Classic Z3

Mike...bit harsh but some might say fair....dont venture into politics...unless its the tell it as you see it party

BJ - appreciate the effort - you could be Mikes spin doctor - but on this occasion I think i am with Mike...although I think he has been a bit hard hitting

Sorry but for clarity I do believe MikeF to be probably right with only 5 for the Z3 BUT the Z3MC now thats a truely different story (see post above)

Phil...the Z3 was and is a good car but got to say I rather like to Z4C...if could afford one....think we may have gone off the track of Ron's original post and mission

I am not sure why I am seen as a spin doctor.I am saying what I think about Mike's comments,and adding a few of my own.Mike does not seem too enthusiastic about his Z,especially as he is comparing it to the MGB,which ,with respect,does not hold a candle to the Z(comparing the time- elapsed factor,of course).
It is the right of others to disagree with my assessment.That creates healthy discussion.I think I have backed up my opinion with facts.

Edited by BJ - 04 Dec 2008 at 10:55am

    
       I don't think you are taking it seriously Mike, and I am surprised at your comments about a car I thought  you loved. As I said before I see no reason why BMW in general should have more classic car status than it does. Yes its a label Mike but a good one and surely good for the club, and one day good for the price of our cars. And now is the time to start the campaign and I will keep it going, I almost got there with the E30. I think BJ has got the right Idea. Mike you you scoring 10 for each section, if so your score is very low. This is my scoring


>

The Ten Steps To Classic Car Status	Car BMW Z3	Reasons
1 It must have a prestige badge	10	Speaks for it self
2 It must have motor sport pedigree	8	BMW has plenty
3 It must aesthetically appealing	8	That’s why I bought it
4 It must exclusive, though not to the point of uniqueness	7	Only 285k made “world wide”
5 It must have been desirable when new	7	Lost of interest people queering up to buy
6 It must have cultural significance	5	James Bond!!!
7 It must have design or engineering significance	7	All BMWs well designed and engineered
8 It must have driving appeal	9	Ultimate driving Machine!
9 It must be good at what it’s supposed to do	8	It does
10 It must be worth investing time or money in	8	Now Is the time
Classic factor max 100	77

 

  Classic Car rated the E Type Jag as 86 Lotus Elise 69 Morris Marina 1.8TC 15!!

Edited by 325iRon - 04 Dec 2008 at 1:08pm

Enough of what,Cabrio? This is the forum for Z,so if we want to prattle on and dream of our Zs becoming classics then you will have to humour us.
By the way, BJ loves his Z too.

I love my BMW R100RS motorcycle too, Ron - after twenty-seven years I should do!  I'm not, however, blinded to the fact that it is just a very good fleet motorcycle, which was bought by the dozen by police and military users around the world, not to mention Black African dictators!

This makes it good to ride, versatile, easy to work on, and cheap to run - a good all-rounder, just like the Z3! 

Like the Z3, lots of people love to rubbish BMW twins, but they tend to be a little sheepish when they find howwell an old flat twin can go, given that it is in good condition, and has a rider who can use it properly!

As for the 'Prestige' badge, lots of people seemed to think I had bought a BMW car because I had owned BMW motorcycles for twenty years!  The badge never bothered me, and I would have bought a Z3 if BMW had chosen to market it as an MG, or had it produced as a modern Morgan. 

People are too influenced by a badge. In BMW terms, the legend that they were all built at Munich, by German craftsment wearing brass-framed spectacles died with its Fuhrer!  The pre-war cars were all built at Eisenach anyway, in the factory which next  built the Wartburg car - perhaps that also trace its roots back to BMW's competition sucesses with the Eisenach-built 328 model!

But - I still maintain that the Z3 was not of Design or Engineering Significance, as it did not introduce any new features, being basically a new body with lots of E36 bits on it. 

Neither did it have any Motor Sport Pedigree, not having been developed from a competition car, and not having been raced by BMW or a major team.  Even the M Roadster was never raced in anything but club events - which to many people shows that BMW did not believe in it.  If a Porsche 911 or a Morgan can still be raced at le Mans, BMW should have used an MR to uphold the banner.

It's no good trying to brand a Z3 with BMW's various motor sport activities, and anyway, a competitive background does not guarantee a better car - usually the opposite.  I would not like to drive in varied conditions behind an E30 M3 Evo engine, for example, as they are just too inflexible. 

The days of  'Racing Improves the Breed' ended in about 1960 - and even then, the improvements were seldom introduced for racing.  Even the old tale of Jaguar inventing the disc brake for their le Mans cars does not hold water - if you look at a pre-war Douglas DC-3 transport aircraft you will see it has disc brakes . . .  Multi-disc brakes, carbon-carbon brakes, ABS, fuel injection, head-up displays, disc valves, air suspension etc etc were all originally developed for aircraft.

Rather than a sporting background, the Z3 engines were developed in the super-competitive white heat of the traffic light grand prix, the traffic jam, and prolonged idling followed by the rush to be first at the next blockage!  That type of pedigree provides the kind of engines we need in the real world.

Let's face it, a distinct but remote sporting pedigree in terms of winning le Mans about six times did not improve the Ford Granada, nor did winning the RAC Rally improve the ordinary Cortinas. 

Apart from anything else, the Z3 has been criticised by most motoring hacks, and the notion that it is the worst small sports car ever built has taken hold of people's opinions. 

I love my Z3, and I see it as being better than the sum of its parts, being one of those rare cars where everything works seamlessly together. 

I certainly agree that it is under-rated, and will eventually be regarded as a modern classic, but I think that will have to wait until it has been out of production for about ten years, and they are a bit thinner on the ground.

To me, the best criteria for 'Classic' status  remains the test of 'What would you replace it with' - even if I were still working, there remains nothing even remotely unaffordable which I would even think about buying.

The problem is that few people - even in the Classic world, think in the long term, whereas I purposely bought the Z3 as my final car for life.  I just wish it had a diesel engine - after all this time, that's the only real criticism I can make.  Say no more!

PS - you can see that I currently have little else to do but play around - Heather is in the UK for a fortnight, so if you see her in Barnstaple, Brian, don't mention this!



Edited by Mike Fishwick - 04 Dec 2008 at 3:13pm

    Mike I do agree with all what  you say. I was just looking on the "Octane Magazine" web site the only two BMWs on there are Batmobil  and the 507 and yet they have a piece on the modern MG TF that's what p**** me of.
So lets fly the flag now not only for the Z3 but for BMW.

Mike.I am genuinely interested in just what the Z3 has in common with the Compact.I know it uses the same floor pan,but have not done a study on what else it uses.I am not particularly worried,as everything will be BMW genuine parts,except perhaps the aircon and one or two other bits.After all,some Ferraris are a collection of tarted up Fiat bits.

Steve.There are no ordinary Z3s.Probably the only item needed on the original Z3 was a CD player. I seem to remember there is a certain Z3M that has been somewhat blinged.As I have mentioned before,it is not necessary to wear pink when driving a Z3.
By the same token,it is interesting to see how many women drive a Range Rover,argueably the most macho machine on or off the road !!

I doubt if the Compact really uses the same floorpan as the Z3 - it is similar - I think the wheelbase is a bit longer, and the positioning of various bits and pieces is also different. 

It's a very notable car, and virtually a Z3 2+2 coupe.  It's a pity that the Compact Register Secretary lost interest - perhaps we should take it into the Z Register!

What the media hacks meant is that the compact and the Z3 use the same suspension - but only in terms of the same engine size - the 19 Z3 and 1.9 Compact have the same trailing arms, for example, and they all use the same front wishbones.  Anti-roll bars are softer on the compact etc etc.

It's like the difference between the Z3 Coupe and Roadster models - for the same engines (2.8, 3.0, and M models) they have stiffer springs, dampers, and anti-roll bars.  That is why they handle so well - not because they have a steel roof.  If you fit a roadster withthe same suspension then obviously it will improve the handling.

Incidentally - when I see a BMW badge it does not make me think of prestige, but that it signifies a struggle by a team of gifted engieers to re-make the unsuccessful Rapp Motorenwerke in 1917, and repeated efforts until 1959 to keep the company afloat through two lost wars, five bankruptcies, and a takeover. 

It's a badge denoting the effots of engineers, though of late it has been corrupted by accountants and marketing men!

What I meant was that the Z3 (as with the Compact etc)  used a new body, fitted with standard and proven BMW parts, from the E30 compact (E30) rear suspension to the E36 engine and gearbox.

This is a good way to produce a new car, for it minimises risk,  maximises profit, does not create servicing or spare part problems, and is in everyone's interest.

This is far better than designing major components and systems specially for a car, which is often fraught with risk.  Look at the Wankel engine  of the NSU Ro80 and the Lotus engine used by the Jensen-Healey sports car, not to mention the problems of the early Mini.  Once you have a sound and well-developed design, it makes sense to keep on using it.

Such use does not, however, endow the car with any innovative engineering or design significance - it is simply using  significant engineering features which originated on another car.  To state that all BMW cars are well engineered dodges the question of what was technically significant about the Z3.

In terms of the old British Leyland cars, instead of rationalising their engine range in the way BMW have done, they did the opposite.

Due to either a lack of guts by the management to impose firm rule on various design offices, or plain stupidity of the worst type, they not only built the established 2.5 and 4.5 litre Daimler V8 engines and the Rover (Oldsmobile) 3.5 litre V8 (all of which were well-proven) but also the 3 litre Triumph V8, which was a very shoddy design.  On top of that they also built the Jaguar V12, and a new 3 litre six for the MGC.

Yes - the Germans know a thing or two about design, but their comapnies are still largely run by engineers, or at least non-engineers who know about the product.  They also have a record of training and investment, rather than paying dividends instead. 

The result is the best engineering industry in Europe, if not the world.  Even UK-built marine engines which win design awards or Queen's Award to Industry use major parts from Germany, such as pistons and crankshafts, the rest being built on German machine tools.


Edited by Mike Fishwick - 05 Dec 2008 at 4:37pm

BJ says..."Z3M that has been somewhat blinged."

My  M Roadster is totally original - nothing has been changed or modified. I feel that where the BMW engineers had decided that certain configurations are best who am I to think otherwise. This applies particularly to Ms. I can understand why on more basic Z3s there is a view that the car can be improved to try and emulate the M. But as we all know you cant really upgrade power without for instance upgrading brakes etc etc..