Re: BMW builds an S2000

Discussion in '2003 BMW Z4 3.0i' started by Audiquattro4, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. looks like an s2000 from the rear only<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Ok man, Where in the hell are you gona go that fast and not kill yourself or get pulled over...Why dont you get a car with some low end torque and meet me at the strip. Why is top speed so important to you people who really cant afford these cars anyway...STOP BITCHING!
     
  3. Not an S2000, it's what we normally call a "roadster"..

    Honda was not the first company to build one of these :p<!-- Signature -->
     
  4. I saw some article a moment ago ... on web .. ( i`ll get link later) actual top speed of the 3.0 engine is 160 mph.. its to dangerous to make such a small car hit the 180 mph ... thats what BMW thinks.. that roadstres are mae for cruising (or pimping shifting) ...so maybe it aint all that fast...but its a sure chickmagnet :p<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. this relly doesnt change my opinion on bmw they still got good engines and cars
     
  6. It's an ugly S2000. If BMW thinks this car is unsafe at 160 mph then they shouldn't have built it. I imagine the top speed is right for the little 3 Litre six. BMW is overrated.
     
  7. it probably has a limiter
    how did that not penetrate ur ur puny mind?<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Hey no one said the Z4 looks exactly like the S2000, just similar to it, that's all, both look really hot i think, i just would take the Jap Car anyday.

    The Z4 is profiled for more cruising, the S2K is profiled for more performance, that's just the way they built the engines that's all..
     
  9. The 3.0i has 231 bhp and a top speed of 155 mph and the 2.5i, 192 bhp and a maximum speed of 146 mph. The Z4 3.0i features a new six speed manual gearbox. SSG, BMW's sequential manual gearbox will be available as an option on both engine models not 128 mph it is a typo<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SuprJames</i>
    <b>It's an ugly S2000. If BMW thinks this car is unsafe at 160 mph then they shouldn't have built it. I imagine the top speed is right for the little 3 Litre six. BMW is overrated.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    What you dont understand is that many laws constrict the topspeed of a car. The m5 can only go 155 with the limiter but belive me with it taken off going 186 is like a breeze. And if it looks so simlar to the s2000 wouldent you be calling the s2000 ugly?<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. aite as many ppl already mentioned the top speed is 146mph for the 2.5l engine and 155mph for the 3l engine...
    this car doesnt really look like a s2000... some1 posted a picture of both these cars which proves it... unless u wear 2" thick glasses or ur just totlaly blind u'll see that these cars are quite different in looks... except for the back... the only think that resembles a s2000 is the lights and the upper part of the back....
     
  12. WoW bmw ran out of ideas so it went to copy HONDA??????
     
  13. This is quite different from an S2000, and if anyone copied anyone, then the S2000 copied the Z3, which was out almost a decade before the S2000.
    This is nothing like an S2000 however, beyond the fact that it is a roadster. Inline 6 for tourqe vs high reving I-4 for screamming hp. The styling is quite different. I will take a BMW interior over the S2k as well, I have sat in an S2000 at the Autoshow and it was not impressive at all to me. I have sat in Bimmers and audis, and they do know how to make a ergonomical interior that is good for long drives, even in smaller cars like this and the A4 etc. <!-- Signature -->
     
  14. the s2000 is very highly rated in every category except 'cargo room,' so lets see if this BMW can offer as much bang for the buck with this z4.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. the only thing BMW's are highly rated in is price. BMW isn't trying to make something that has the most bang for the buck so it is pointless trying to compare a BMW to something else on "bang for the buck"<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from sk8er1988</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SuprJames</i>
    <b>It's an ugly S2000. If BMW thinks this car is unsafe at 160 mph then they shouldn't have built it. I imagine the top speed is right for the little 3 Litre six. BMW is overrated.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    What you dont understand is that many laws constrict the topspeed of a car. The m5 can only go 155 with the limiter but belive me with it taken off going 186 is like a breeze. And if it looks so simlar to the s2000 wouldent you be calling the s2000 ugly?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    What law are you talking about?? I think there's a law in the US that cars can't go over 200 mph., but what's that go to do with this POS? It's not laws that restrict these cars, it's BMW. If BMW dosen't want people to drive to fast, or the engine flies apart at a certain RPM they set the limiter. I sure as hell don't think a stock M3 can do 186 mph (especially not "like a breeze"), and I doubt this car goes much faster than it says it does. This car was built so balding professional men in their 40's who know nothing about cars could cruise around picking up 20 year old chicks while the wife isn't watching.......or at least feel like they could. BMW is overrated and the name is all that is carrying the company. This car does look like an S2000......a S2000 with all the good points changed to make it ugly.
     
  17. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SuprJames</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from sk8er1988</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SuprJames</i>
    <b>It's an ugly S2000. If BMW thinks this car is unsafe at 160 mph then they shouldn't have built it. I imagine the top speed is right for the little 3 Litre six. BMW is overrated.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    What you dont understand is that many laws constrict the topspeed of a car. The m5 can only go 155 with the limiter but belive me with it taken off going 186 is like a breeze. And if it looks so simlar to the s2000 wouldent you be calling the s2000 ugly?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    What law are you talking about?? I think there's a law in the US that cars can't go over 200 mph., but what's that go to do with this POS? It's not laws that restrict these cars, it's BMW. If BMW dosen't want people to drive to fast, or the engine flies apart at a certain RPM they set the limiter. I sure as hell don't think a stock M3 can do 186 mph (especially not "like a breeze"), and I doubt this car goes much faster than it says it does. This car was built so balding professional men in their 40's who know nothing about cars could cruise around picking up 20 year old chicks while the wife isn't watching.......or at least feel like they could. BMW is overrated and the name is all that is carrying the company. This car does look like an S2000......a S2000 with all the good points changed to make it ugly.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    so they don't want people to go fast, then why do they have driving schools specifically for driving fast? and for regular people i might add.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. Well why put limiters on their cars?? It's not for any laws....at least not any in the US. That was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps they don't feel this car is safe over 128 mph and therefore they don't want anyone going ovr 128 mph. Maybe the car falls apart after 128 mph. I don't know. There's obviously some reason they did it. Z28's speed limiter kicks in somewhere around 125 mph. OBVIOUSLY CAR COMPANIES DON'T WANT YOU GOING THAT FAST IF THEY HAVE SPEED LIMITERS!! Think before you argue!!
     
  19. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ///AMGforlife</i>
    <b>S2000 is much better looking than z4 and it has a better performance than z4 3.0 for sure.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Another misinformed statement... so what your saying is this: The new Z4 will actually be SLOWER than the Z3. That it will run abouts a full second slower through the quarter mile. Is that what you wish to convey? Because that's the only way the S2000 can out perform the Z4.

    Check out Car & Driver and their numerous complaints about the S2000's total and utter lack of performance. C&D was getting an average of 15 second passes, with high 14s being about the best they could do from a 7,000-7,500 RPM drop (See how long your clutch lasts doing that). The Z3 3.0 ran low 14s. The Z4 3.0 will run 13s and leave the S2Slow in the dust, struggling to keep up.

    Why?

    Because the Z4 has something the S2000 doesn't... TORQUE. Ever wonder why Supras and Skylines that have in excess of 1000 HP, can only do a 10 second quarter pass on slicks, whereas it only took 770 HP to push the 2000 Camaro ZL-1 to a 9.5 pass? Torque.

    Don't let yourself be fooled by horsepower alone or that idiotic HP/L bullshit.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ///AMGforlife</i>
    <b>S2000 is much better looking than z4 and it has a better performance than z4 3.0 for sure.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    God, you people... the s2000 only produces 240hp at 8900rpm!!! but the z4 produces 231hp at a much lower rpm... if you race both of them... the z4 would be gone before the s2000 reaches 240hp and start catching up(slowly). The appearance is just personal... pah!!!
     

Share This Page