Couldn't Deposit $1000 for Tesla Model 3 !

[OVERKILL]

Car and Driver's opinion about the 2000 BMW Z8:

Quote:
In truth, the Z8's visual charisma is so powerful that just sitting in this car with the engine off is more fun than driving many other cars. Then when you press the starter button -- set apart, also a tribute to the past--another entire level of excitement begins.

The 4.9-liter V-8 fires instantly and generates the same muscular exhaust burble that we enjoyed on the M5, except that the volume is higher when you lower the convertible top. The progressive clutch, in combination with the precise gearbox, makes the Z8 a breeze at takeoff. Acceleration is nothing short of effortless, with the M5 engine's power multiplied not only by the Z8's relatively light weight but also by a differential ratio shorter than the M5 sedan's (3.38:1 instead of 2.81).


Quote:
Press down firmly on the throttle, and the Z8 lunges ahead in any of its six forward gears. Switch off the traction control, and you can fry the tread off the 275/40WR-18 run-flat tires for as long as you wish. In fact, launching the Z8 to get the best performance numbers demands a delicate touch. But when we got it right, the Z8 hustled to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds and got through the quarter-mile in 13.0 seconds at 111 mph.


Quote:
Despite the powerful thrust of this sleek sports car's engine, there's nothing remotely uncivilized about the power delivery. You can tool around town in as gentle a mode as a limo-driving-school graduate if you wish.

The chassis, however, never disguises its high-performance orientation. Although we wouldn't characterize the ride as harsh, even on the smooth roads around Los Angeles the suspension made few bumps disappear the way they do in BMW's 5- and 7-series sedans from which the Z8's suspension is derived.


Quote:
The rigid chassis definitely lends precision to the way the Z8 carves up winding roads. The steering response is accurate and linear, and road feel is excellent. At moderate speeds, understeer dominates the Z8's behavior. But if you turn off the traction control, you find that there is more than enough power to balance the chassis and kick out the tail, even at rather fast speeds. Better to leave the stability control on unless your right foot and your seat-of-the-pants oversteer sensor are well calibrated.

 

[HTSS_TR]

What I said was: BMW 3-series was and is the best handling car in its class(compact sedan). The 5-series may be best in its class too but saying BMW makes the best handling vehicle of all classes is not correct.

If BMW is the best handling car of all classes then the Z4 3L with 18" wheels should beat S2000 2L with 16" wheels on any race track without sweat. The valid compare is Z4 with 2.5L (for closer in price) 25% larger in displacement than S2000, but C&D knew that Z4 didn't have any chance so they picked the 3L engine.

The BMW Z8 is in Ferrari price range, not S2000 at $32-33k.

Comparing performance/handling of various cars is like a boxing match. Two fighters are within certain weight class fight one another, is it fair to ask a 125 lbs fighter to fight a 300 lbs fighter.

In the handling dept, the 2003 Z4 with 3L engine had 18" wheels and S2000 had 16" wheels, even with 2" smaller wheels S2000 managed the same lateral acceleration with Z4 at 0.92g.

With the smallest normally aspirated engine(Audi had turbo charged 1.8L) and smallest wheels(and cheapest too), the S2000 still manage to beat all others on a race track, in the C&D test.

You like to see unfair comparison ? Watch the video of SLK55 AMG(5.5L V8 7AT) vs Boxter S(3.2L 6-cyl 5AT) vs Z4(3.0L 6-cyl 5AT) vs 350Z(3.5L V6 6MT) vs S2000(2.0L 4-cyl 6MT). Guess who won the race ? 5.5L engine win every time.

 

[OVERKILL]

I'm just comparing the best of their respective class here. BMW makes cars that cost over 100K, Honda doesn't. The S2000 didn't have anything higher up available, that was as good as it got in a roadster from the big H. BMW made the Z8, which was yes, several times the price of the S2000, but also had close to double the power and saw much better reviews (since it was basically an M-car) than the less expensive Z4.

Honda and BMW build to different price points. That's how it goes. The M5, which was a portly 4-door sedan was also faster than the S2000 at a much higher price tag, as was the competing Mercedes product, the AMG. The Germans build big, fast, expensive sedans, that's sort of their "thing". Honda doesn't, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The problem is the nature of these black and white comparison where Honda has to be "better" or BMW has to be "better" where examples of either being superior by various metrics are given and neither side is wiling to give an inch. The S2000 and the NSX, the tops of the Honda food chain, were both excellent cars. The Z8 and M5, which were, during a similar period of time, also the tops of the BMW food chain, were excellent cars as well. The M-cars are just more expensive, that's BMW.

BTW, you like that vid, you'll like this one, it is Sabine in the 'ring taxi E39 M5 being chased by a Porsche 996 GT3. She holds the 'ring record for that car.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Opinions of some of BMW owners about Z4 transmission vs S2000, if these opinions were from Honda drivers then they would be construed as bias, but they came from BMW owners so they are what they are.

Originally Posted By: Jspeed
I've only tried the S2k's and E46's shifter but not the Z4's, but I think it's safe to say that the S2k's gearbox feels better. BMW's gearboxes in general don't feel as direct and satisfying as the S2k. Actually, that's probably true for 99% of the cars out there.


Originally Posted By: Excitmnt94
I have driven both as well. I can honestly say that the S2k's gearbox is among the best in the world. there is nothing quite like rowing through the gears with just a flick of the wrist. The clutch is excellent in both cars, but as mentioned before, the Z4 3.0 isn't the smoothest gearbox nor does it have the shortest throws out there.

The biggest difference is the obvious difference, prepare to rev the isht out of the Honda to get any performance out of it.


Originally Posted By: Tedbay
All comments above are very accurate. I think its like loading a rifle bullet if you have ever done that - just direct, short and perfect. Has to be the best transmission I have ever driven - flick the wrist and the gears connect perfectly. Shorter throw also than any Porsche. I sometimes smile just making a shift because it is so precise and solid feeling. To be honest I was concerned before driving the M that the transmission would be [censored] (relative to the S2000) after all the criticisms I have read of SMG and related transmissions on BMW the last couple years but I was pleasantly surprised. The M is very good but not as good (little longer throws, didn't engage quite as well, but very close).


Originally Posted By: LA525iT
I've driven both (well, the 3.0si rather than the 3.0i, but that's academic) so I can comment. The Z4's gearbox is the best BMW manual I've driven (330i; 330 ZHP; 525iT are others).

The Honda gearbox is much more snick, snick which is my way of saying, less effort than the Z4. Slides into gear like butter with very short throws.


Originally Posted By: reidconti
S2k has the best gearbox I've ever used. It's not even close.

BMW wins on clutch feel, but not by as much.


Originally Posted By: AlanLX3
And yet another confirmation of the comments above. I had a 2005 S2000 before getting my 3.0si Coupe and while the BMW walks all over the Honda for creature comfort on every count you can think of, the gearbox is not even close to the S2k]. Running through the gears in the S2k is almost a religious experience compared to almost anything else you will ever drive.[/b

It's the only thing I miss about my old S2k but it's such an amazing experience to work with that shifter I find I think about it almost every time I change gears in the Z4.



http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161622

In term of performance/handling no car comes close to Honda S2000 in its price(less than $35-40k), engine displacement(normally aspirated 2.0-2.5L engine), timeline(2000-2010) ...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

In term of performance/handling no car comes close to Honda S2000 in its price(less than $35-40k), engine displacement(normally aspirated 2.0-2.5L engine), timeline(2000-2010) ...


In its price? Certainly. As I said, BMW's price range runs much, MUCH higher (100+K) than Honda's. That's just the way it is and was. The Z8 was a faster car, but at a much higher dollar figure. Same goes with the M5.

Let me put it this way: The S2000 was, for its price, a performance bargain. If you could get over the fact that you have to rev the snot out of it to get it to go places quickly; keep it at "full boil" as per the C&D article you linked, then it was an amazing amount of performance for the money. The same cannot be said for anything wearing the BMW roundel, BMW doesn't do inexpensive performance, if you want their best, you are paying significantly for it.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

In term of performance/handling no car comes close to Honda S2000 in its price(less than $35-40k), engine displacement(normally aspirated 2.0-2.5L engine), timeline(2000-2010) ...

In its price? Certainly. As I said, BMW's price range runs much, MUCH higher (100+K) than Honda's. That's just the way it is and was. The Z8 was a faster car, but at a much higher dollar figure. Same goes with the M5.

Let me put it this way: The S2000 was, for its price, a performance bargain. If you could get over the fact that you have to rev the snot out of it to get it to go places quickly; keep it at "full boil" as per the C&D article you linked, then it was an amazing amount of performance for the money. The same cannot be said for anything wearing the BMW roundel, BMW doesn't do inexpensive performance, if you want their best, you are paying significantly for it.

Sure, Z8 was a much faster car than S2000. But comparing a 5L V8 with a 2L I4 makes sense ? 125 lbs boxer vs 300 lbs boxer ?

But, did anyone do a comparison between Z8 and best of Ferrari or Porsche or Lamborghini or other super cars ?

There are what they called "Class", it is impossible for Civic to compete with 3-series, Civic was and is compete within its segment and its competitors are Corolla, Accent, Focus ...

It is clearly BMW didn't have capability to design all its vehicle with best performance/handling in its class, 2003 Z4 is an example. It wasn't better than Boxter or S2000.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Sure, Z8 was a much faster car than S2000. But comparing a 5L V8 with a 2L I4 makes sense ? 125 lbs boxer vs 300 lbs boxer ?


We aren't comparing the 5L V8 to the 2L I4, simply the top roadster offerings from each manufacturer. Honda's top offering was the S2000, BMW's was the Z8.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

But, did anyone do a comparison between Z8 and best of Ferrari or Porsche or Lamborghini or other super cars ?


Are any of those cars roadsters of a similar design to the Z8 or S2000? No? Then it doesn't matter then does it. The McLaren F1 was powered by a BMW engine, should we be bringing that into this discussion?

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

There are what they called "Class", it is impossible for Civic to compete with 3-series, Civic was and is compete within its segment and its competitors are Corolla, Accent, Focus ...


Accord competes with the 3'er, Civic possibly the 2'er or the previous 1-series on some levels but yes, BMW doesn't really make a compact sedan to compete with the Civic, nor do they generally make FWD cars either.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

It is clearly BMW didn't have capability to design all its vehicle with best performance/handling in its class, 2003 Z4 is an example. It wasn't better than Boxter or S2000.


That's where you and I will never agree. BMW has tons of capability. What they don't have is the DESIRE to make a car that's sub 40K that showcases the best of their abilities. They'd rather produce something in the 100K range because they can and it will sell. Out. And they DO. BMW is able to demand a premium for anything associated with the M-badge well above and beyond anything sold in the consumer realm that bears the Honda "H". This rings true for the AMG arm of Mercedes as well. BMW has not the desire, nor had a need to create a car that matched the capability of the S2000 at the same price point. They were able to create a more powerful roadster at several times the price and sell them all before they were even shipped (Z8). The reputation of the brand allowed it.

There is no direct competitor for the S2000 from BMW if you leave out the Z8, which was their top-tier roadster of the same time period. They simply cater to different financial classes of buyer, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just like an AMG Benz sedan is several times the price of a Hyundai Genesis, yet both the top tier of their respective marques.

As I said, at its price point the S2000 was a fantastic performance bargain. You had to spend a lot more to get a better car from BMW.

 

[HTSS_TR]

I think the main difference is you think "BMW has not the desire, nor had a need to create a car that matched the capability of the S2000 at the same price point". No, it wasn't same price, Z4 was $12,000 more than S2000, about 36%.

I think BMW was unable to design a competing Z4 even with 2 more cylinders, 1 extra liter displacement and cost $12,000 more. What weird was the 3-series was excellent in every way in its class for so many years, but BMW couldn't translate that into Z4.

Greatest BMW handling cars are 3-series, probably 5-series and 6-series, 7-series is beaten by Tesla model S, Z4 handling wasn't great at all and probably is not better than current Boxster or SLK.

 

[DoubleWasp]

The explanation for the "lack" of advancement by the big auto manufacturers come down to a very simple thing:

The electric car was thought to be, and even proven by Tesla Motors to be an unsustainable, unprofitable, high-risk venture.

The big autos actually have to answer for these losses, since they have been around for decades and plan to be around for decades more.

Elon Musk, on the other hand, can shrug, crack a smile, say "I tried to help humanity!", fold up shop tomorrow and still walk away with personal windfall cash from the whole scheme.

No kidding the big manufacturers have approached the whole thing with caution. They're playing the long game, and can't act like a crazy startup.

That's like me criticizing Ford for the Shelby GT500, when Saleen had supercharged Mustangs making just as much street legal power back in the 90's.

At the end of the day, the bubble is going to burst on the whole "OMG TESLA!" trend when the rest of the industry catches up, already equipped with a substantially larger, and more fair dealer/service network.

There is not a snowball's chance in perdition of the supercharger network both expanding to handle the influx of Model 3's and remaining free, as well.

As usual, people are joining the Tesla craze as if all this is going to stay the same. Battery-swapping fell on its face. Tesla manufacturing has fallen on its face. Tesla service and the supercharger network will be the next to go. How soon after that will Tesla Motors itself fall?

Every time Tesla makes a move, more cracks start to appear. Love to see what happens when the weight of hundreds of thousands of cars are sitting on that creaky bridge.

 

[edyvw]

I saw somewhere Nissan 350Z.
Just for info, Top Gear had same time on their airport track with 350Z and BMW 535 DIESEL!
But, when Tesla gets out Model 3, that does not matter, low positioned battery will just rule the track

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I think the main difference is you think "BMW has not the desire, nor had a need to create a car that matched the capability of the S2000 at the same price point". No, it wasn't same price, Z4 was $12,000 more than S2000, about 36%.

I think BMW was unable to design a competing Z4 even with 2 more cylinders, 1 extra liter displacement and cost $12,000 more. What weird was the 3-series was excellent in every way in its class for so many years, but BMW couldn't translate that into Z4.

Greatest BMW handling cars are 3-series, probably 5-series and 6-series, 7-series is beaten by Tesla model S, Z4 handling wasn't great at all and probably is not better than current Boxster or SLK.

Z4 cannot compete with S2000 because Z4 is based on 3 series. It is heavy platform for such a car. Why make it? Because there is always someone in California working in Palo Alto that will by Z4 M or 35I or whatever and use it to go grocery shopping in the Whole Foods.
Does that mean BMW cannot make car comparable to S2000? No, that means BMW used another platform, cut developing costs and sold it at premium rice and made money.
Z8 is same. Z8 is roadster based on 4 door saloon platform. It was never intended for that car to set up track records.
However, to build 4 door diesel and make same time as 2 door coup like 350Z is something that very few companies can do, and even that is questionable since I have not seen 4 door diesel as fast as small roadster except BMW.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I think BMW was unable to design a competing Z4 even with 2 more cylinders, 1 extra liter displacement and cost $12,000 more. What weird was the 3-series was excellent in every way in its class for so many years, but BMW couldn't translate that into Z4.


Gee whiz, here we go again

Is the S2000 still in production? NO.
Is the Z4 still in production? YES.

BMW was smart enough to see that making a "cheap" sportster by a premium brand is a dumb idea and they were right. Honda, being a cheap brand, could not pull it off. Mazda, being a cheap brand, could not pull it off with their RX8.

But it is obvious that you will go on with your life convinced that BMW and others simply do not have the engineering prowess to build basically a carbon copy of the S2000. It would have to be a carbon copy because in the other threads you simply refused to acknowledge the examples given, which were very close and definitely "apples to apples", on trivial things like the year released, or emissions, or HP/L calculations, or gas mileage etc. You are exhibiting a similar mid set with Tesla. Basically another manufacturer would have to make a car that is identical to Tesla, and even then you would accuse them of copying Tesla and therefore still hold it superior in your mind.

When it comes to your favorite brands, thinking irrationally seems to be your thing.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
The explanation for the "lack" of advancement by the big auto manufacturers come down to a very simple thing:

The electric car was thought to be, and even proven by Tesla Motors to be an unsustainable, unprofitable, high-risk venture.

The big autos actually have to answer for these losses, since they have been around for decades and plan to be around for decades more.

Elon Musk, on the other hand, can shrug, crack a smile, say "I tried to help humanity!", fold up shop tomorrow and still walk away with personal windfall cash from the whole scheme.

No kidding the big manufacturers have approached the whole thing with caution. They're playing the long game, and can't act like a crazy startup.

That's like me criticizing Ford for the Shelby GT500, when Saleen had supercharged Mustangs making just as much street legal power back in the 90's.

At the end of the day, the bubble is going to burst on the whole "OMG TESLA!" trend when the rest of the industry catches up, already equipped with a substantially larger, and more fair dealer/service network.

There is not a snowball's chance in perdition of the supercharger network both expanding to handle the influx of Model 3's and remaining free, as well.

As usual, people are joining the Tesla craze as if all this is going to stay the same. Battery-swapping fell on its face. Tesla manufacturing has fallen on its face. Tesla service and the supercharger network will be the next to go. How soon after that will Tesla Motors itself fall?

Every time Tesla makes a move, more cracks start to appear. Love to see what happens when the weight of hundreds of thousands of cars are sitting on that creaky bridge.


I agree on the supercharging point. The supercharging network isn't really a long term value. In short term yes I think it has value, long term no. Charging station is basically like a gas station, they are a commodity. If the EV market really grows enough that it makes sense for gas stations to install charging station, they will. They are a little expensive today - I read that the DC fast charger cost ~$50k compared to a gas pump I see is more like $15k. There are enough gas stations out there that infrastructure is not an issue if some of these major franchises are interested to get into the game. I'm sure they could bring down the cost of the DC fast charger as well.

The problem with Tesla for the supercharger's is they are investing capital in equipment that in mid-term will become commodity. It supports their short term sale for the high value cars (like Model S) but long term they need someone to invest in the capital for the charging station infrastructure. Then all their investment in these superchargers will become less valuable.

 

[Nebroch]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
There is not a snowball's chance in perdition of the supercharger network both expanding to handle the influx of Model 3's and remaining free, as well.


Musk/Tesla didn't actually promise free SC access for M3, there will be 'capability'. Fanboy crowd went wild anyway and started to repeat that they get free SC and autopilot for 35,000 usd

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I think BMW was unable to design a competing Z4 even with 2 more cylinders, 1 extra liter displacement and cost $12,000 more. What weird was the 3-series was excellent in every way in its class for so many years, but BMW couldn't translate that into Z4.


Gee whiz, here we go again

Is the S2000 still in production? NO.
Is the Z4 still in production? YES.

BMW was smart enough to see that making a "cheap" sportster by a premium brand is a dumb idea and they were right. Honda, being a cheap brand, could not pull it off. Mazda, being a cheap brand, could not pull it off with their RX8.

But it is obvious that you will go on with your life convinced that BMW and others simply do not have the engineering prowess to build basically a carbon copy of the S2000. It would have to be a carbon copy because in the other threads you simply refused to acknowledge the examples given, which were very close and definitely "apples to apples", on trivial things like the year released, or emissions, or HP/L calculations, or gas mileage etc. You are exhibiting a similar mid set with Tesla. Basically another manufacturer would have to make a car that is identical to Tesla, and even then you would accuse them of copying Tesla and therefore still hold it superior in your mind.

When it comes to your favorite brands, thinking irrationally seems to be your thing.

Did you read the C&D comparison of 2 seat convertible they did in 2003, 3 years after Honda introduced S2000 ?

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...omparison-tests

BMW had Z3 for sometimes before 2000, it was to compete with Porsche Boxster, MB SLK and Audi TT. Z4 was to compete with newly released S2000, BMW had 3 years to come up with a design to squarely/evenly compete with a new comer and did they success, even with 3L I6 engine to compete with 2L I4 engine in S2000 ?

I'm repeat this again and again, BMW 3-series was and is the best overall performance compact sedan in its class for many many years, no argument about that, especially in handling category. Also the 5-series and probably the 6-series were and are at the top of their class too.

But saying BMW makes the best handling car is totally incorrect, the 7-series is beaten by Tesla model S in a comparison test by a German entity. The Z3 and Z4 was beaten by S2000 in 2000 and 2003.

Why I am talking about time frame ? Performance/handling are improved over time, it doesn't make sense to compare a 10 years old design with newer one.

Did you ever read anywhere that someone tried to compare 2005 Mustang with 2015 Camaro ?

Quote:
the other threads you simply refused to acknowledge the examples given, which were very close and definitely "apples to apples"


Apples to apples is Z4 2.5L-2.8L vs Boxster 2.7L vs S2000 2.0L. Convertible vs hardtop isn't apples to apples, turbo charged engine vs normally aspirated engine isn't apples to apples, $33k car vs $80k car isn't apples to apples.

You like to see fair comparison ? A boxing match is the perfect example of fair, no such thing as 125 lbs fighter vs 300 lbs fighter.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
The explanation for the "lack" of advancement by the big auto manufacturers come down to a very simple thing:

The electric car was thought to be, and even proven by Tesla Motors to be an unsustainable, unprofitable, high-risk venture.

The big autos actually have to answer for these losses, since they have been around for decades and plan to be around for decades more.

Elon Musk, on the other hand, can shrug, crack a smile, say "I tried to help humanity!", fold up shop tomorrow and still walk away with personal windfall cash from the whole scheme.

Some states require zero emission vehicles for sale in state, California requires 15% ZEV by 2025.

Currently only 2 types of ZEV are available: Battery EV and Fuel Cell EV. Toyota has FCEV and Honda will have 1 by end of this year.

The problem with FCEV is infrastructure, only CA has few hydrogen stations and all other states have none and cost of a hydrogen station can be as much as $1 mil.

So the Battery EV is here to stay. Almost all big companies are making or will be making some BEV in near future.

Fiat CEO clearly said that he lost $14k for every Fiat 500e sold, but they have to make it because state governments require it.

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
No kidding the big manufacturers have approached the whole thing with caution. They're playing the long game, and can't act like a crazy startup.

That's like me criticizing Ford for the Shelby GT500, when Saleen had supercharged Mustangs making just as much street legal power back in the 90's.

At the end of the day, the bubble is going to burst on the whole "OMG TESLA!" trend when the rest of the industry catches up, already equipped with a substantially larger, and more fair dealer/service network.

Tesla is playing the long game too, why did they invest $5 billions building Gigafatory in Nevada ? Musk said that to build 500k EV in 2020 it would need all li-ion batteries that the world is capable of. So he invested $5 billions to make batteries that Tesla needs in 2020.

Audi, Porsche ... are about to make some EV's with similar performance and driving range of Tesla model S P85, they plan to have those cars by 2018 or 2019, 5-6 years after model S was first sold in 2013.

Probably only after they saw the sale figure of Tesla model S in 2014 and 2015. Model S was the only full size luxury had sale increase in 2015 from 2014, all others had sale decrease. Model S also was the best selling full size luxury car in US, regardless what type of engine.

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
There is not a snowball's chance in perdition of the supercharger network both expanding to handle the influx of Model 3's and remaining free, as well.

As usual, people are joining the Tesla craze as if all this is going to stay the same. Battery-swapping fell on its face. Tesla manufacturing has fallen on its face. Tesla service and the supercharger network will be the next to go. How soon after that will Tesla Motors itself fall?

Every time Tesla makes a move, more cracks start to appear. Love to see what happens when the weight of hundreds of thousands of cars are sitting on that creaky bridge.

Model 3 will have supercharger capability, but to use it owner must buy the option and probably about $2k as it was the option with the base model S when they first had it in 2013, then they dropped the option and included it in the price of all model S.

Yes, the biggest obstacle Tesla faces is manufacture hundreds thousands vehicles at Fremont plan in California, they also need to do better job in selecting/qualifying part vendors.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR


BMW had Z3 for sometimes before 2000, it was to compete with Porsche Boxster, MB SLK and Audi TT. Z4 was to compete with newly released S2000, BMW had 3 years to come up with a design to squarely/evenly compete with a new comer and did they success, even with 3L I6 engine to compete with 2L I4 engine in S2000 ?


Actually, as per Kris's point, yes, they did succeed. That's why the car is still in production. BMW was able to demand a premium price for a roadster that basically was just built off the 3-series and sell it, and make money.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

But saying BMW makes the best handling car is totally incorrect, the 7-series is beaten by Tesla model S in a comparison test by a German entity. The Z3 and Z4 was beaten by S2000 in 2000 and 2003.


The 7-series is a big honkin' saloon with handling not its primary purpose. Ride quality and creature comfort is. That's why there is no M7. BMW ripped off the 5-series front strut setup, some 7-series rear gear and dropped the M5 engine in the resulting product and came up with a car that blows the socks off the S2000 and doesn't need to rev to 8 grand to get anywhere. In fact the Z8's S62 makes more torque off idle than the S2000 makes anywhere in its entire power band. They were also able to demand 3x the sticker price of the S2000 for something that pulls heavily from their own parts bins!

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Why I am talking about time frame ? Performance/handling are improved over time, it doesn't make sense to compare a 10 years old design with newer one.


Which is why you want to discount the Z8, which was the best of BMW's roadster offerings of the time period, because it doesn't align with your rose coloured glasses view of that time period. As KrisZ noted, we've had this discussion so many times now it feels like an episode of Time Warp :crzY:

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
$33k car vs $80k car isn't apples to apples.


Sure it is. Honda's top offering just happened to be 33K, BMW's was well, WELL north of that. But they were still the top offerings from both manufacturers. You want to drag in the sticker price to validate your stance, nothing more. Anything you can do to make the S2000 "better", you will. That's your MO, and we've been over this time and time and time again.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
You like to see fair comparison ? A boxing match is the perfect example of fair, no such thing as 125 lbs fighter vs 300 lbs fighter.


You ever watch UFC?

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I agree on the supercharging point. The supercharging network isn't really a long term value. In short term yes I think it has value, long term no. Charging station is basically like a gas station, they are a commodity. If the EV market really grows enough that it makes sense for gas stations to install charging station, they will. They are a little expensive today - I read that the DC fast charger cost ~$50k compared to a gas pump I see is more like $15k. There are enough gas stations out there that infrastructure is not an issue if some of these major franchises are interested to get into the game. I'm sure they could bring down the cost of the DC fast charger as well.

The problem with Tesla for the supercharger's is they are investing capital in equipment that in mid-term will become commodity. It supports their short term sale for the high value cars (like Model S) but long term they need someone to invest in the capital for the charging station infrastructure. Then all their investment in these superchargers will become less valuable.

Someone did a calculation few months ago about supercharger stations costs to Tesla.

It was $2000 option for the base P70 in 2013 and included with higher trims.

Now, you multiply $2000 with number of model S sold since 2013 till end of 2015 in US of about 70,000, you would see that Tesla got $14 millions for supercharger option and they spent much less than $10 millions so far. They plan to double it by end of 2017 to accommodate model 3(with SC option).

Supercharger is one of the reasons that Tesla is selling more EV's(even at much higher price) than others.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You ever watch UFC?

No, I never watched UFC, and I rarely watched boxing too. But i know there is something they call "Weight Class" in boxing.

I said many many times that BMW had and have excellent 3-series cars for many many years, especially in the handling department. Never once it came second to any car, some cars may had faster acceleration to both 60 and quarter mile, but overall the 3-series always came up top because its handling was much better.

Their 5 and 6-sries are also at or near the top of its class.

But saying all BMW cars are best it its class in handling category is totally incorrect. Tesla showed that its model S beat 750Li in handling test, so it is possible that model 3 with performance option can go neck to neck with 3-series with similar options and price.

Did you see the comments of BMW Z4 and Z4M owners about gear-box/transmission of Z4 and S2000 ? Were they wrong ?

 

[KrisZ]

HTSS_TR, there is no question that the S2000 is an excellent car and that there aren't many cars in its class that can match it, including bang for the buck. It is true that the run of the mill Z4 cannot keep up with it and one has to step up to Z8.
However it is not a proof that BMW cannot engineer a car with similar performance and at similar price range. The two brands cater to different buying demographics. It is the same reason why Rolex doesn't make a $100 watch. There are plenty $100 watches that are as accurate or even more accurate than a Rolex watch, but it is not some sort of proof that Rolex is incapable of designing and engineering a $100 watch that would match the cheap competition.

You can say the same thing about pretty much anything, clothes, shoes, electronics. Plenty of low end stuff will match or even beat in some aspects the high end products. But is it proof that the high end manufacturers cannot engineer and design products that will match low end? Absolutely no. It simply means that they are not interested in the race to the bottom line, diluting their brand name, loosing the image etc.