Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?

Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/

I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
are winners. Any thoughts?

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

This month's issue of Car and Driver has a comparison of the M Coupe'
and the Cayman S, the Cayman was quicker in all but one accleration
test and was 2 seconds quicker around the test track. C&D gave it the
win because of it's superior performance and dynamics.

Although I'm aware that you're talking about the M Roadster and Boxster
S, not the M Coupe' and Cayman S, there's a reason for my bringing this
up: Porsche is introducing the Cayman's engine range to the Boxster
models for the 2007 model year along with minor suspension tweaks. As
far as I know, all comparisons made thus far between the M Roadster and
Boxster S have used the less powerful, less evolved 06' model year
Boxster S for comparison, rendering the results moot unless you're
planing on buying an 06' model year unit as opposed to waiting for the
new version.

As far as the SLK55 is concerned, it's very quick in a straight line,
but I'm hard pressed to believe it can handle on par with either the
BMW or the Porsche. It's a more "fashionable" sporty GT coupe than it
is a sports car and it's probably most akin to the *outgoing* MKIV
platform Audi TT than anything else, although I'd personally prefer the
DSG equipped 3.2 TT to the SLK despite it's less frantic accleration.

If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a
Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either,
although the supercharger will void your factory warranty and it isn't
as refined as the European vehicles. You can also look for a second
hand Boxster S (I'd go for an 03' or newer model) and fitting it with
an intake/exhaust upgrade and GIAC's chip, which will net you around
15-20 horsepower combined.

RichAsianKid wrote:
> Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?
>
> Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
> http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/
>
> I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
> but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
> Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
> presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
> are winners. Any thoughts?

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

"RichAsianKid" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?
>
> Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
> http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/
>
> I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
> but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
> Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
> presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
> are winners. Any thoughts?
>

I've driven a Boxster S quite extensively and tried a Z4M coupe yesterday.
The Z4 was way more fun but I suspect the Porsche would be as quick if not
quicker. Just a more accurate car where the Z4M was definately more
involving. Didn;t get to switch DSC off though as I was nannied by the
dealer :-(

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

"RichAsianKid" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?
>
> Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
> http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/
>
> I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
> but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
> Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
> presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
> are winners. Any thoughts?
>
The article is too long to translate, but here are the pluses and minuses
that they assign to each:

Boxster:
+ for handling, quality, display arrangment
- for lack of comfort

SLK:
+ for comfort, power
- for handling, braking

Z4:

+ for handling, transmission
- for visibility, comfort

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

Lets not forget a Cayman S will be $15K more the MZ coupe. That ain't chump
change. Anyway, I think I'll keep my 11 year old supercharged E36 M3.


"RichAsianKid" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?
>
> Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
> http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/
>
> I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
> but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
> Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
> presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
> are winners. Any thoughts?
>

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

In article .com>,
RichAsianKid > wrote:
>Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?
>
>Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
>http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/
>
>I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
>but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
>Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
>presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
>are winners. Any thoughts?

Top Gear conpared the Boxter and the SLK55 and was shocked that they
found it more capable in every area than the Porsche.


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

Filmophile wrote:

> If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a
> Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either,
> although the supercharger will void your factory warranty and it isn't
> as refined as the European vehicles.

Thanks for all the details.

As for above, probably off-topic for these ngs, any idea how the Honda
S2000 compare with the Nissan Z?

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

John Cisarik wrote:
> "RichAsianKid" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think?
> >
> > Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this.
> > http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/
> >
> > I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M,
> > but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs
> > Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has
> > presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all
> > are winners. Any thoughts?
> >
> The article is too long to translate, but here are the pluses and minuses
> that they assign to each:
>
> Boxster:
> + for handling, quality, display arrangment
> - for lack of comfort
>
> SLK:
> + for comfort, power
> - for handling, braking
>
> Z4:
>
> + for handling, transmission
> - for visibility, comfort

Thanks.

Too bad Google does not have the Russian translation engine. Did the
article give an overall winner? Not that it matters much - it's like a
composite index anyway, so depends what you're looking for. But since
it's posted to a Russian BMW carclub possibly the reviewers gave the
nod to the Z4M?

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

A factory stock S2000 will keep up with a 350Z in accleration tests and
probably be quicker around a given track. However, getting that kind of
performance from the S2000 means driving it *really* hard and knowing
how to keep the engine inside it's narrow powerband between 6,000 and
8,200 RPM. The 350Z is a more refined vehicle, more comfortable and
nearly as quick, it's also got a much more flexible engine. In the real
world, the 350Z is a more well rounded choice, but the S2000 has appeal
as a weekend canyon carver.

RichAsianKid wrote:
> Filmophile wrote:
>
> > If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a
> > Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either,
> > although the supercharger will void your factory warranty and it isn't
> > as refined as the European vehicles.
>
> Thanks for all the details.
>
> As for above, probably off-topic for these ngs, any idea how the Honda
> S2000 compare with the Nissan Z?

Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
 

On 8 Jul 2006 18:37:39 -0700, "Filmophile" > wrote:
>
>RichAsianKid wrote:
>> Filmophile wrote:
>>
>> > If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a
>> > Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either,
>> > although the supercharger will void your factory warranty and it isn't
>> > as refined as the European vehicles.
>>
>> Thanks for all the details.
>>
>> As for above, probably off-topic for these ngs, any idea how the Honda
>> S2000 compare with the Nissan Z?
>
>A factory stock S2000 will keep up with a 350Z in accleration tests and
>probably be quicker around a given track. However, getting that kind of
>performance from the S2000 means driving it *really* hard and knowing
>how to keep the engine inside it's narrow powerband between 6,000 and
>8,200 RPM. The 350Z is a more refined vehicle, more comfortable and
>nearly as quick, it's also got a much more flexible engine. In the real
>world, the 350Z is a more well rounded choice, but the S2000 has appeal
>as a weekend canyon carver.

Well, ok, but ya gotta be a tiny little dude to fit inside an S2K, where even
a 6' 5"er can fit inside a 350Z....