4 tank of fuel and staggered OEM 17inch wheels.

I think it was 1408kg. What does a 1.9 weigh?

It's hard comparing old cars as one may be on better condition suspension and the other etc.
Worn rear beam bushes (but still fine by MOT standards) on a 2.8 make for somewhat scary handling. More mass making it feel worse no doubt and taking away driver confidence (unless you are a WRC/BTCC driver!)
Back to back from new would be more telling.

 

[Brian H]

I like the reasoning behind Taff's post but now I'm wondering about corner weights, if the heavier Zs are as well balanced as the manufacturer says IE; 51% to 49% rear it should negate the difference, power making up for the extra weight. Does this not equal things out in the handling or are we all poor drivers of these sports cars or maybe BMW has led us all a merry dance.What do you all think.

@Rha, Weight has a massive effect on handling and its ability through the twisties, if the 2.8/3.0 are giving up 100+kg to the 1.9s then this does go to someway explain the different in handling characteristics. Even if both are equally balanced (51/49) the extra mass in the 2.8/3.0 needs to be dealt with.

I often take instruction on track days and you are taught two things over everything else, be smooth with your inputs (steering, throttle, brakes etc.) and consider your weigh transfer, the two of these driver skills working in harmony will dramatically change the attitude of your car both coming up to and whilst in a corner. A balanced car will be quick without too much hassle.

I will though go back the to the point though that this subject is subjective, I suspect @TaffZee clicked with his 1.9 and found a way to hustle the car which suited his style, it's about the feeling/feedback you get and what you expect at any given point, I could drive my 1.9 quickly but did not get a comfortable feeling at speed, I do in my 3.0.

Great topic this BTW