M worth the extra over 3.0si???
- Thread starter JonnyB
- Start date
JonnyB said:
Thanks, they really are great cars! Without too much effort can look very unique unlike anything on the road which is what I love about it.
Would push you toward the coupe
Just to be different 
If you want to have a look
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157632813085142/
Stug said:
Depends how you drive it, I've never seen less than 23 unless I was on a forum meet or pushing the car really hard. I find the car pretty frugal for its power and if you drive it nicely it sees good economy. The tax thing is another forum favourite to discuss at the end of the day its £10 a week... tbh if your going to quibble about the tax then the ///M certainly isn't for you. Any performance car is £500 either accept it or miss out I suppose...
Get the /m if you can afford it. But expect to pay double or more on maintenance, and the /m is a very fragile car when it comes to engine neglect or engine stress (worn bearings, and far a more critical vanos etc). Don't skip on oil change and expect to pay somewhere around £250 or more for one (1) front brake disk at the dealership (to get an idea about maintenance...) (ebay.co.uk: £211/pc).
So if you're wondering if you can afford one... you probably cant. Regular Z is just like a regular e46 when it comes to maintenance. Similar engine line, simlar brake stuff, similar suspension etc etc.
Do what adamski said: get a cheap car for the boring daily traffic, and get something special for the fun roads (whatever car that might be). It will save you money in the long run and your (precious) car will have a much longer life. Also most dings and other damage/scratches etc comes from daily traffic (and daily parking lots!). That's less of a hassle on an already semi beat up toyota than on your pride and joy.
So if you're wondering if you can afford one... you probably cant. Regular Z is just like a regular e46 when it comes to maintenance. Similar engine line, simlar brake stuff, similar suspension etc etc.
Do what adamski said: get a cheap car for the boring daily traffic, and get something special for the fun roads (whatever car that might be). It will save you money in the long run and your (precious) car will have a much longer life. Also most dings and other damage/scratches etc comes from daily traffic (and daily parking lots!). That's less of a hassle on an already semi beat up toyota than on your pride and joy.
I would love an M, but the idea of it costing double a decent normal 3.0i to buy then running costs put me off.
Its personal choice but you really need track days etc to enjoy what a car like that can do, if you can afford it great, but 22mpg v 35mpg, double the service costs, double the purchase price etc
Its personal choice but you really need track days etc to enjoy what a car like that can do, if you can afford it great, but 22mpg v 35mpg, double the service costs, double the purchase price etc
JonnyB said:
In answer to your original question, 100% yes.
JonnyB said:
For £840 per year difference, yes go for it they are streets apart
Being 22 I would check out the insurance as this may decide for you which car you will end up in. If you are worried re ongoing costs you might want to get a warranty on the car to cover any unforeseeable issues.My M isnt a daily driver in getting me to work however I use it whenever I need to go somewhere its still a BMW - local trip, a different county, a weekend away or just a drive for drives sake. The shine doesn’t wear off, why you would want to be stuck in a s**t box when you have a quality car sat on the drive I will never understand. You don't need track days to enjoy these cars, just some nice open roads.
Some rubbish posted above.
MPG around town 22/26
Motorway 28/36
Faster driving 20/26
Not takern on track
Tax makes me laugh if £200 difference between cars is a problem then you need to look at a different car! £17 per month difference 3.0 - M, less than a quarter of a tank of fuel.
Servicing is more however there are cheaper ways to play the game. Ring around different BMW dealers and play them off each other - prices are not fixed or use a specialist.
The last thing I would call the ///M is fragile.... There are so few bearing failures I've been on here 2 years and seen one car get bearing failure, even Vanos barely any cars on here have suffered. If anything compared to a lot of sportscars in the same category the Z is probably one of the most bullet proof. But like I said a warranty is a good idea just incase the worst should happen.
Some serious rubbish posted by 3.0 owners.
I average 26.1 mpg in the ///M only drive weekends and always have fun (this isn't from long motorway commutes). I very much doubt an owner would average 35 in the 3.0 and 22 in the ///M, realistically there is maybe a comparative difference of 5-7 mpg.
As mentioned tax is only £200 more per year (hardly worth quibbling over).
For me insurance was ~£100 a year difference (£475 for the ///M vs £390 for the 3.0)
Servicing is more in the ///M but is ~once every 2 years based on 7k per year and isn't twice the amount. Brakes etc will be more, but are hardly an every day cost??
When I was calculating the comparative costs of both I came to roughly a £95 difference PCM. For me it was a no brainer, I had no issues with the extra ~£100 a month so the ///M it was.
Many people are scared by the "much much higher" running costs of the ///M but in reality, once the total costs are considered it is maybe 20% higher, certainly nowhere near double.
I average 26.1 mpg in the ///M only drive weekends and always have fun (this isn't from long motorway commutes). I very much doubt an owner would average 35 in the 3.0 and 22 in the ///M, realistically there is maybe a comparative difference of 5-7 mpg.
As mentioned tax is only £200 more per year (hardly worth quibbling over).
For me insurance was ~£100 a year difference (£475 for the ///M vs £390 for the 3.0)
Servicing is more in the ///M but is ~once every 2 years based on 7k per year and isn't twice the amount. Brakes etc will be more, but are hardly an every day cost??
When I was calculating the comparative costs of both I came to roughly a £95 difference PCM. For me it was a no brainer, I had no issues with the extra ~£100 a month so the ///M it was.
Many people are scared by the "much much higher" running costs of the ///M but in reality, once the total costs are considered it is maybe 20% higher, certainly nowhere near double.
I have not seen any higher costs really, the insurance was the same (now less) for the M then it was for my 3.0. Servicing is every two years and Inspections with that mileage every 4 years.
Road tax is the biggest difference for me, but at least you have 4 pipes to stick up to the government CO2 policy
Road tax is the biggest difference for me, but at least you have 4 pipes to stick up to the government CO2 policy
I agree with Steve.
Insurance for me was pretty good at 23 2ync 3 points 7k it was £880
Like any sports car brakes every 45k major inspections every 25k oil/brake/filters 2 years or every 12-14k. Prices being not too bad inspect II is 600-800 depending where you go and my oil/brake fluid change was £330. Don't think thats ridiculous really…
When you have a look at other comparable cars anyway. Its a bit of a performance bargain.
Also twice the price to buy? If you bought a Si at 7k you would be lucky to get a dog with over 80k, similar M rs are about 10k with 80+k. a good 3l SI your looking at 10k. 14k would buy a very nice M roadster 15k a coupe.
Insurance for me was pretty good at 23 2ync 3 points 7k it was £880
Like any sports car brakes every 45k major inspections every 25k oil/brake/filters 2 years or every 12-14k. Prices being not too bad inspect II is 600-800 depending where you go and my oil/brake fluid change was £330. Don't think thats ridiculous really…
When you have a look at other comparable cars anyway. Its a bit of a performance bargain.
Also twice the price to buy? If you bought a Si at 7k you would be lucky to get a dog with over 80k, similar M rs are about 10k with 80+k. a good 3l SI your looking at 10k. 14k would buy a very nice M roadster 15k a coupe.
ZermattV said:20%
OK, let's put some science to it.
For my figures I've assumed 6000 miles PA, @ 26mpg for the ///M and 31pg for the 3.0si using shell nitro+ @ 137.9p/litre
Servicing costs are assuming an Insp II within the next 2 years (to get the highest cost difference for comparison, and most expensive yearly costs)
Insurance costs are based on quotes I received just prior to purchasing my ///M.
Tyres will cost very similar amounts, I've assumed £1000 (for a whole set) every 4 years.
Brakes, £500 for the ///M and £250 for the 3.0...every 5 years (for arguments sake)
I've then allowed for misc. costs of £500 for the 3.0 and £650 for the ///M each year, although in reality these cars are very reliable so is more of a contingency.
So, on the most expensive of 2 year cycles (to follow servicing) the difference is approximately 30%. In oil service cycles this drops to 25%.
26 mpg from an M and 31 from a 3.0si? Lmao thats ridiculous. For me to average 26mpg I would have to drive an M very gently. If I drove the 3.0si in that manner I see over 40mpg?
Unless the M I borrowed was just a very thirsty one ? The 3.0si is by far a better car as a daily driver. If you only want it for weekends buy an M...
Unless the M I borrowed was just a very thirsty one ? The 3.0si is by far a better car as a daily driver. If you only want it for weekends buy an M...
and both cost exactly the same to buy ? -this seems to have fallen out of the Excel Sheet 
-i love man maths -which is not a science its an artform - which I have been guilty of once in a while too.
If you are getting 26mpg out of the M - you would probably get 34MPG in the 3.0. I reckon on an 8 MPG difference between the two Ive owned ( and the 3.0 will run on 95 without pinking should you desire )
And I don't get the spurious consumable figure which is used as a fiddle factor to pull the consumables within 20 %
I'm not saying its double - but its certainly more than 20% .
-i love man maths -which is not a science its an artform - which I have been guilty of once in a while too.If you are getting 26mpg out of the M - you would probably get 34MPG in the 3.0. I reckon on an 8 MPG difference between the two Ive owned ( and the 3.0 will run on 95 without pinking should you desire )
And I don't get the spurious consumable figure which is used as a fiddle factor to pull the consumables within 20 %
I'm not saying its double - but its certainly more than 20% .
Maybe you have a heavy right foot… In normal driving mine sits at 26.6 all the time… Ive never had a problem with fuel economy at all. But I'm quite a smooth driver, and as the guys who have been on runs I've organised or been on will attest I'm not a slow driver. I find it hard to believe people see south of 23 most of my driving is town, country roads Lake hooning because I live in a rural area also the odd bit of motorway.
Sunday driving is different to normal driving, and i don't abuse the car either because thats where your problems start.
My consump 2 is my average over 14k.
Sunday driving is different to normal driving, and i don't abuse the car either because thats where your problems start.
My consump 2 is my average over 14k.