2.0 or not 2.0 that is the query

This is so much down to personal needs and wants. The economy may be a consideration but an older 3.0 will probably depreciate less which counters the fuel economy argument.

My neighbour has a 2.0, I have a 3.2 MC. there are days I'd love to have 40mpg he has reported on occasion, there are days when he'd like to have the grin I have after a spirited drive in the M.
 
If anyone buys a 2.0 simply for economy they'd be better off buying a 320d... or whats the point?
Fuel economy is something ive ever even considered thinking about when buying/dreaming about cars
Just get the best u can afford..then once u have it plan on bettering that

:)
 
I have the 2.5Si and just love the silky smooth 6. Tried the standard 2.5i and found that a little slow, 215 bhp against 177 bhp. Try before you drive is my advice :driving:
 
I went to a 2.0 because first and foremost I wanted a soft top roadster beemer. MPG is great and I really enjoy the ride. I can't be arsed burning people off to get to the next lights\ queue\dawdler holding everything up first. I liked the more basic spec coming from a fully loaded t3 series coupe
 
un1eash said:
PCBung said:
Just checked up on the 2.0 Z4 and they are quicker than I thought, 8.5 Secs to 60. Should keep the boy racers at bay lol.

WhatCar recommend getting the 2.0 SE and they do say avoid the 3.0i Sport.

Looks like Woots has got the better car over all of us 3.0s petrol heads lol, he was right all along!
Click to expand...

Where did you get 8.5s from? Offical BMW figures are 8.1 to 62mph/7.9 to 60mph.
Click to expand...

I think the pre facelift/early 2.0 was 8.5 to 62,the newer model was 8.1?
As for the 3.0s,they do feel ALOT quicker. 0-62 in 5.7 secs;and 5.9 for pre facelift 3.0,so are alot qkr and far more fun/still a very light and great handling car.

Def the 1 to go for :D
 
Woots said:
If anyone buys a 2.0 simply for economy they'd be better off buying a 320d... or whats the point?
Fuel economy is something ive ever even considered thinking about when buying/dreaming about cars
Just get the best u can afford..then once u have it plan on bettering that

:)
Click to expand...

Try driving a 320D for 3 years and then you'd see the point. That's what my neighbour had and he just couldn't afford to either buy or run a car that was as expensive as the 3.0.

The first Z4 I drove was a 2.0 which I really liked and felt it was quick enough for a daily driver.

I don't think it is a poor option, it's just another option which suits some people.
 
We have both a 320d and the Z4 - in terms of fuel economy - yes the 320d is fantastic - but without the straight 6 I found the Z4 I had for a few days just lacked a lot of the character mine has. Sure it isn't slow in comparison with a lot of other cars, but most of the great roadsters have large capacity straight 6's (think Jag XK120, E Type, Austin Healey) etc - not just for the performance, but also the noise, character and smoothness.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with a smaller engine and it does steer a little more sweetly (I noticed that) - but I kind of like the fact that the 3.0 is a little heavier to drive. However, I don't think the Z4 was created with a 2.0 in mind; it was brought in to boost sales - it is a shame they didn't continue with the 2.2 I6 - they used to use that in the 3 series as well and I thought that was a great way of having a smaller, lower powered engine that still had a lot of character.

So, what I'm getting at is - it's not all about the performance, but a roadster like the Z4 should have a straight 6 or greater, not a 4 pot.
 
I don't believe either is better or worse than the other, just focussed on a different set of needs and values
How about this as a summary?:

Where the 2.0 wins:
Cheaper to buy, run, tax, insure, etc. and own
More economical ownership focussed
Equally stylish
Less long term depreciation coming from a lower price point
Ideal entry point for otherwise unattainable car (cost, age/insurance,etc.)
Lighter and more corner 'pointy'

Where the 3.0 Wins:
More true to the classic roadster set up with 6 cylinders
More ultimate performance focussed (speed, sound, acceleration)
More collectable in long term
Generally better specced options by initial owner
More standard equipment (wheel size, suspension, etc.)
...but it all comes at a cost !!!
 
So what you are saying is that poor people who are more interested in how it looks than what it is will by a 2.0 and those of us who appreciate what it is and what it can do will buy the car with the right engine in the first place. :fuelfire:

Now what do our 2.0 friends think of that. :poke:
 
Z4coupebeaver said:
So what you are saying is that poor people who are more interested in how it looks than what it is will by a 2.0 and those of us who appreciate what it is and what it can do will buy the car with the right engine in the first place. :fuelfire:

Now what do our 2.0 friends think of that. :poke:
Click to expand...

Or maybe the sensible ones buy the 2.0 and the posers buy the 3.0 :P
 
csmith319 said:
...but most of the great roadsters have large capacity straight 6's (think Jag XK120, E Type, Austin Healey) etc - not just for the performance, but also the noise, character and smoothness.
Click to expand...

An S6 is essential for an E85 Z4 IMO. Preferably a 3.0 or an M, but the 2.5 is cool too. It's they way they sound/feel, the smoothness and the torque not just the fact they are faster. The 3.0 actually sounds much more like a BMW than the 3.2 M does, that N54 soundtrack is pure 6 cylinder BMW and very hard to beat. 2.0 is by no means a bad car, it just wouldn't appeal to me. I'd probably have a Golf GTI 2.0T or something like that. The fact What Car recommends the 2.0 sums it up and proves the 3.0 is the right car to go for :) What Car assess cars like washing machines. Purely based on stats, no emotive angle at all. They would weight 'engine noise' and 'driving experience' equally alongside 'boot space' and 'tyre cost' in importance. But some just want the looks / roof down experience, and that's the job of the 2.0...
 
mikedav said:
csmith319 said:
...but most of the great roadsters have large capacity straight 6's (think Jag XK120, E Type, Austin Healey) etc - not just for the performance, but also the noise, character and smoothness.
Click to expand...

An S6 is essential for an E85 Z4 IMO. Preferably a 3.0 or an M, but the 2.5 is cool too. It's they way they sound/feel, the smoothness and the torque not just the fact they are faster. The 3.0 actually sounds much more like a BMW than the 3.2 M does, that N54 soundtrack is pure 6 cylinder BMW and very hard to beat. 2.0 is by no means a bad car, it just wouldn't appeal to me. I'd probably have a Golf GTI 2.0T or something like that. The fact What Car recommends the 2.0 sums it up and proves the 3.0 is the right car to go for :) What Car assess cars like washing machines. Purely based on stats, no emotive angle at all. They would weight 'engine noise' and 'driving experience' equally alongside 'boot space' and 'tyre cost' in importance. But some just want the looks / roof down experience, and that's the job of the 2.0...
Click to expand...

I like to picture in my mind driving in the countryside (not too hard as I do that everyday) with hedgerows and walls on the roadside. Its not about 10 tenths driving - more about enjoying the car and the surroundings - the straight 6 just makes the picture complete.

I do think it is a shame that there are very few small capacity 6+ cylinder engines around anymore. BMW used to do them, Mazda did, even Ferrari did a 2.0 V8 (turbo'd, the 208) due to Italian tax law. These would give similar performance to the 4 pots and similar economy but would sound better and be much smoother - yes slightly more expensive to make, but worth the premium in a roadster.

Completely agree with the What Car sentiment, they miss the emotional aspect that is part of cars for those that enjoy them and do not see them as merely transport from A to B.
 
Another comment on this subject.

It was a lovely sunny day yesterday(sunday) so it was clean the car,(not that it was dirty),top down and a nice 80 mile drive through the Welsh countryside.
Really enjoyed it, and wether I had a 2.0 or a 3.0 would have made no difference.I have a 2.0 by the way.Power isn't everything. :driving:
 
jazzmonkey said:
Another comment on this subject.

It was a lovely sunny day yesterday(sunday) so it was clean the car,(not that it was dirty),top down and a nice 80 mile drive through the Welsh countryside.
Really enjoyed it, and wether I had a 2.0 or a 3.0 would have made no difference.I have a 2.0 by the way.Power isn't everything. :driving:
Click to expand...

Have you driven a 3.0 before?
 
peddy said:
jazzmonkey said:
Another comment on this subject.

It was a lovely sunny day yesterday(sunday) so it was clean the car,(not that it was dirty),top down and a nice 80 mile drive through the Welsh countryside.
Really enjoyed it, and wether I had a 2.0 or a 3.0 would have made no difference.I have a 2.0 by the way.Power isn't everything. :driving:
Click to expand...

Have you driven a 3.0 before?
Click to expand...
No not driven a 3.0 zed. Perhaps I should and compare it to my humble 2.0.
Still get loads of satisfaction driving mine though. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom