2.0 or 2.2
- Thread starter Tysonwills
- Start date
Tysonwills
Member
I am taking all advice youre right go and look and see
MACK said:jamie_z4 said:
On a jovial note, something I hadn't noticed (as I don't see their posts anymore) but a fellow forumite pointed out to me when I met up with them the other day. When all the "I've got a problem with my 2.0 engine" threads appear on here, which seems to be on average 3-4 times a week , guess who's no where to be seen, never posts, conspicuous by their absence. I guess their too embarassed/ashamed!
hahhaa Gloaty McGloatface
Chris22091966
Member
I'd agree with the straight sixers. I bought mine just over a month ago. It drinks fuel but it's great fun : )
Heated seats in a roadster are always a big bonus OP, top down with a warm bum (Worth holding out for IMO).
But straight six is a must in the z4, you'll have a lot of spare bonnet room in the 2L and you'll wish you had an mx5 instead. I've had a 318i saloon and z4 2.0i, had a few engine problems in both http://mywikimotors.com/n46b20/
But straight six is a must in the z4, you'll have a lot of spare bonnet room in the 2L and you'll wish you had an mx5 instead. I've had a 318i saloon and z4 2.0i, had a few engine problems in both http://mywikimotors.com/n46b20/
A
Anonymous
Guest
These cars are all about the 6 pot engines and the sound, the handling and general ride isn't much to write home about at all imo. If I wanted a 4 cylinder car I'd have gone elsewhere as there are better drivers cars with small engines.
Get the 2.2 as a minimum.
Get the 2.2 as a minimum.
A
Anonymous
Guest
hopz121 said:
I guess people want different things. Personally I'd rather have a solid, well looked after car rather than toys.
That said, I can't disagree about lack of heated seats. Screw that
Chris_D said:MACK said:jamie_z4 said:
On a jovial note, something I hadn't noticed (as I don't see their posts anymore) but a fellow forumite pointed out to me when I met up with them the other day. When all the "I've got a problem with my 2.0 engine" threads appear on here, which seems to be on average 3-4 times a week , guess who's no where to be seen, never posts, conspicuous by their absence. I guess their too embarassed/ashamed!
hahhaa Gloaty McGloatface
Pugwash69 said:
If the 2.0i has a big problem (more chance of this happening over the straight 6's) then that cheaper cost of running is no longer a factor.
The 2.0i wasn't BMW's best engine and for the such small difference in prices between a straight 6 and a 2.0 4 pot engine, a straight 6 is a no brainer IMO.
Each to there own though, but just factor in repair costs into "running costs"
Personally, I can't understand anyone going for a fourpot in such an iconic roadster format!
For all their foibles and quirky ways the BMW 6 pots are just undeniably superior in every way to their 4-pots.
The savings gained in fuel economy or lower insurance premiums, emissions tax with a 4-banger will be offset by potentially higher maintenance/repair costs, rising exponentially the higher the mileage / harder driven.
I got a staggering 261,000 miles out of a M52B25 6-pot as some of you know and this was due to it being a strong engine anyway. But I maintained it to the highest standard and it repaid me with utter reliability and longevity.
Do yourself a favour OP, go for a well looked-after 6 pot if you can.....
For all their foibles and quirky ways the BMW 6 pots are just undeniably superior in every way to their 4-pots.
The savings gained in fuel economy or lower insurance premiums, emissions tax with a 4-banger will be offset by potentially higher maintenance/repair costs, rising exponentially the higher the mileage / harder driven.
I got a staggering 261,000 miles out of a M52B25 6-pot as some of you know and this was due to it being a strong engine anyway. But I maintained it to the highest standard and it repaid me with utter reliability and longevity.
Do yourself a favour OP, go for a well looked-after 6 pot if you can.....
south yorkshire
It's all been said- 2.2 the way to go, but they are rare so I would also widen your search to include the 2.5. There is no tangible difference in running costs.
I looked into this very same topic 15 months ago. My advice to you would be drive both and preferably drive a 2.5L and 3.0L as well, then decide. For what it is worth I stopped looking at 2.0L after a week then spent 8 months trying to find the right 3.0L. The only advantage I could find for the 2.0L was fuel consumption, but offset against that is the reputation of the 2.0L engine is not good. The straight 6 engine on the other hand is an outstandingly good engine (I believe the 3.0L was voted by industry experts as being one of the best engines in the world). Aside from that, the 2.0L just doesn't sound as good (the straight sixes have a much nicer rasp) and doesn't have the right image/credibility (not that that should matter much). I would choose a 2.2L over a 2.0L every time. I went for the 3.0L in the end not because of performance, but they are more likely to come fully loaded, people who could afford 3.0L new were generally rich enough to buy all the options, people who opted for the 2.0L were likely to have been more budget constrained and could not afford the options, there is also a possibility they may have cut costs on servicing for the same reason and servicing is very important, particularly oil changes.
Good luck in your hunting and I hope you are happy with your decision.
Good luck in your hunting and I hope you are happy with your decision.