Cars and Other Driving Machines

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
True, I guess that Lotus would be tremendously unsafe on this side of the water.

That said, I'd grab it in a heartbeat over an SLK. Those things look like modified golf cart versions of 90s era 500 SLs. And Benz is beginning to put out shlocky product. I was in a new E class over the weekend and was really unimpressed. Looks like Chrysler is wearing off on Benz. If I should go the German route someday, I will go with the BMW. You're right. They just feel more solid and better made. Of course, the old Benzes did as well.

What was the reason you chose the Z4 over the standard 3 series convertible? The prices are about the same, no? What does a Z do that the standard BMW doesn't, or vice versa? I never fully understood the difference between the lines, other than the fact that one's a roadster and one isn't.

I won't answer for MMMM, but I've driven both, and no contest. When you can get the little triangle to light up on the dash (slip control) with little or no effort and throw the little bastard into a curve and feel no lean at all - it's more of a driver's car. The 330 is a better commuter.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What was the reason you chose the Z4 over the standard 3 series convertible? The prices are about the same, no? What does a Z do that the standard BMW doesn't, or vice versa? I never fully understood the difference between the lines, other than the fact that one's a roadster and one isn't.

I really like high power-to-weight ratios.[1] The heaviness of all the Audis is one of the reasons I've been turned off to them for so long. The Z4 is about 700 lbs, as I recall, lighter than the 330 ragtop, and you can definitely feel it. Same engine. Acceleration, braking and handing are much improved. Gas mileage, too, although I'm not one to concern myself with that very much. But as that sexy mannish looking woman said, there is definitely a difference in the way that the car drives. Rigidity is far greater than the 330; the Z4 was built from the ground up to be a rigid convertible. The 330 is good, but not great.

Also, the appearance of the 330 is nice, but standard. I don't particularly like it with the top up. I love the way the Z4 looks. I love the wide stance; I love the amazingly high door sills. Even though I have already scraped it pulling into a driveway (but, hey, that happens, it's a car, not a watch), I love the low lip.

Also, I think, no SMG option in the 3 series. And I'm already very happy that I went with it in the Z4. Even though I hate to admit it, putting it in fully automatic mode can be really nice in traffic, and I do it occasionally. And the paddles are really great, too.

[1] In fact, this is exactly what intrigues me about the Lotus, but I digress.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by mmm3587
I really like high power-to-weight ratios.[1] The heaviness of all the Audis is one of the reasons I've been turned off to them for so long. The Z4 is about 700 lbs, as I recall, lighter than the 330 ragtop, and you can definitely feel it. Same engine. Acceleration, braking and handing are much improved. Gas mileage, too, although I'm not one to concern myself with that very much. But as that sexy mannish looking woman said, there is definitely a difference in the way that the car drives. Rigidity is far greater than the 330; the Z4 was built from the ground up to be a rigid convertible. The 330 is good, but not great.

Also, the appearance of the 330 is nice, but standard. I don't particularly like it with the top up. I love the way the Z4 looks. I love the wide stance; I love the amazingly high door sills. Even though I have already scraped it pulling into a driveway (but, hey, that happens, it's a car, not a watch), I love the low lip.

Also, I think, no SMG option in the 3 series. And I'm already very happy that I went with it in the Z4. Even though I hate to admit it, putting it in fully automatic mode can be really nice in traffic, and I do it occasionally. And the paddles are really great, too.

[1] In fact, this is exactly what intrigues me about the Lotus, but I digress.

Shit man, the best reason to avoid Audis is the maintenance costs and wickedly fast resale depreciation. The Z4 is miles smarter.

I never really thought about it, but as to styling, I see your point -the 3 rag top is an afterthought convertible. Its basically just a chopped 3. The M3 convertible is a bit more low slung, but you pay through the nose for it.

The worst abomination these days is people driving the 3s in winter with the convertible hardtop. That just doesn't look right at all.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Shit man, the best reason to avoid Audis is the maintenance costs and wickedly fast resale depreciation.

Am I alone in disliking the Audis for a more fundamental reason --- their styling? The past four years, I've thought the Audis looked like dogshit --- like a Jetta humped a Mazda 6 series and this was the offspring.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
.

I never really thought about it, but as to styling, I see your point -the 3 rag top is an afterthought convertible. Its basically just a chopped 3. The M3 convertible is a bit more low slung, but you pay through the nose for it.

The worst abomination these days is people driving the 3s in winter with the convertible hardtop. That just doesn't look right at all.

You're correct you've never thought about it, but that's it.

The 3er convertible was designed ground up as a convertible, based on the 3er coupe. They did not just chop off the top--they designed tons of additional structural support and rigidity. Does it look like the coupe? Sure, but that's sort of the point, like the saab convertible looks like the regular saab, and same for the audi and the merc.

As for the hardtop, it's a bit of a bubble, but it makes the car more useable in the winter. mmmm, weren't you looking for a Z4 hardtop? Now, that's a bubble.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Am I alone in disliking the Audis for a more fundamental reason --- their styling? The past four years, I've thought the Audis looked like dogshit --- like a Jetta humped a Mazda 6 series and this was the offspring.

There's nothing really wrong with the Audi's looks, it's just that it's so yawn vanilla. You don't just look at one and go WOW, I've gotta have that! It kind of blends into the scenery. I'd rather have a car that says wow - drive me now!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Am I alone in disliking the Audis for a more fundamental reason --- their styling? The past four years, I've thought the Audis looked like dogshit --- like a Jetta humped a Mazda 6 series and this was the offspring.

Yeh, they do look like VWs on roids. That TT thing might be the ugliest mass-consumed car I've ever seen. You can't tell if the goddamned thing is coming or going. It looks like a metalic wart sprung up from the asphalt. I think Audi's going for some "Tron" theme lately. On the big sedans, I noticed that the roofline almost reaches the ass end of the car. The new fat grills they're putting on the front don't help things either. Now they're bubbles with big fat mugs. But in their defense, Audis have never really been all that stylish. Way back in the day when I drove a 5000 Turbo for a bit (1987/88?), I recall the car was aesthetically lacking (and it had the worst stereo I've ever had in a car). Even their hot Quattro coupe back then looked like a steroid-infused VW Cirroco (horrible misspelling, I'm sure). The car did, however, handle like no sedan I've ever driven since.

BTW... I was in a fully tricked out VW Jetta the other day and have to admit - they're pretty nice. Fully loaded, I don't see much difference between that car and the Audi. It held the road nicely and had good pickup.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, they do look like VWs on roids. That TT thing might be the ugliest mass-consumed car I've ever seen.

I disagree. I think that the TT looks stunning.

Some evidence:







ETA: The lack of a factory sunroof will keep me from buying one, unfortunately. I've seen several aftermarket installs on AudiWorld, but the thought of taking a saw to a $40k + car gives me the chills.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Way back in the day when I drove a 5000 Turbo for a bit (1987/88?), I recall the car was aesthetically lacking (and it had the worst stereo I've ever had in a car). .

Eh? The 5000 looks dated now, but at the time it was a novel car design. The Ford Taurus ripped it off, and ever since all the car makers have been going aero. Go watch some movies, like goodfellas, set in the late 70s/early 80s. Everything's a boxy car. Compare to movies in late 80s, after the look came in. No comparison.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
I disagree. I think that the TT looks stunning.

Some evidence:







ETA: The lack of a factory sunroof will keep me from buying one, unfortunately. I've seen several aftermarket installs on AudiWorld, but the thought of taking a saw to a $40k + car gives me the chills.

Its just a speedbump with tires. At least Benz and BMW gave their rides some curves. There's no sex appeal on the TT. I think it looks like a futuristic concept car from some sci-fi film. I guess its just a matter of taste. I mean, if someone gave me one free, I'd learn to like it, but I wouldn't buy one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Eh? The 5000 looks dated now, but at the time it was a novel car design. The Ford Taurus ripped it off, and ever since all the car makers have been going aero. Go watch some movies, like goodfellas, set in the late 70s/early 80s. Everything's a boxy car. Compare to movies in late 80s, after the look came in. No comparison.

I'll admit it was clean looking, but I don't see a terrific amount of sifference between the slopwed front end of a 5000 and 1980 Coupe De Ville. Sure, the Caddy was more angled, but both it and the Audi shared the the long flat hood and wide face.

I don't think a Taurus looked anything like the 5000. The Taurus had no angles at all.

Speaking of Tauruses, I was leaving the gym last nite and there was a Taurus parked near one of those small or mid sized Jags. Its amazing how lazy Ford was in building those Jags. When you see a Taurus next to one, the only real difference you spot is the lights and the emblems. Talk about getting fleeced...

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
I disagree. I think that the TT looks stunning.

Some evidence:







ETA: The lack of a factory sunroof will keep me from buying one, unfortunately. I've seen several aftermarket installs on AudiWorld, but the thought of taking a saw to a $40k + car gives me the chills.

It's mostly a VW bug with a kicked up engine and a little nicer interior. But yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Sebby on this - speed bump. One of our neighbors has a black one and it just doesn't do it for me. I'm sure he's lost his ass on resale already.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't see a terrific amount of sifference between the slopwed front end of a 5000 and 1980 Coupe De Ville. Sure, the Caddy was more angled, but both it and the Audi shared the the long flat hood and wide face.

I don't think a Taurus looked anything like the 5000. The Taurus had no angles at all.

Speaking of Tauruses, I was leaving the gym last nite and there was a Taurus parked near one of those small or mid sized Jags. Its amazing how lazy Ford was in building those Jags. When you see a Taurus next to one, the only real difference you spot is the lights and the emblems. Talk about getting fleeced...

Hmm:



But, agreed on the jag/taurus thing. At least the low-end jag.

[pony_trekker]

[Alex_de_Large]

The Saab 9-2x has made its appearance on Saabusa.com under "Build your Saab". A fully-optioned 9-2x Aero (227 bhp, 217 lb. ft. of torque) with a manual tranny is $31,890.