Article Comments - Sports Coupe Shoot-Out

21 messages, Last post on May 30, 2007 at 9:03 PM

You are in the BMW M/M3/M6 Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? BMW M3, Porsche Cayman, Coupe, Convertible

Article comments for 2006 Sport Coupe Shootout: BMW M Coupe vs. Porsche Cayman S - In stark contrast to the BMW's cerebral design is the Porsche's corporeal inspiration. Perhaps it's because the Porsche "bathtub" shape has been around for decades, and thus it's so familiar. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 3 of 3: 1; 2; 3; Prev; Next; Last

#17 of 21 Re: BMW should stick to sedans [habitat1] by perunest Nov 12, 2006 (2:12 pm)
Replying to: habitat1 (Nov 08, 2006 10:00 am) Borrowed engines in the BMW? What does that signify? The M54 engine has won more prestigious awards than any other 6 cylinder. Just because it was used in the M3 for a few years doesn't make it inferior. It still produces the most horsepower per liter. The Porsche uses the same boxer engine in the Boxster, Boxster s, Cayman, Cayman S, Carerra, and Carrera S. They just vary the displacement from 2.7 liters to 3.6 liters. Note that the 3.2 liter BMW in line six makes 330 hp in the M Roadster and M Coupe. The Cayman only manages 295 HP from a larger 3.4 liter engine. Even the Carerra only makes 325 HP with a 3.6 liter displacement. The Carerra S get to 345 HP by using a 3.8 liter engine. I'd say BMW technology gets an edge here.
#18 of 21 BMW vs Porsche Cayman by dieseltaylor Dec 10, 2006 (9:02 am)
I bought the Cayman because it is a classier car. BMW's are common in my neck of the woods and I have my doubts on how good one will look in 10 years time - not as good as my Cayman for sure. I sat in a number of BMWs and this time round the Z4 felt claustrophobic, though the new Audi TT is improved. Same argument of longevity and exclusivity. If I ever drove hell for leather maybe I would be interested. Put me on a motorway cruising 70-80-90's and I am getting 27 mpg. Nice
#19 of 21 Re: BMW should stick to sedans [habitat1] by jesawyer Jan 07, 2007 (5:13 pm)
Replying to: habitat1 (Nov 08, 2006 10:00 am) But, IMO, BMW is way off track when it comes to "sports cars". Too heavy, below average handling, borrowed engines.... The Z3/Z4 were inferior to a $32k Honda S2000 the day they were introduced. The Z4 3.0 outperforms the S2000 in pretty much every performance category. You might say, "But does that actually make it faster around a track?" The answer is yes. A stock Z4 3.0 SMG lapped the Nordschleife in 8 minutes, 32 seconds. The S2000 turned in a time of 8 minutes, 39 seconds. Those are Sportauto times, by the way. The Z4 is significantly more expensive, but it also comes with a more practical truck and (in my opinion) a better interior. For comparison, the Cayman S turned in a time of 8 minutes, 25 seconds. In summary, for the price gap between the S2000 and the Z4 3.0, you get a car that performs better in every regard and has more luxury features. This makes sense. More money = more car. For the price gap between the Z4 M Coupe and the Cayman S, you get a car that performs worse and may or may not have a better interior, depending on your preference. So what's that again about BMW not knowing how to make sports cars? Replies to this message: fedlawman (Jan 07, 2007 7:42 pm)
#20 of 21 Re: BMW should stick to sedans [jesawyer] by fedlawman Jan 07, 2007 (7:42 pm)
Replying to: jesawyer (Jan 07, 2007 5:13 pm) I believe Habitat1 said they were inferior "the day they were introduced." When the Z4 was introduced, the top-of-the-line 3.0L model only had 215 HP (N52 series engine). It was heavier, slower, and less responsive than the S2000. The 3.0si, which you refer to above, has the newer 255 HP N54 motor. With 40 more HP, it's certainly quicker than the old 3.0L model (and infinitesimally quicker than the S2000), but with it's 300 lb weight disadvantage, it still doesn't quite match the Honda in handling dynamics. On the other hand, it is smoother riding and more comfortable on a day-by-day basis. BMW has always been the master of the "ride/handling tradeoff" and the Z4 is no exception. Compared to the S2000, I think the BMW is the better all-around sports car (it should be with a $10,000 price premium). But judged strictly as a sports car, I'd say the Honda, with it's 8000 RPM redline and lighter weight, is still more responsive and thrilling to drive - even if it is 1 MPH slower around The Ring.
#21 of 21 Depends on what you want by beemerhead May 30, 2007 (9:03 pm)
I bought a Z4 3.0 sport in 2004 after test driving a 350Z and a Honda. The japanese were both good but finish was lacking and frankly driving at 8000rpm all the time (S2000) would get annoying in a Honda. I now own a 2006 M Roadster and have over 20k miles on it. A friend of mine bought a new Boxster S. I can't believe that Porsche charges you to put their own logo on the hood! The Z4 is meant to be a sporty daily driver for most people and it does very well balancing comfort, ease and sporty handling. The M is a track car that you can take on the road, coupe or roadster. The Porsche is sports car that makes driving well easy but they're cramped and everything is "extra" driving the price way up, enough to buy another car for bad weather. It depends on what you want in a car. An M is a good daily driver for people who really like to drive, but a Z4 is easier. Porsche has more snob appeal and like Mercedes they charge you for every ounce of it. It also bugs me that every Porsche looks pretty much like every other Porsche. There is only one Porsche and that is the 911 and everything else is just working up to it. I was attracted to the BMW because of European styling, most performance per dollar, classy fit and the classic long hood roadster look. I also like the M because it is a driver's car and if you want to raise the pucker factor, turn off the DSC and turn on the Sport mode and see how good you really are. The Cayman/Boxster is a great car and so is the M...or the Honda and others. It just depends on what you want, what you can afford and how you like to drive.