Buying advice, which cab?

C

christoffer

Member
Hi,

Wanted a z4 last year but due to work I didn't get the chance.

I'm interested in the facelifted convertible, it will be a sunny weather car for when I move to France this summer.

I test drove a 2.0 and found it lots of fun, it was very nimble and the engine responsive and quick-ish to 70mph. The engine sound was completely muted due to wind noise though.

What I am looking for would be the 2.0, or 3.0 Si, og M roadster. The reason I am contemplating them all, is that I haven't moved to France yet and in Denmark I can't test all the versions due to taxes.

So my question to those who know is, how do they compare?

Which one is likely to hold their price the best over two years?
How much of a difference is there in insurance?
How much of a difference is there in servicing - is the M way more expensive to upkeep than the 2.0?
How about the driving enjoyment, how big is the actual difference in enjoyment from one to the other at realistic above legal speeds?
What about engine noise?
Does the smaller engine car handle better due to weight advantage?

Price- wise they are around 17.000€-20.000€-27.000€ for the different models.

I know that's lots of questions, but from my point of view it's important things to know since I won't get a chance to test the car before I buy. I am going to choose which one to buy, and then I'm going to see if I like it.

Thank you and hope you can help :-)
 
Perhaps you're right. It's not so much the purchasing price that would bother me, it would bother me if the running costs are way more than the 2.0 or 3.0 Si - if the M doesn't deliver a significant better driving experiance.
 
Sounds like you might be better off going for a 6 cylinder 2.5/2.5si/3.0/3.0si.

Its not so much the extra performance of the ///M as it can't be utilised that much, more the overall driving experience. Running cost will be higher, but it all depends on your annual mileage.
 
In terms of the 2.5/3.0 I'm just thinking that the 2.0 makes sense because it's cheapest to run and insure and lightest, where as the 2.5 will be as heavy as the 3.0 and probably cost the same to run and insure, but have less power - and therefore I'm considering the smallest and biggest of the non-M and the M.
Am I wrong?

Edit: just saw you have the M, have you driven the 265hp as well?
 
The 3.0 is a 6 speed and this reduces the running costs, almost the same 0-60 mph time as a M and the exact same top speed 155mph. The M has more torque and a better sound..but the 3.0 has much better MPG and is cheaper to service.
 
The 0-60 isn't that close :poke:
Tbh my experience is from he prefacelift 3.0, so it was down a little on power, but it was a nice engine and very much he one to have on the early models IMO. The step up to an M is noticeable, in power, feel, noise and overall grin factor :D

Between the M and the 2.0, it's obviously a much bigger difference but I've never driven a 2.0. I'd be very interested to try one, as they may be quite fun in terms of being able to push the loud pedal a bit more before you're doing silly speeds.

Would you always wish you got the biggest and best? Or do you want a few extra quid in your back pocket?

Personally I went for the empty wallet option :oops:
 
Does anybody know the likely differences in running costs? I've read some pretty hefty servicing bills on the M section - same category price-wise as a Porsche it seems?

Is the sound great on both the 3.0 Si and M? The 2.0 didn't seem to make any noise which is alright since it's a straight four I guess.

Herminator - no I don't mind not getting the biggest and best, I'm buying for my own pleasure. Trying to figure out which one is best for me in terms of smiles per mile and costs :-)
 
Herminator said:
The 0-60 isn't that close :poke:
Tbh my experience is from he prefacelift 3.0, so it was down a little on power, but it was a nice engine and very much he one to have on the early models IMO. The step up to an M is noticeable, in power, feel, noise and overall grin factor :D

Between the M and the 2.0, it's obviously a much bigger difference but I've never driven a 2.0. I'd be very interested to try one, as they may be quite fun in terms of being able to push the loud pedal a bit more before you're doing silly speeds.

Would you always wish you got the biggest and best? Or do you want a few extra quid in your back pocket?

Personally I went for the empty wallet option :oops:
Click to expand...


5.5 and 4.8 isnt it?
 
I am little biased having the 2.0 sport. You get all the extras, heated seats NCAA etc. Fuel economy is good. Just done runs from Devon to Birmingham and Stansted airports. Mainly motorway and of course at the legal speed limit :? And got around 39 mpg. The only probl I find is a little turbo lag when accelerating. But that might be because I don't over rev the engine. But for the enjoyment and economy its great.
 
Greytay said:
I am little biased having the 2.0 sport. You get all the extras, heated seats NCAA etc. Fuel economy is good. Just done runs from Devon to Birmingham and Stansted airports. Mainly motorway and of course at the legal speed limit :? And got around 39 mpg. The only probl I find is a little turbo lag when accelerating. But that might be because I don't over rev the engine. But for the enjoyment and economy its great.
Click to expand...

TURBO LAG?
 
Turbo on the new 2 litre Zed :)

I've driven 2 litre had a 2.5si and an 'M''. personally the 2 litre was a little underpowered for me and a 3 litre si would be the sensible choice weighing up all the running costs/MPG/performance arguements, but if you can afford an 'M' you should seriously think about buying one. Inspection 1 & 2 every 4 years with a oil change in between so running costs aren't that bad for a sub 5 seconds sports car. :thumbsup:
 
Hi - perhaps you're right the 3.0 si would be a sensible option. I've been reading threads on here all day - I'm at page 40 now! :) (can't search for some reason)
Found a thread which said the differences in running the 3.0 Si versus the M was a factor of 1.5. However, having read some of the servicing costs for the M, it looks, as I sais above, to be more than 1.5 and really close to the running costs of a Porsche.

Can you say anything regarding the running costs / insurance between your 2.5 Si and your M ? I'm guessing the 2.5 Si and 3.0 Si are basically the same costwise.

:)
 
For me, the insurance is about 10% more for an M compared to a 3.0. Maybe even a little less.
Fuel wise, it's around 5mpg worse. But it's still better around town then my old 8 series :oops:

Servicing is the main difference, when it comes around to Inspection 1&2 time, it's not as bad as a Porsche but its not cheap. With my milage it should only need servicing very couple of years though. And every second service is a reasonably priced oil service.

Road tax in the uk is another couple of hundred a year though :poke:
 
Just read through some threads on the M section. Read about the inspection 1 and 2, and that they are solely mileage related. Do the 2.0 and 3.0 Si also have inspection 1 and 2's?
On the 3.0 Si - the hydraulic tappets noise is just a noise right? Nothing to be worried about?
The Vanos noise on the M is the same, just a noise and not a worry right?


Herminator, sounds like your insurance is quite reasonably priced if it's that close to a 3.0, fuel economy doesn't bother me too much. The 8 is fast becoming a classic in my eyes.

Thanks! :)
 
The non M's have inspection services too, and they alternate with oil services just the same.

For the M the price jump is higher though as more has to be done. Shimming the tappets, or at least inspecting them for tolerence, means the car has to be in very early or the night before, so the car is at ambient temperature when it's done. There's also diff and gearbox oil changes which aren't part of the non M's normal procedure.

I good indi will be much cheaper than a main dealer for these services though, if you want to save a few hundred quid.

My insurance isn't that cheap, it was more that almost all cars were quite high, so the jump up to something higher end wasn't so big in relation. I'd rather pay a fortune for a good car, than a slightly smaller fortune for a boring car.
 
Can't help you with the M - but in terms of mpg the 3.0si is barely worse than the 2.0 I had. Trip computer on my 2.0 was stuck at 34, with the 3.0si it's hovering around 30 (last calculation using brim-brim resulted in 32.92mpg!). The problem with the 2.0 is you have to use the loud pedal more. Insurance wasn't substantially different either.
 
Thank you guys :) any of you know how much more the ins 1 and 2 are on the M in relation to the 2.0 and 3.0 Si?
The M is also in a much higher state of tune, so the inspections are probably more thorough to insure the same levels of reliability.

Boogle, even though fuel economy doesn't bother me that much in the purchasing decision, it's funny you say that the 3.0 is about as economical fuel wise as the 2.0. Since you've owned both, is servicing much more on the Si? What made you change up?

Thank you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom