GP06Roadster
Senior member
Stug said:
+1...... 22 vs 35+ mpg, £490 road tax vs £280 road tax. M is an awesome beast no doubt but 265hp I find plenty enough for head and heart
M worth the extra over 3.0si???
- Thread starter JonnyB
- Start date
+1...... 22 vs 35+ mpg, £490 road tax vs £280 road tax. M is an awesome beast no doubt but 265hp I find plenty enough for head and heart
GP06Roadster said:Stug said:
+1...... 22 vs 35+ mpg, £490 road tax vs £280 road tax. M is an awesome beast no doubt but 265hp I find plenty enough for head and heart
high 30's vs less than 20's
35+ vs 22???
It may be possible to achieve high 30's mpg, just like it's possible to achieve 32mpg in the ///M on a nice leisurly motorway cruise.
On average, if your achieving 35mpg in the 3.0, chances are you'd achieve 27 in the ///M. If you're achieveing less than 20 in the ///M, you'd achieve less than 30 in the 3.0**
**of course, this is assuming you'd drive the cars in the same manner, I completely understand that owning an ///M would make one enjoy driving more, and progress in a more enthusiastic and spirited fashion :wink:
There are a lot of grand statements being thrown around, tax is twice as much, there's 75mpg difference between the two, brakes are astronomically more expensive and lest not forget the cost of valve clearances (which I thought were part of the inspection costs anyway).
I put a table up to show that the difference between the two may not be as high as many are touting. Fine, there may be mistakes in there. But why not create a different scenario to demonstrate how the costs differ. The large costs that will make the difference are potentially spread across 3-6 years, evened out across that period and the difference between the two isn't as scary as many think.
I haven't "tweaked" any spreadsheet, this was something I used to try to quantify the difference between the two. I had to take a view on miscellaneous costs. These figures were based on a thread/ poll I created some months back asking owners what costs they had faced over the lifetime of their ownership.
As I said, if we really want to help OP decide from a running costs point of view, and disagree with my numbers, then actually make some worthwhile, rational and thought out recommendations rather than making sensationalist claims.
mad4slalom
Senior member
people see a 3'0 and always think ,... oh its not an M ! why would you want to go for mediocrity when you can have superiority ? totally different league imo. seems strange that so many 3.0 owners whilst banging on about how its nearly as fast as an M or theres hardly any difference, then spend more than the difference in running costs trying to emulate an M by adding quad exhausts , m bumpers brake upgrades suspension, chips wheels etc etc . kind of pointless really, better to bite the bullet and get the M in the first place, you will afford it, as the costs become normal and the thrill more than warrants the spend to own what is unquestionably a very rare and special sports car. 
mad4slalom said:people see a 3'0 and always think ,... oh its not an M ! why would you want to go for mediocrity when you can have superiority ? totally different league imo. seems strange that so many 3.0 owners whilst banging on about how its nearly as fast as an M or theres hardly any difference, then spend more than the difference in running costs trying to emulate an M by adding quad exhausts , m bumpers brake upgrades suspension, chips wheels etc etc . kind of pointless really, better to bite the bullet and get the M in the first place, you will afford it, as the costs become normal and the thrill more than warrants the spend to own what is unquestionably a very rare and special sports car.
Because you get the best of both worlds… The look and the better economy.
I don't see any problem with that and they get a unique car that people will want come selling time.
StevenH72 said:
Good spreadsheet though and usefull to put some numbers to it 40 percent would sound about right to me on running costs
The only other thing to weigh up is purchase cost over three years say - which is trickier as depreciation is not easy to predict and will probably lead to another 25-30 posts
ZermattV said:
May I suggest I think you're guilty of using Steven's under-estimation there Zermatt!
ZermattV said:StevenH72 said:
Good spreadsheet though and usefull to put some numbers to it 40 percent would sound about right to me on running costs
Man maths or not, it makes sense to try to put some numbers to it (imo) rather than use one comparable cost as a measure....i.e. Tax is twice as expensive, ergo, the ///M is twice as expensive to run.
original guvnor said:ZermattV said:
May I suggest I think you're guilty of using Steven's under-estimation there Zermatt!
Interesting thread so keep 'em coming :wink:
original guvnor said:ZermattV said:
May I suggest I think you're guilty of using Steven's under-estimation there Zermatt!
Two things suprise me do far - we haven't talked purchase price and an alpina owner has not weighed in with - " alpinas cost the same to run as a 3.0"
StevenH72 said:
it was just a turn of phrase. having owned a broad variant of both I've stood up and said i'd choose the m given the decision again. it's easy to justify the decision you want to make by taking a view.
i'm saying the m is worth the extra, it's just a bigger extra than your calculations suggest...remember what your old man says about having some cash for when your boiler goes pop...similar scenario applies to owning an m in my opinion, either that or fork out for the warranty.
JaEdBa said:
Maybe it is bigger, but all you've said is nothing but an uncorroborated opinion.
Yes the rod bearings, vanos bolts or engine mounts (for example) could fail, but the S54 is hardly a "disaster waiting to happen" there are numerous E46 M3's hitting 120 - 150k mileage. From what I've read, most ///M owners on here haven't seen large reliability based bills.
Don't forget, the N52 isn't without its potentially costly issues also, think HVA and DISA valve as examples.
The boiler could "go pop" on both of these engines.....and neither are cheap. However, in general both are pretty 'bullet proof'.
I've always been of the opinion that if you are worried about MPG, dont get the ///M.
I had this argument all the time with my e30m3. my reply, why is it the only model without an econometer??
BMW even realised that you buy the ///M for the handling, the experience etc. just My 2 penneth
I had this argument all the time with my e30m3. my reply, why is it the only model without an econometer??
BMW even realised that you buy the ///M for the handling, the experience etc. just My 2 penneth
StevenH72 said:
I think the s54 is a very reliable engine.
canvassing opinion will do nothing more than end up with an average 2.4 children scenario that nobody will ever experience. I was making the point i'd not want to run an m without a few quid contingency, a 3.0si is more possible to run cheaply.
i'm not arguing with your opinion, i'm debating trying to create a rule of ownership from a sample population. it will never happen, everyone who has a warranty claims it pays for itself, so things must go wrong somewhere?
I never did a spread sheet… Its costs what it costs no point in worrying about it IMO.
Bearings, vanos, and engine mounts - I would not be concerned with. Generally the cars that have had problems are cars that have been used more spiritedly or on track where 20k is more like 100k wear. But it should also not be forgotten, as the car gets to 80k+ I would have the bearings and engine mounts replaced under regular maintenance. Having it all done at once shouldn't cost more than £1200 also I would have the vanos checked but it is covered under your inspections anyway. The bearings were altered in the S54 before the Z4M was produced so in theory all Z4Ms should have the updated bearings therefore more reliable, think the specification of oil was changed too but can't remember off the top of my head.
If your worried about engine mounts, I have had mine looked at recently and if you know what your looking for then its an easy check, get a torch and you can see them in the engine bay. if there are issues, the rubber will be showing signs that it is perished on the outside thats your first clue. People say because the right hand side mount is so close to the engine it suffers from heat soak and fails but it is so heavily shielded I don't think its as big of an issue, the right side is the one that fails (right side as if you were sitting in the drivers seat, left if looking into the engine bay) second clue is that the engine will start making a clanging noise as the engine will have moved slightly probably hitting the strut which is much more serious, could have gearbox issues also. But thats worst case scenario and only one person in my memory has had this.
Other problems, top mounts can go more so on the rear apparently. These will give you a squeaking noise, springs are rubbish a lot snap so worth a look, fairly obvious it will creak won't handle correctly and also one side of the car will look lower. Gear box is notchy between 1-2nd this is because it is a getrag gearbox with a clutch delay valve like all manual M cars non issue for me you get used to it very quick. There is a problem of acceleration delay don't know much about this because my car hasn't had an issue but there is an epic thread somewhere. Interiors seem to wear well but some components aren't brilliant, steering wheel surrounds the multifunction buttons these peel, bolster on the drivers side is prone to wear because of how low the car is, cigarette lighter door is a bit flimsy. Paintwork… because they are very low the front usually gets well peppered as well as the front and rear of the skirts, also in and out of the drivers side banging shoes on sills etc all easy to sort cosmetic issues.
Most important thing is service history, ensure the 1200mile service, if not walk simple as that. Make sure the car has had an oil service every two years or 14k if it hasn't again I would move on, not worth the hassle and BMW will be less likely to give good will if service history is late or missing. Make sure it is FBMWSH otherwise you won't be able to get a fully insured BMW warranty.
But the worst case is worth knowing so you can evaluate a car your looking at.
Like any high revving sports car, tolerances are tight and ensuring the car warms, oil up to temp etc before exceeding 3k revs is paramount at all times.
Again these are very rare occurrences off the top of my head since I've been on the forum not one M car has suffered any vanos issues, only one has suffered bearing failure and two have had their engine mounts replaced. Its something to bear in mind and have money to do in your maintenance schedule.
But I would stress, because you don't know how your car may have been treated in the past. Buy a warranty, that £85 a month may save a £10k engine replacement if the worst should happen. Even just small things my window was pissing about after I had the key reprogrammed, in the end they changed the window motor and the ECU and reprogrammed it which was £1500 in parts and labour, my xenon went, control unit and labour £780, had a sticky calliper parts and labour £500. Although these cars are good value to buy the parts are expensive so the warranty in my mind is a must. It has paid for itself 2 fold in the 2 years I've owned the car and my issues have been fairly minor.
NON of the above would put me off what so ever. There have been far more issues with the 3.0l variants than the Ms.
Like said there are many E46 M3s hitting 150k-200k still without an issue apart from what I would consider standard wear replacement items which the above would come under.
The S54 is a cracking engine and very reliable for the type and performance you get. But you also have to be a bit of a geek to keep it running smoothly. But all is documented in depth across this most brilliant of forums.
Bearings, vanos, and engine mounts - I would not be concerned with. Generally the cars that have had problems are cars that have been used more spiritedly or on track where 20k is more like 100k wear. But it should also not be forgotten, as the car gets to 80k+ I would have the bearings and engine mounts replaced under regular maintenance. Having it all done at once shouldn't cost more than £1200 also I would have the vanos checked but it is covered under your inspections anyway. The bearings were altered in the S54 before the Z4M was produced so in theory all Z4Ms should have the updated bearings therefore more reliable, think the specification of oil was changed too but can't remember off the top of my head.
If your worried about engine mounts, I have had mine looked at recently and if you know what your looking for then its an easy check, get a torch and you can see them in the engine bay. if there are issues, the rubber will be showing signs that it is perished on the outside thats your first clue. People say because the right hand side mount is so close to the engine it suffers from heat soak and fails but it is so heavily shielded I don't think its as big of an issue, the right side is the one that fails (right side as if you were sitting in the drivers seat, left if looking into the engine bay) second clue is that the engine will start making a clanging noise as the engine will have moved slightly probably hitting the strut which is much more serious, could have gearbox issues also. But thats worst case scenario and only one person in my memory has had this.
Other problems, top mounts can go more so on the rear apparently. These will give you a squeaking noise, springs are rubbish a lot snap so worth a look, fairly obvious it will creak won't handle correctly and also one side of the car will look lower. Gear box is notchy between 1-2nd this is because it is a getrag gearbox with a clutch delay valve like all manual M cars non issue for me you get used to it very quick. There is a problem of acceleration delay don't know much about this because my car hasn't had an issue but there is an epic thread somewhere. Interiors seem to wear well but some components aren't brilliant, steering wheel surrounds the multifunction buttons these peel, bolster on the drivers side is prone to wear because of how low the car is, cigarette lighter door is a bit flimsy. Paintwork… because they are very low the front usually gets well peppered as well as the front and rear of the skirts, also in and out of the drivers side banging shoes on sills etc all easy to sort cosmetic issues.
Most important thing is service history, ensure the 1200mile service, if not walk simple as that. Make sure the car has had an oil service every two years or 14k if it hasn't again I would move on, not worth the hassle and BMW will be less likely to give good will if service history is late or missing. Make sure it is FBMWSH otherwise you won't be able to get a fully insured BMW warranty.
But the worst case is worth knowing so you can evaluate a car your looking at.
Like any high revving sports car, tolerances are tight and ensuring the car warms, oil up to temp etc before exceeding 3k revs is paramount at all times.
Again these are very rare occurrences off the top of my head since I've been on the forum not one M car has suffered any vanos issues, only one has suffered bearing failure and two have had their engine mounts replaced. Its something to bear in mind and have money to do in your maintenance schedule.
But I would stress, because you don't know how your car may have been treated in the past. Buy a warranty, that £85 a month may save a £10k engine replacement if the worst should happen. Even just small things my window was pissing about after I had the key reprogrammed, in the end they changed the window motor and the ECU and reprogrammed it which was £1500 in parts and labour, my xenon went, control unit and labour £780, had a sticky calliper parts and labour £500. Although these cars are good value to buy the parts are expensive so the warranty in my mind is a must. It has paid for itself 2 fold in the 2 years I've owned the car and my issues have been fairly minor.
NON of the above would put me off what so ever. There have been far more issues with the 3.0l variants than the Ms.
Like said there are many E46 M3s hitting 150k-200k still without an issue apart from what I would consider standard wear replacement items which the above would come under.
The S54 is a cracking engine and very reliable for the type and performance you get. But you also have to be a bit of a geek to keep it running smoothly. But all is documented in depth across this most brilliant of forums.
mad4slalom said:people see a 3'0 and always think ,... oh its not an M ! why would you want to go for mediocrity when you can have superiority ? totally different league imo. seems strange that so many 3.0 owners whilst banging on about how its nearly as fast as an M or theres hardly any difference, then spend more than the difference in running costs trying to emulate an M by adding quad exhausts , m bumpers brake upgrades suspension, chips wheels etc etc . kind of pointless really, better to bite the bullet and get the M in the first place, you will afford it, as the costs become normal and the thrill more than warrants the spend to own what is unquestionably a very rare and special sports car.
No offence, but saying a 3.0 coupe is "mediocre" makes you sound like a ****, and rest of post is quite derogatory towards owners who mod their cars.
To quote an independent review on Parkers.co.uk of the 3.0i vs M
"It's difficult to justify spending the extra money over the 3.0 for the M"
This isn't my opinion, but offers an alternative perspective from a genuinely independent third party.
Also, I suspect roughly 95% of the population won't think "that's not an M" when they see a 3.0
Why? Because I suspect most of the population won't know a Z4M coupe isSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Adamski said:mad4slalom said:people see a 3'0 and always think ,... oh its not an M ! why would you want to go for mediocrity when you can have superiority ? totally different league imo. seems strange that so many 3.0 owners whilst banging on about how its nearly as fast as an M or theres hardly any difference, then spend more than the difference in running costs trying to emulate an M by adding quad exhausts , m bumpers brake upgrades suspension, chips wheels etc etc . kind of pointless really, better to bite the bullet and get the M in the first place, you will afford it, as the costs become normal and the thrill more than warrants the spend to own what is unquestionably a very rare and special sports car.
No offence, but saying a 3.0 coupe is "mediocre" makes you sound like a ****, and rest of post is quite derogatory towards owners who mod their cars.
To quote an independent review on Parkers.co.uk of the 3.0i vs M
"It's difficult to justify spending the extra money over the 3.0 for the M"
This isn't my opinion, but offers an alternative perspective from a genuinely independent third party.
Also, I suspect roughly 95% of the population won't think "that's not an M" when they see a 3.0
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I couldn't have answered this any better. Well said Adamski. I am amazed at the M snobbery I am seeing here. Some people really need to get over themselves. ..
Adamski said:mad4slalom said:people see a 3'0 and always think ,... oh its not an M ! why would you want to go for mediocrity when you can have superiority ? totally different league imo. seems strange that so many 3.0 owners whilst banging on about how its nearly as fast as an M or theres hardly any difference, then spend more than the difference in running costs trying to emulate an M by adding quad exhausts , m bumpers brake upgrades suspension, chips wheels etc etc . kind of pointless really, better to bite the bullet and get the M in the first place, you will afford it, as the costs become normal and the thrill more than warrants the spend to own what is unquestionably a very rare and special sports car.
No offence, but saying a 3.0 coupe is "mediocre" makes you sound like a ****, and rest of post is quite derogatory towards owners who mod their cars.
To quote an independent review on Parkers.co.uk of the 3.0i vs M
"It's difficult to justify spending the extra money over the 3.0 for the M"
This isn't my opinion, but offers an alternative perspective from a genuinely independent third party.
Also, I suspect roughly 95% of the population won't think "that's not an M" when they see a 3.0
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wouldn't worry, there's a truckload of hyperbole every time this subject appears...! it's an open market and the prices generally reflect the future running costs, if there was a blatant bargain that was available market price would adjust to reflect that by way of supply and demand.