[Asbjorn]

Well, to me this makes sense. These categories probably contain the best selling roadsters:

Category 1) Affordable entry level fun
Category 2) Luxury to show off and cruise in
Category 3) Cool track-ready performance, again to show off and, well, show off some more, because the track is too far away...

The SLK, TT and Z4 are not trying to be the best within any of the above. They fall somewhere in-between.

The buyers left in the market after 2009, probably want cars that take things a bit further within the above categories. Like the F-type. The SL. The SLS. The Boxter etc. Cars which fall in-between, like the Z4, do not immediately make sense. Why would you want a 2 seater roadster which isn't making a serious attempt at being affordable, luxurious/classy or performance oriented? It is not much use for anything else but showing off and driving for fun anyway.

Personally I chose the Z4 because it was easy access to 400hp and the lightest convertible in the BMW lineup. Still lighter than the current M4 as well. It is sporty without being too uncomfortable and the de-catted exhaust sounds great to me. It does both longer road trips and drifting on weekends very well. You just need to keep RFTs and tracks away from it. Still it fails to define itself as a leading roadster within any class.

BMW should focus more on explaining what the Z-brand is, and why it is as attractive and meaningful as the X-brand, M-brand and i-brand, and how it is a special class of its own compared to other roadsters.